Sometimes I wonder if Noaani is just masterfully trolls half the forum with his semantics discussions I feel like ~70% of long discussions are just Noaani x Someone discussing some random "term" whose definition they can't agree on.
You say that but it's more like certain people are reverse-trolling, cause you have had long discussions with many of those same people for the same reasons.
You say that but it's more like certain people are reverse-trolling, cause you have had long discussions with many of those same people for the same reasons.
Could be. Though it does feel like semantics are Noaani's specialty. Or maybe I just pay more attention to when Noaani discusses them and don't notice when I argue the same stuff.
You say that but it's more like certain people are reverse-trolling, cause you have had long discussions with many of those same people for the same reasons.
Could be. Though it does feel like semantics are Noaani's specialty. Or maybe I just pay more attention to when Noaani discusses them and don't notice when I argue the same stuff.
It'd be that. Or rather that Noaani cares for longer and you don't.
For instance, Mag7's last post. One could ignore the 'I bet you don't even play these games!', one could ignore the 'you should try to take things more seriously and use real logic', you could ignore the blatant logical error in paragraph 2 (even my parser can).
But the 'You are wrong because my definition of PvP is different from yours and nearly everyone else's' is harder to ignore because it sticks out, not just as a difference in discussion but as a pure contradiction. You'd have to have 'trained' to explicitly ignore the contradictions to not have it irk you, if you're already a certain type of person.
I'd be 'required' to call it out if I was still 'on duty', personally.
Sometimes I wonder if Noaani is just masterfully trolls half the forum with his semantics discussions I feel like ~70% of long discussions are just Noaani x Someone discussing some random "term" whose definition they can't agree on.
I mean, you'll find that I have answered this exact question in the past.
Look through my post history and I'm sure you'll (eventually) find it.
This take is so wrong and refusing to take into account of actual logic. Makes it clear you don't play pvp games if you think there is no deterrent with the corruption system and flagging. You blindly ignore the wider scope of the consequences, and ignore intent.
Corruption is a deterrent to griefing and to pvp in general to limit how much goes on in the world. The more you attack someone the higher you risk killing them and going corrupted. Meaning there is more push back to stop attacking if your intent from the beginning is not to be corrupted. Attacking someone a few times that is not fighting back is not PvP.
Being unable to understand basic things shows you really don't know much about the world of pvp and lack experience. You need to paly these types of games before you start talking in absolutes and actually learn something.
Mag, take note of the post of mine that you quoted. I specifically said that corruption in combination with death penalties should encourage PvP.
It is the death penalty aspect of this that is in play with what you are talking about here. The death penalty system is intertwined with corruption, and corruption should never be considered without also considering the death penalty system.
If Intrepids plan was to deter PvP in any way, they would not have created the whole system as it is. If the idea was a PvP deterrent, they would have made it so you gain corruption when attacking a player, or made it so a green player remains green when defending themselves.
The fact that these two things exist - in combination with Intrepid stating that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system - *should* tell you that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system.
But then, you have a history of looking at a thing and refusing to accept it as being anything other than somethign that fits in to your pre-existing narrative - so I doubt you'll ever actually understand any of the above.
You say that but it's more like certain people are reverse-trolling, cause you have had long discussions with many of those same people for the same reasons.
Could be. Though it does feel like semantics are Noaani's specialty. Or maybe I just pay more attention to when Noaani discusses them and don't notice when I argue the same stuff.
It'd be that. Or rather that Noaani cares for longer and you don't.
For instance, Mag7's last post. One could ignore the 'I bet you don't even play these games!', one could ignore the 'you should try to take things more seriously and use real logic', you could ignore the blatant logical error in paragraph 2 (even my parser can).
But the 'You are wrong because my definition of PvP is different from yours and nearly everyone else's' is harder to ignore because it sticks out, not just as a difference in discussion but as a pure contradiction. You'd have to have 'trained' to explicitly ignore the contradictions to not have it irk you, if you're already a certain type of person.
