Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
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.
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
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.