I'd be 'required' to call it out if I was still 'on duty', personally.
We could go point by point, the thing is i understand the larger picture on the larger impact these systems have. Not understanding the point on how they connect and how it affects players is just naïve to try to say corruption doesn't deter players when the end goal is killing a player and there is consequences for that.
You say that but it's more like certain people are reverse-trolling, cause you have had long discussions with many of those same people for the same reasons.
Could be. Though it does feel like semantics are Noaani's specialty. Or maybe I just pay more attention to when Noaani discusses them and don't notice when I argue the same stuff.
It'd be that. Or rather that Noaani cares for longer and you don't.
For instance, Mag7's last post. One could ignore the 'I bet you don't even play these games!', one could ignore the 'you should try to take things more seriously and use real logic', you could ignore the blatant logical error in paragraph 2 (even my parser can).
But the 'You are wrong because my definition of PvP is different from yours and nearly everyone else's' is harder to ignore because it sticks out, not just as a difference in discussion but as a pure contradiction. You'd have to have 'trained' to explicitly ignore the contradictions to not have it irk you, if you're already a certain type of person.
I'd be 'required' to call it out if I was still 'on duty', personally.
We could go point by point, the thing is i understand the larger picture on the larger impact these systems have. Not understanding the point on how the connect and how it affects players is just naïve to try to say corruption doesn't deter players when the end goal is killing a player and there is consequences for that.
I understand being ganked isn't fun, but If I need ore and you are mining ore, well it's my ore now.
Dunno why you assume you will be the winner of that encounter.
I would say that the vast majority of the time, PvP isn’t fun. I vastly enjoy cooperative play over competitive play.
I have 0 interest in competing against other players when I play MMORPGs.
Sometimes, I enjoy the RP of defending towns against enemies - which could include other player.
But, I find the concept of players being content for other players to be repulsive.
Interesting take because for as long as I can remember AoC has been marketed as a PvX. Are you trying to advocate for PvE servers outside of open water and sieges? To be clear, competing against other players in PvP only? I like Co-OP better than solo play. Hell I even enjoy PvE more than PvP. Probably at a 70/30 split.
My risk is surviving going corrupt. Your risk is surviving long enough to return home safely.
I prefer my risk to come from mobs/NPCs, rather than from other players.
I want to cooperate with other players, rather than compete with them.
When you say compete do you mean only in PvP? In all MMOs you have to compete at some level whether it's PvP, PvE claiming mobs, prices on an auction house, etc. AoC won't be any different.
Only time will tell how much effect being corrupted will have on a player. As Steven has stated "There is no incentive to go corrupt... There's zero incentive for a player to go red. It actually gives you negatives for doing that- very significant downsides.
Also, not enough incentive to play the game for people who have little interest in PvP.
Maybe AoC isn't for you. You being those who don't like the idea of being forced into PvP. I know it's been said on these forums a lot but only because Steven has driven this point home. If someone likes PvP I wouldn't suggest FFXIV to them. If you dislike PvP AoC shouldn't appeal to you.
tbh in this part i have to agree with nooani. people will still attack others, and thats pvp even if the othe rperson doesnt fight back..its like being in a boxing match and letting the other person punch you.
the outcome of the pvp will change tho, since the attacking player will probably dont wanna be corrupted so he will stop attacking and maybe just let a mob finish their target, or simply leave.
also, you could attack someone (aybe with your 2nd account) to bait them into becoming purple to just kill them with your main and avoid corruption. get creative!
tbh in this part i have to agree with nooani. people will still attack others, and thats pvp even if the othe rperson doesnt fight back..its like being in a boxing match and letting the other person punch you.
the outcome of the pvp will change tho, since the attacking player will probably dont wanna be corrupted so he will stop attacking and maybe just let a mob finish their target, or simply leave.
also, you could attack someone (aybe with your 2nd account) to bait them into becoming purple to just kill them with your main and avoid corruption. get creative!
The point isn't if it will be stopped but if it is a deterrent that causes less of it to happen. The fact someone will stop attacking shows there is a correlation, which will be further linked to a players motivation. If a player already had it set in their mind they aren't going to be corrupted it builds a state where less people will attack. You can further divide players into types and get into the details on all this and break down player types. But that is too much for something so simple.
If a player already had it set in their mind they aren't going to be corrupted it builds a state where less people will attack.
Are you not factoring in Intrepids intention that PvP in Ashes always have some weight to it? The idea that players will not want to attack others for no reason?
That is the idea of corruption - that is why I said it isn't a deterrent, it is there to add weight to the decision.
To be in a situation where you would not attack another player due to the potential of gaining corruption, you need some very specific things to be in place. The main thing you need is for your reason to attack that player to be incredibly low. If you have an actual reason to attack them, then they have a reason to want to fight back. This means that if that reason for you to attack actually exists, then there is a very low chance of gaining corruption.
If you consider the notion that corruption may stop meaningless PvP from happening to be a *deterrent*, then I guess that could be accurate.
Outside of that one potential notion, you are just flat out wrong.
This take is so wrong and refusing to take into account of actual logic. Makes it clear you don't play pvp games if you think there is no deterrent with the corruption system and flagging. You blindly ignore the wider scope of the consequences, and ignore intent.
Corruption is a deterrent to griefing and to pvp in general to limit how much goes on in the world. The more you attack someone the higher you risk killing them and going corrupted. Meaning there is more push back to stop attacking if your intent from the beginning is not to be corrupted. Attacking someone a few times that is not fighting back is not PvP.
Being unable to understand basic things shows you really don't know much about the world of pvp and lack experience. You need to paly these types of games before you start talking in absolutes and actually learn something.
Mag, take note of the post of mine that you quoted. I specifically said that corruption in combination with death penalties should encourage PvP.
It is the death penalty aspect of this that is in play with what you are talking about here. The death penalty system is intertwined with corruption, and corruption should never be considered without also considering the death penalty system.
If Intrepids plan was to deter PvP in any way, they would not have created the whole system as it is. If the idea was a PvP deterrent, they would have made it so you gain corruption when attacking a player, or made it so a green player remains green when defending themselves.
The fact that these two things exist - in combination with Intrepid stating that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system - *should* tell you that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system.
But then, you have a history of looking at a thing and refusing to accept it as being anything other than somethign that fits in to your pre-existing narrative - so I doubt you'll ever actually understand any of the above.
The intent of the design by Intrepid doesn't mean they control how some players feel about it. The system itself isn't designed to be a PvP deterrent, but is there to stop griefing. That doesn't mean it wont be a deterrent for PvP for some in some cases. Both statements can be true. All it takes is 1 person to say I refuse to attack a green because I don't want to go red, even by accident. I don't want to deal with the corruption. That makes the system a deterrent for PvP for that person in that instance. The same thing goes for griefing. You may have someone go red but then also says, I got what I came for, and I don't want any more corruption to have to work off and leaves the area. Now that becomes the deterrent for that person not to grief.
One is by design, and the other a byproduct of that design.
Kaos & Lace Cartel
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
If a player already had it set in their mind they aren't going to be corrupted it builds a state where less people will attack.
Are you not factoring in Intrepids intention that PvP in Ashes always have some weight to it? The idea that players will not want to attack others for no reason?
That is the idea of corruption - that is why I said it isn't a deterrent, it is there to add weight to the decision.
To be in a situation where you would not attack another player due to the potential of gaining corruption, you need some very specific things to be in place. The main thing you need is for your reason to attack that player to be incredibly low. If you have an actual reason to attack them, then they have a reason to want to fight back. This means that if that reason for you to attack actually exists, then there is a very low chance of gaining corruption.
If you consider the notion that corruption may stop meaningless PvP from happening to be a *deterrent*, then I guess that could be accurate.
Outside of that one potential notion, you are just flat out wrong.
The fact you use words like " weight to the decision" in correlation to corruption shows you are saying I'm right. But you are to stubborn to go back on what you say and triple down even if it looks really dumb.
If they need to think about it in any form it means there is deterrent. I could explain the details but you are struggling to grasp the surface level...
This take is so wrong and refusing to take into account of actual logic. Makes it clear you don't play pvp games if you think there is no deterrent with the corruption system and flagging. You blindly ignore the wider scope of the consequences, and ignore intent.
Corruption is a deterrent to griefing and to pvp in general to limit how much goes on in the world. The more you attack someone the higher you risk killing them and going corrupted. Meaning there is more push back to stop attacking if your intent from the beginning is not to be corrupted. Attacking someone a few times that is not fighting back is not PvP.
Being unable to understand basic things shows you really don't know much about the world of pvp and lack experience. You need to paly these types of games before you start talking in absolutes and actually learn something.
Mag, take note of the post of mine that you quoted. I specifically said that corruption in combination with death penalties should encourage PvP.
It is the death penalty aspect of this that is in play with what you are talking about here. The death penalty system is intertwined with corruption, and corruption should never be considered without also considering the death penalty system.
If Intrepids plan was to deter PvP in any way, they would not have created the whole system as it is. If the idea was a PvP deterrent, they would have made it so you gain corruption when attacking a player, or made it so a green player remains green when defending themselves.
The fact that these two things exist - in combination with Intrepid stating that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system - *should* tell you that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system.
But then, you have a history of looking at a thing and refusing to accept it as being anything other than somethign that fits in to your pre-existing narrative - so I doubt you'll ever actually understand any of the above.
The intent of the design by Intrepid doesn't mean they control how some players feel about it. The system itself isn't designed to be a PvP deterrent, but is there to stop griefing. That doesn't mean it wont be a deterrent for PvP for some in some cases. Both statements can be true. All it takes is 1 person to say I refuse to attack a green because I don't want to go red, even by accident. I don't want to deal with the corruption. That makes the system a deterrent for PvP for that person in that instance. The same thing goes for griefing. You may have someone go red but then also says, I got what I came for, and I don't want any more corruption to have to work off and leaves the area. Now that becomes the deterrent for that person not to grief.
One is by design, and the other a byproduct of that design.
The fact that these two things exist - in combination with Intrepid stating that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system - *should* tell you that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system.
/quote]
**But just because you say that, and Intrepid says that, doesn't mean people wont see it as a deterrent, which in turn makes it a PvP deterrent for those people, design or not.**
You also say
The death penalty system is intertwined with corruption, and corruption should never be considered without also considering the death penalty system.
**Which I say not in all cases. I could go red, never die or even think of death, and just go work off my corruption. I'm just deterred from going red because I don't want to be hampered by the other negatives that come with corruption and waste time grinding off the Exp.**
Kaos & Lace Cartel
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
The fact you use words like " weight to the decision" in correlation to corruption shows you are saying I'm right. But you are to stubborn to go back on what you say and triple down even if it looks really dumb.
You mean the fact that I have been using the same termanology on this topic since several years before you joined these forums means you actually agree with me, you just never realized.
If they need to think about it in any form it means there is deterrent.
Perhaps.
However, if the very few people in these very rare situations have to think before attacking and may then still attack, then one could say corruption is very minor deterrent in some rare cases, which is kind of the same as saying that corruption isn't all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP - because that is not saying it isn't ever a deterrent.
@Dolyem - well, we made it two weeks beyond the monthly update before there was a corruption food fight. I feel like our community is maturing.
I'm here for it honestly. Carebears and griefers will always duke it out in this argument. If I have to side with one it'd be griefers simply because siding with the other means the death of all PvP. But I honestly just want a solid system to promote PvX, not some super basic system that instantly marks you with the severe negatives simply because other people refuse to participate in half of the game, nor a system that lets people rampage PKing whoever they want as much as they want without consequence. Corruption to me should depend on many variables, but I won't fret too much until it gets tested.
The fact you use words like " weight to the decision" in correlation to corruption shows you are saying I'm right. But you are to stubborn to go back on what you say and triple down even if it looks really dumb.
You mean the fact that I have been using the same termanology on this topic since several years before you joined these forums means you actually agree with me, you just never realized.
If they need to think about it in any form it means there is deterrent.
Perhaps.
However, if the very few people in these very rare situations have to think before attacking and may then still attack, then one could say corruption is very minor deterrent in some rare cases, which is kind of the same as saying that corruption isn't all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP - because that is not saying it isn't ever a deterrent.
I dont see corruption as being all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.
Do you now agree with this point that I made months ago?
You are making too many assumptions why trying to say it can only be one way..., we how have established it is a deterrent. Now we are at the point where it is subjective to the level of deterrent.
I'm not going to go with it being a small deterrent, though I won't say it stops pvp since that isn't the design focus of it clearly. But also something they can tweak to the level of deterrent they want it to be.
I'm not going based on w.e is said months ago I may or may not have seen. I'm going based on you saying it isn't a deterrent now...
I mean, I am talking about the start of this thread - the post Abarat quoted that started this whole thing off again.
If you aren't talking about a post from months ago, why are you even in this months old thread?
I don't care what was said months ago again, i care what you said the other day that it is not a deterrent. Again subjective to the level of deterrent until we play the game and see what people do.
If you don't agree with your own statement simply correct yourself, it is pretty easy to do.
If you don't agree with your own statement simply correct yourself, it is pretty easy to do.
I still don't know what statement it is you think I made that I now disagree with.
I mean, I know what you think I said, what I don't know is where you think I said it. Without knowing what comment it is you are misunderstanding (which is once again what is going on here), I can't really comment.
I can only think of two posts in this thread where you could even misunderstand what I said to mean what you think I said.
I dont see corruption as being all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.
It may alter the outcome of PvP, however.
This is the post from months ago that you just said you don't care about. It is also the one you did care about until an hour or two ago when I explained to you that "being all that much" means being some, but not much.
The other post where I could see you (specifically only you) misunderstanding to mean the thing you think I said is this;
I dont see corruption as being all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.
Noaani
Can you please explain the specific corruption penalties that you feel are not a deterrent?
...
p.s. i plan on making you KOS in game, regardless of the corruption penalties.
Why ask me a question when you already have your answer?
Corruption isnt going to be a deterrent to many people, regardless of what the penalties are
As such, I dont see corruption as being all that much of a deterrent.
Neither do you- so what is your question?
The thing is, I said basically the same thing in this post - that corruption isn't going to be a deterrent to many people - meaning it will be a deterrent to some.
So again, where is it you think I said the thing you are claiming I said?
The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL.
What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others.
Ok, i feel less confused now. You are saying the system will fail in its attempt to stop unwanted pvp, but WILL stop (or at least decrease) unwanted killing in pvp.
About right?
No.
In regards to corruption, any time you say "so you think corruption will fail at..." you are wrong. Corruption will succeed at what it is designed for.
The problem is, you have the wrong idea as to what it is designed for.
Corruption is not a deterrent against PvP. If anything, the whole system (in combination with death penalties) should encourage actual PvP.
Corruption is a deterrent against griefing others, but not against PvP. Corruption exists to maintain a sense of risk vs reward for players, even if the fight is goingto be one sided.
Corruption is not, however, a PvP deterrent.
You state corruption is not a deterrent against pvp multiple times. You have now gone on record that it is a deterrent and now we are at a subjective point to the level of deterrent it is. You saying it having almost no impact is wrong.
The group i'm with plan on being in purple zones constantly, so as to always be in the thick of pvp action.
You mean always flagged for pvp? There aren't Zones for PvP. PvP can happen in any zone at anytime. Well you could maybe call the Ocean a purple zone. Since its considered a lawless area. But yes, you can stay permanently flagged if you wish I'm sure.
Kaos & Lace Cartel
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
Comments
You say that but it's more like certain people are reverse-trolling, cause you have had long discussions with many of those same people for the same reasons.
To some people, these are the same thing.
It'd be that. Or rather that Noaani cares for longer and you don't.
For instance, Mag7's last post. One could ignore the 'I bet you don't even play these games!', one could ignore the 'you should try to take things more seriously and use real logic', you could ignore the blatant logical error in paragraph 2 (even my parser can).
But the 'You are wrong because my definition of PvP is different from yours and nearly everyone else's' is harder to ignore because it sticks out, not just as a difference in discussion but as a pure contradiction. You'd have to have 'trained' to explicitly ignore the contradictions to not have it irk you, if you're already a certain type of person.
I'd be 'required' to call it out if I was still 'on duty', personally.
I mean, you'll find that I have answered this exact question in the past.
Look through my post history and I'm sure you'll (eventually) find it.
I keep coming back to the reddit post of "every poster on the internet is a crazy person in one way or the other". It remains true still.
Mag, take note of the post of mine that you quoted. I specifically said that corruption in combination with death penalties should encourage PvP.
It is the death penalty aspect of this that is in play with what you are talking about here. The death penalty system is intertwined with corruption, and corruption should never be considered without also considering the death penalty system.
If Intrepids plan was to deter PvP in any way, they would not have created the whole system as it is. If the idea was a PvP deterrent, they would have made it so you gain corruption when attacking a player, or made it so a green player remains green when defending themselves.
The fact that these two things exist - in combination with Intrepid stating that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system - *should* tell you that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system.
But then, you have a history of looking at a thing and refusing to accept it as being anything other than somethign that fits in to your pre-existing narrative - so I doubt you'll ever actually understand any of the above.
We could go point by point, the thing is i understand the larger picture on the larger impact these systems have. Not understanding the point on how they connect and how it affects players is just naïve to try to say corruption doesn't deter players when the end goal is killing a player and there is consequences for that.
My entire point stands.
Or as I like to say.
"In light of your argument, I stand correct."
"Don't you mean... corrected?"
"...no."
Interesting take because for as long as I can remember AoC has been marketed as a PvX. Are you trying to advocate for PvE servers outside of open water and sieges? To be clear, competing against other players in PvP only? I like Co-OP better than solo play. Hell I even enjoy PvE more than PvP. Probably at a 70/30 split.
When you say compete do you mean only in PvP? In all MMOs you have to compete at some level whether it's PvP, PvE claiming mobs, prices on an auction house, etc. AoC won't be any different.
Maybe AoC isn't for you. You being those who don't like the idea of being forced into PvP. I know it's been said on these forums a lot but only because Steven has driven this point home. If someone likes PvP I wouldn't suggest FFXIV to them. If you dislike PvP AoC shouldn't appeal to you.
the outcome of the pvp will change tho, since the attacking player will probably dont wanna be corrupted so he will stop attacking and maybe just let a mob finish their target, or simply leave.
also, you could attack someone (aybe with your 2nd account) to bait them into becoming purple to just kill them with your main and avoid corruption. get creative!
The point isn't if it will be stopped but if it is a deterrent that causes less of it to happen. The fact someone will stop attacking shows there is a correlation, which will be further linked to a players motivation. If a player already had it set in their mind they aren't going to be corrupted it builds a state where less people will attack. You can further divide players into types and get into the details on all this and break down player types. But that is too much for something so simple.
Are you not factoring in Intrepids intention that PvP in Ashes always have some weight to it? The idea that players will not want to attack others for no reason?
That is the idea of corruption - that is why I said it isn't a deterrent, it is there to add weight to the decision.
To be in a situation where you would not attack another player due to the potential of gaining corruption, you need some very specific things to be in place. The main thing you need is for your reason to attack that player to be incredibly low. If you have an actual reason to attack them, then they have a reason to want to fight back. This means that if that reason for you to attack actually exists, then there is a very low chance of gaining corruption.
If you consider the notion that corruption may stop meaningless PvP from happening to be a *deterrent*, then I guess that could be accurate.
Outside of that one potential notion, you are just flat out wrong.
The intent of the design by Intrepid doesn't mean they control how some players feel about it. The system itself isn't designed to be a PvP deterrent, but is there to stop griefing. That doesn't mean it wont be a deterrent for PvP for some in some cases. Both statements can be true. All it takes is 1 person to say I refuse to attack a green because I don't want to go red, even by accident. I don't want to deal with the corruption. That makes the system a deterrent for PvP for that person in that instance. The same thing goes for griefing. You may have someone go red but then also says, I got what I came for, and I don't want any more corruption to have to work off and leaves the area. Now that becomes the deterrent for that person not to grief.
One is by design, and the other a byproduct of that design.
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
See my above post.
The fact you use words like " weight to the decision" in correlation to corruption shows you are saying I'm right. But you are to stubborn to go back on what you say and triple down even if it looks really dumb.
If they need to think about it in any form it means there is deterrent. I could explain the details but you are struggling to grasp the surface level...
Exactly, but he only deals with black and white.
Sure, you say here.
You
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
Perhaps.
However, if the very few people in these very rare situations have to think before attacking and may then still attack, then one could say corruption is very minor deterrent in some rare cases, which is kind of the same as saying that corruption isn't all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP - because that is not saying it isn't ever a deterrent.
So now, back to my original point;
Do you now agree with this point that I made months ago?
I'm here for it honestly. Carebears and griefers will always duke it out in this argument. If I have to side with one it'd be griefers simply because siding with the other means the death of all PvP. But I honestly just want a solid system to promote PvX, not some super basic system that instantly marks you with the severe negatives simply because other people refuse to participate in half of the game, nor a system that lets people rampage PKing whoever they want as much as they want without consequence. Corruption to me should depend on many variables, but I won't fret too much until it gets tested.
You are making too many assumptions why trying to say it can only be one way..., we how have established it is a deterrent. Now we are at the point where it is subjective to the level of deterrent.
I'm not going to go with it being a small deterrent, though I won't say it stops pvp since that isn't the design focus of it clearly. But also something they can tweak to the level of deterrent they want it to be.
I literally said in the first post of mine in this thread that it won't be one way, I said it isn't MUCH of a deterrent.
Being not much of a thing means it is a small amount of that thing.
That is literally saying it isn't "one way", it is specifically not being "black or white" - both things you seem fixated on assuming I am saying.
I mean, I am talking about the start of this thread - the post Abarat quoted that started this whole thing off again.
If you aren't talking about a post from months ago, why are you even in this months old thread?
I don't care what was said months ago again, i care what you said the other day that it is not a deterrent. Again subjective to the level of deterrent until we play the game and see what people do.
If you don't agree with your own statement simply correct yourself, it is pretty easy to do.
I mean, I know what you think I said, what I don't know is where you think I said it. Without knowing what comment it is you are misunderstanding (which is once again what is going on here), I can't really comment.
I can only think of two posts in this thread where you could even misunderstand what I said to mean what you think I said.
The first of those posts is this;
This is the post from months ago that you just said you don't care about. It is also the one you did care about until an hour or two ago when I explained to you that "being all that much" means being some, but not much.
The other post where I could see you (specifically only you) misunderstanding to mean the thing you think I said is this;
The thing is, I said basically the same thing in this post - that corruption isn't going to be a deterrent to many people - meaning it will be a deterrent to some.
So again, where is it you think I said the thing you are claiming I said?
You state corruption is not a deterrent against pvp multiple times. You have now gone on record that it is a deterrent and now we are at a subjective point to the level of deterrent it is. You saying it having almost no impact is wrong.
You mean always flagged for pvp? There aren't Zones for PvP. PvP can happen in any zone at anytime. Well you could maybe call the Ocean a purple zone. Since its considered a lawless area. But yes, you can stay permanently flagged if you wish I'm sure.
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer