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.
Finally, a quote so se can clear this up.
In this post to Abarat, I am talking about the design goal of corruption. It is not designed as a deterrent. It is designed to add weight (or consequence) to the decision of engaging in PvP.
As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.
The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.
Now, if you want to talk about the design goals of corruption, we can - not a deterrent.
If you want to talk about the impact on players, we can - barely a deterrent.
What we shouldnt do though, is talk about both of these things in the same post, because you'll get confused.
In regards to talking to you, I've always been talking about the effect on players. For the bulk of this thread I have been talking about the effect on players.
The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.
Can you please source this? I think it one of the fundamental points of confusion. I was under the impression it was designed to limit unwanted (by one party) pvp. You have sort of agreed it will do that, but then you nuance it to they will be attacked, but if they dont fight back then maybe they dont get killed because of corruption.
Please source where Intrepid stated/indicated/told us that corruption is not designed to be a deterrent to unwanted PVP/griefing.
What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif
its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote. I think you should dm him and let him know that he got this quote pretty wrong.
semantics aside, i think most reasonable people would agree that griefing and unwanted pvp are essentially the same thing or at least close enough that they understand what is being 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.
Finally, a quote so se can clear this up.
In this post to Abarat, I am talking about the design goal of corruption. It is not designed as a deterrent. It is designed to add weight (or consequence) to the decision of engaging in PvP.
As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.
The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.
Now, if you want to talk about the design goals of corruption, we can - not a deterrent.
If you want to talk about the impact on players, we can - barely a deterrent.
What we shouldnt do though, is talk about both of these things in the same post, because you'll get confused.
In regards to talking to you, I've always been talking about the effect on players. For the bulk of this thread I have been talking about the effect on players.
You don't understand pvp and the consequences, this is your opinion in what you think. Yet everything you are reference is contradicting yourself. If there is a consequences for something that is by default a deterrent. You continue to show you do not understand the impact of the corruption system on players and mind sets.
You are out there thinking because you can flag on people without corruption gain that suddenly counts as pvp. Without taking into account any of the nature of the game and mind set of the people. If the midn set is corruption is terrible, and their is a fear or worry of gaining it, that is a deterrrrrreeeeeent. This mind set effects players judgement on if they even want to engage in pvp if their mind set was they were not going to kill the person in the first place. It changes the way you will view other player and scales away from flagging on every or most people until a much smaller segment.
The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.
Can you please source this? I think it one of the fundamental points of confusion. I was under the impression it was designed to limit unwanted (by one party) pvp. You have sort of agreed it will do that, but then you nuance it to they will be attacked, but if they dont fight back then maybe they dont get killed because of corruption.
Please source where Intrepid stated/indicated/told us that corruption is not designed to be a deterrent to unwanted PVP/griefing.
What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif
its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote.
semantics aside, i think most reasonable people would agree that griefing and unwanted pvp are essentially the same thing or at least close enough that they understand what is being said.
He legit does not understand the full intent of corruption and he is a brick wall and no matter what, he will say how he views it like tis true, or say someone else is saying what he is saying and try to twist things slightly.
He doesn't understand how if you don't fight back its a pk and how that will influence things. Simply not fighting back and not being flag is a deterrent.
If a player see a green player how often will they attack, if a player sees a purple players how often will they attack, if a player sees a red player how often will they attack. You can see the pattern where if you aren't gaining corruption the higher chance you have to attack said player under normal circumstances for a normal player.
There are quotes on wiki for for corruption and the purpose
The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.
Can you please source this? I think it one of the fundamental points of confusion. I was under the impression it was designed to limit unwanted (by one party) pvp. You have sort of agreed it will do that, but then you nuance it to they will be attacked, but if they dont fight back then maybe they dont get killed because of corruption.
Please source where Intrepid stated/indicated/told us that corruption is not designed to be a deterrent to unwanted PVP/griefing.
What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif
its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote.
semantics aside, i think most reasonable people would agree that griefing and unwanted pvp are essentially the same thing or at least close enough that they understand what is being said.
He legit does not understand the full intent of corruption and he is a brick wall and no matter what, he will say how he views it like tis true, or say someone else is saying what he is saying and try to twist things slightly.
He doesn't understand how if you don't fight back its a pk and how that will influence things. Simply not fighting back and not being flag is a deterrent.
If a player see a green player how often will they attack, if a player sees a purple players how often will they attack, if a player sees a red player how often will they attack. You can see the pattern where if you aren't gaining corruption the higher chance you have to attack said player under normal circumstances for a normal player.
There are quotes on wiki for for corruption and the purpose
I really want to agree with you and bag on @Noaani (cause he is being intentionally difficult, imo), but I think he does understand it. He is being difficult. He is saying the exact same thing we are, just trying to show how smart he thinks he is.
corruption will not necessarily stop any one pvp encounter.. it simply adds risk if you decide to kill someone for their stuff... it makes you weaker and more vulnerable over time. Steven wants us to be able to kill each other at times, even if one party does not fight back, with minimal penalty... he just doesnt want griefers running around souring the experience for others. In other words, he wants Dygz to be scared when he is exploring... he wants groups in dungeons to be aware of their surroundings and feel at least somewhat unsafe, he wants you to be able to kill Noanni in game for no other reason than you dont like him.
You simply cannot engage Noanni like you would a normal person. He does not want to debate or understand things better, he wants to use semantics and language nuance to cause disagreements to amuse himself I think. aka, Troll.
You keep looking at the issue from the attacker. Corruption does nothing to prevent PvP. I can attack anyone I want, and unless I kill them, I won't be corrupted.
What corruption does is make things worse for those who don't enjoy PvP. Because once they get attacked they don't know.
- is the attacker going to kill them no matter what? Thus corruption does nothing
- is the attacker bored and wants to try some PvP but doesn't want to got corrupted? Corruption still doing nothing. The decision is on my side.
I don't know what the attacker will do. They might keep hitting me, lowering my HP. Now, let's say I really don't wanna PvP and I am at 50% HP:
- if I die as green I lose MORE xp and drop MORE mats. This is a loss for me
- if I fight back and die, I STILL lose shit and now the attacker can kill try killing me again
However you look it, the unwilling PvPer loses. Corruption does nothing for them in this process.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
Again... PvX is just a car salesman term that means PvPers will have to do some PvX.
PvE-Only server = 0
PvP-Optional server = 1
PvP server = 2
Ashes has, at least, a PvP rating of 1.5
Because there are large permanent zones that auto-flag as Purple.
Basically the only PvP-free areas are houses on Freeholds.
PvPers have to PvX on PvP servers - that is not new.
And... I move from PvP-Optional servers to PvE-Only servers.
So, for me to play on an Ashes server, it would need to feel most like PvP rating of .75.
Most importantly - I would need to be able to explore and uncover the entire map with the Corruption mechanic in place. Because the "deal" more me to play is that everywhere on the map, if another player chooses to kill me while I'm Green, they will be punished with Corruption.
The moment you add large permanent areas where that is not the case, the game becomes more PvP-centric than a PvP-Optional server for EQ or WoW. And I have no interest in playing on a server that is above a 1 PvP rating. Labeling the server PvX or Tyrannasaurus Rex is irrelevent. Steven can use whatever term he wants.
It's not a server ruleset I want play.
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.
If all I meant was PvP combat, I would have specified PvP combat.
I don't compete with other players for claiming mobs. And my preference for MMORPGs are ones where we can share mobs. Another thing I love about Dragonflight - I never have to compete for mobs.
Gamers are too greedy for me to use the Auction House, so I avoid using the Auction House as much as possible.
I'd rather make my own stuff or purchase from NPCs.
So... AOC will be different in regard to mob competition.
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.
Exactly. But... that's not what Steven says.
What Steven says is that Corruption should be enough of a deterrent that PvErs, in general, should feel comfortable playing Ashes. Because that was the case, from his perspective, with Lineage 2 and Corruption is a bit harsher than Karma.
Also, what Steven originally said is that the mitigating aspect of just one PvP ruleset for all servers is that the Corruption mechanic is in play across the entire server - which means you can always choose to stay Green and punish PKers with Corruption. As of September 2022, there are large permanent areas of the map where Corruption is turned off. So... that's the dealbreaker for me.
I like PvP sometimes - I just require more agency in choosing when I'm flagged for PvP and when I'm not flagged for PvP than what Ashes provides. And... Corruption would have to be in play across the entire map.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
- if I die as green I lose MORE xp and drop MORE mats. This is a loss for me
- if I fight back and die, I STILL lose shit and now the attacker can kill try killing me again
Uh. No.
If I die as a Green, I lose NORMAL xp and drop mats at a NORMAL rate. Same as dying from a mob.
If I die while Purple, I lose HALF the NORMAL xp and drop mats at HALF the NORMAL rate. Half the loss of dying from a mob.
Currently, the Ashes does not fit my playstyle.
Pretty sure we're all clear on that point.
I think you are going to end up being ok with it Dygz. I get you dont like the feeling of risk, but I really do think that there are enough structured PVP events / paths, and that corruption will be powerful enough to make ganking rare, that you will find a way to be good with this.
I know i have been an agitator in the past, but I sincerely hope you give the game an honest try before bailing.
I think you are going to end up being ok with it Dygz. I get you dont like the feeling of risk, but I really do think that there are enough structured PVP events / paths, and that corruption will be powerful enough to make ganking rare, that you will find a way to be good with this.
I know i have been an agitator in the past, but I sincerely hope you give the game an honest try before bailing.
I expect to be testing right up until launch.
But, the moment they added permanent zones that auto-flag Purple - all of the other features became moot.
Uncovering the entire map is probably my most important goal in any MMORPG. And I'm not going to play an MMORPG where I have to auto-flag Purple to accomplish that.
As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.
@Noaani I am not a semantics expert like you, but I AM pretty sure that something that *ACTS* like a deterrent IS a deterrent.
You must be a VERY bored person, lol. still awaiting your sourcing on the FACT that Intrepid did not design corruption to deter unwanted pvp/griefing.
I think you're once again imagining that Noaani said either of those specific things.
You're getting caught up in something Mag7 causes, which we're constantly trying to stop on this forum. Mag7 talks in ways that forces other people to be extremely specific and verbose in everything they say, and then whenever they 'slip up', uses it as a 'gotcha' and derails conversations.
Basically, puts words in people's mouths and then convinces other people to argue with the things Mag claims those other people said.
Just be careful about it, it is easy to end up frustrated or in situations where you feel like something is an argument because of the divisiveness this causes.
I think you are going to end up being ok with it Dygz. I get you dont like the feeling of risk, but I really do think that there are enough structured PVP events / paths, and that corruption will be powerful enough to make ganking rare, that you will find a way to be good with this.
I know i have been an agitator in the past, but I sincerely hope you give the game an honest try before bailing.
I expect to be testing right up until launch.
But, the moment they added permanent zones that auto-flag Purple - all of the other features became moot.
Uncovering the entire map is probably my most important goal in any MMORPG. And I'm not going to play an MMORPG where I have to auto-flag Purple to accomplish that.
was it not recently revealed that pvp death penalties were removed in teh open ocean? did i dream that?
What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif
its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote. I think you should dm him and let him know that he got this quote pretty wrong.
While you wonder why he is using the word "deterring", you should perhaps be reflecting on why he is using the word "grief", rather than PvP.
As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.
@Noaani I am not a semantics expert like you, but I AM pretty sure that something that *ACTS* like a deterrent IS a deterrent.
You must be a VERY bored person, lol. still awaiting your sourcing on the FACT that Intrepid did not design corruption to deter unwanted pvp/griefing.
I think you're once again imagining that Noaani said either of those specific things.
You're getting caught up in something Mag7 causes, which we're constantly trying to stop on this forum. Mag7 talks in ways that forces other people to be extremely specific and verbose in everything they say, and then whenever they 'slip up', uses it as a 'gotcha' and derails conversations.
Basically, puts words in people's mouths and then convinces other people to argue with the things Mag claims those other people said.
Just be careful about it, it is easy to end up frustrated or in situations where you feel like something is an argument because of the divisiveness this causes.
Please point out when made him say his initial point (and pretty much continued point) that corruption is a deterrent to pvp. You are making stuff up right now.
I honestly think both ya derail conversations and try everything in your power not to own up to some points you make.
If you make absolute points like this that are hugely fundamental to the system with pvp and corruption. And I'm asking a question I'm going to make sure I'm understanding it right and you are meaning exactly what is said before I point out why it is wrong.
As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.
Noaani I am not a semantics expert like you, but I AM pretty sure that something that *ACTS* like a deterrent IS a deterrent.
You must be a VERY bored person, lol. still awaiting your sourcing on the FACT that Intrepid did not design corruption to deter unwanted pvp/griefing.
As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused.
However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players.
That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT.
Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see.
So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see.
As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.
@Noaani I am not a semantics expert like you, but I AM pretty sure that something that *ACTS* like a deterrent IS a deterrent.
You must be a VERY bored person, lol. still awaiting your sourcing on the FACT that Intrepid did not design corruption to deter unwanted pvp/griefing.
I think you're once again imagining that Noaani said either of those specific things.
You're getting caught up in something Mag7 causes, which we're constantly trying to stop on this forum. Mag7 talks in ways that forces other people to be extremely specific and verbose in everything they say, and then whenever they 'slip up', uses it as a 'gotcha' and derails conversations.
Basically, puts words in people's mouths and then convinces other people to argue with the things Mag claims those other people said.
Just be careful about it, it is easy to end up frustrated or in situations where you feel like something is an argument because of the divisiveness this causes.
Please point out when made him say his initial point (and pretty much continued point) that corruption is a deterrent to pvp. You are making stuff up right now.
Its amusing, you quote a post where Azherae says you do a specific thing, and then do that exact thing.
As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused.
However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players.
That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT.
Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see.
So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see.
if freeholds *act* as a catalyst to rmt, they ARE a catalyst to rmt and should be addressed. You are 100% wrong about this. I am sorta kinda starting to feel bad for you
see @Mag7spy. he will spiral the conversation to create confusion and discomfort. classic troll. he will become sad when we stop reacting.
he wont actually respond to the things he is BLATANTLY wrong about, but will spin it into another argument which is convoluted. then, others will respond... naturally confused and he will begin again.
What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif
its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote. I think you should dm him and let him know that he got this quote pretty wrong.
While you wonder why he is using the word "deterring", you should perhaps be reflecting on why he is using the word "grief", rather than PvP.
The fact you don't understand it is all connected is the issue here. The fact you think something that is to deter greifing/ pking doesn't strongly relate to pvp is a issue when what you need to do to achieve the result both lead down the same path.
Again you are already said it does have an effect, we are auguring about the level at this point. You are trying to make yourself right by saying since it is little it doesn't change anything so it is the same. But since that is subjective logically you have to be open to other situations and can't fully predict how the game will go.
Trying to make an absolute stance at this point is illogical of corruptions level of affect in pvp player mentality.
As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused.
However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players.
That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT.
Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see.
So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see.
if freeholds *act* as a catalyst to rmt, they ARE a catalyst to rmt and should be addressed. You are 100% wrong about this. I am sorta kinda starting to feel bad for you
see @Mag7spy. he will spiral the conversation to create confusion and discomfort. classic troll. he will become sad when we stop reacting.
he wont actually respond to the things he is BLATANTLY wrong about, but will spin it into another argument which is convoluted. then, others will respond... naturally confused and he will begin again.
Just ignore him.
I am in support of this. This seemingly didn't start because of anything Noaani said, but because you quoted a thing Noaani said and tried to get... let's call it clarification.
It would be quite helpful if both you and Mag7 ignored Noaani, and also me. Just outright ignored. If you have this sort of belief about us, there is no need to have conversations at all.
As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.
Noaani I am not a semantics expert like you, but I AM pretty sure that something that *ACTS* like a deterrent IS a deterrent.
You must be a VERY bored person, lol. still awaiting your sourcing on the FACT that Intrepid did not design corruption to deter unwanted pvp/griefing.
As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused.
However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players.
That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT.
Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see.
So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see.
semantic debate lol? You are trying to be a wall so you can say your original point is right. All you need to do is at the very least be open to the fact corruption will directly lower pvp (more in terms of random chaotic fights)
As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused.
However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players.
That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT.
Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see.
So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see.
if freeholds *act* as a catalyst to rmt, they ARE a catalyst to rmt and should be addressed. You are 100% wrong about this. I am sorta kinda starting to feel bad for you
see @Mag7spy. he will spiral the conversation to create confusion and discomfort. classic troll. he will become sad when we stop reacting.
he wont actually respond to the things he is BLATANTLY wrong about, but will spin it into another argument which is convoluted. then, others will respond... naturally confused and he will begin again.
Just ignore him.
I know ive been doing this dance with him for years at this point.
I am in support of this. This seemingly didn't start because of anything Noaani said, but because you quoted a thing Noaani said and tried to get... let's call it clarification.
It would be quite helpful if both you and Mag7 ignored Noaani, and also me. Just outright ignored. If you have this sort of belief about us, there is no need to have conversations at all.
Lol, someone thinks they are important. I dont even know who you are. Why would i ignore you? by accident, i guess, i already have been
I am in support of this. This seemingly didn't start because of anything Noaani said, but because you quoted a thing Noaani said and tried to get... let's call it clarification.
It would be quite helpful if both you and Mag7 ignored Noaani, and also me. Just outright ignored. If you have this sort of belief about us, there is no need to have conversations at all.
Lol, someone thinks they are important. I dont even know who you are. Why would i ignore you?
As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused.
However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players.
That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT.
Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see.
So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see.
if freeholds *act* as a catalyst to rmt, they ARE a catalyst to rmt and should be addressed. You are 100% wrong about this. I am sorta kinda starting to feel bad for you
see @Mag7spy. he will spiral the conversation to create confusion and discomfort. classic troll. he will become sad when we stop reacting.
he wont actually respond to the things he is BLATANTLY wrong about, but will spin it into another argument which is convoluted. then, others will respond... naturally confused and he will begin again.
Just ignore him.
I am in support of this. This seemingly didn't start because of anything Noaani said, but because you quoted a thing Noaani said and tried to get... let's call it clarification.
It would be quite helpful if both you and Mag7 ignored Noaani, and also me. Just outright ignored. If you have this sort of belief about us, there is no need to have conversations at all.
There is a feature in the forum where you can set people to ignore. Every time i want to be chill with ya, listen and understand while having respectful convo between each other I feel you just do me dirty. Even when i said I'm play you in soul cal was out of respect.
If you don't want to hear me just use the mute, that goes for both you and noaani. Though if you start wilding out and complain with bad points I'll criticize, but I won't go on and on since we both won't be commenting to each other.
What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif
its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote. I think you should dm him and let him know that he got this quote pretty wrong.
While you wonder why he is using the word "deterring", you should perhaps be reflecting on why he is using the word "grief", rather than PvP.
@Mag7spy proof... simply a sad troll. entirely semantics based argument.
What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif
its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote. I think you should dm him and let him know that he got this quote pretty wrong.
While you wonder why he is using the word "deterring", you should perhaps be reflecting on why he is using the word "grief", rather than PvP.
sourcing on the whole intrepid did not design corruption to be a deterrent? How are we doing on that?
lol your act can be broken down to one word... semantics. its old, sad and not really helpful.
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Its possible to agree to disagree and move on from this circular argument as well.
As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.
@Noaani I am not a semantics expert like you, but I AM pretty sure that something that *ACTS* like a deterrent IS a deterrent.
You must be a VERY bored person, lol. still awaiting your sourcing on the FACT that Intrepid did not design corruption to deter unwanted pvp/griefing.
I think you're once again imagining that Noaani said either of those specific things.
I am NOT imagining that @Noaani said intrepid specifically indicated Corruption was not designed as a deterrent. but, as of now, he is unable to provide any back up for that... @Azherae since you are apparently auditioning for the new sidekick position, since @BlackBrony has been defeated, can you provide any actual references for this claim?
Comments
Finally, a quote so se can clear this up.
In this post to Abarat, I am talking about the design goal of corruption. It is not designed as a deterrent. It is designed to add weight (or consequence) to the decision of engaging in PvP.
As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.
The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.
Now, if you want to talk about the design goals of corruption, we can - not a deterrent.
If you want to talk about the impact on players, we can - barely a deterrent.
What we shouldnt do though, is talk about both of these things in the same post, because you'll get confused.
In regards to talking to you, I've always been talking about the effect on players. For the bulk of this thread I have been talking about the effect on players.
Can you please source this? I think it one of the fundamental points of confusion. I was under the impression it was designed to limit unwanted (by one party) pvp. You have sort of agreed it will do that, but then you nuance it to they will be attacked, but if they dont fight back then maybe they dont get killed because of corruption.
Please source where Intrepid stated/indicated/told us that corruption is not designed to be a deterrent to unwanted PVP/griefing.
What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif
its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote. I think you should dm him and let him know that he got this quote pretty wrong.
semantics aside, i think most reasonable people would agree that griefing and unwanted pvp are essentially the same thing or at least close enough that they understand what is being said.
You don't understand pvp and the consequences, this is your opinion in what you think. Yet everything you are reference is contradicting yourself. If there is a consequences for something that is by default a deterrent. You continue to show you do not understand the impact of the corruption system on players and mind sets.
You are out there thinking because you can flag on people without corruption gain that suddenly counts as pvp. Without taking into account any of the nature of the game and mind set of the people. If the midn set is corruption is terrible, and their is a fear or worry of gaining it, that is a deterrrrrreeeeeent. This mind set effects players judgement on if they even want to engage in pvp if their mind set was they were not going to kill the person in the first place. It changes the way you will view other player and scales away from flagging on every or most people until a much smaller segment.
He legit does not understand the full intent of corruption and he is a brick wall and no matter what, he will say how he views it like tis true, or say someone else is saying what he is saying and try to twist things slightly.
He doesn't understand how if you don't fight back its a pk and how that will influence things. Simply not fighting back and not being flag is a deterrent.
If a player see a green player how often will they attack, if a player sees a purple players how often will they attack, if a player sees a red player how often will they attack. You can see the pattern where if you aren't gaining corruption the higher chance you have to attack said player under normal circumstances for a normal player.
There are quotes on wiki for for corruption and the purpose
I really want to agree with you and bag on @Noaani (cause he is being intentionally difficult, imo), but I think he does understand it. He is being difficult. He is saying the exact same thing we are, just trying to show how smart he thinks he is.
corruption will not necessarily stop any one pvp encounter.. it simply adds risk if you decide to kill someone for their stuff... it makes you weaker and more vulnerable over time. Steven wants us to be able to kill each other at times, even if one party does not fight back, with minimal penalty... he just doesnt want griefers running around souring the experience for others. In other words, he wants Dygz to be scared when he is exploring... he wants groups in dungeons to be aware of their surroundings and feel at least somewhat unsafe, he wants you to be able to kill Noanni in game for no other reason than you dont like him.
You simply cannot engage Noanni like you would a normal person. He does not want to debate or understand things better, he wants to use semantics and language nuance to cause disagreements to amuse himself I think. aka, Troll.
What corruption does is make things worse for those who don't enjoy PvP. Because once they get attacked they don't know.
- is the attacker going to kill them no matter what? Thus corruption does nothing
- is the attacker bored and wants to try some PvP but doesn't want to got corrupted? Corruption still doing nothing. The decision is on my side.
I don't know what the attacker will do. They might keep hitting me, lowering my HP. Now, let's say I really don't wanna PvP and I am at 50% HP:
- if I die as green I lose MORE xp and drop MORE mats. This is a loss for me
- if I fight back and die, I STILL lose shit and now the attacker can kill try killing me again
However you look it, the unwilling PvPer loses. Corruption does nothing for them in this process.
PvE-Only server = 0
PvP-Optional server = 1
PvP server = 2
Ashes has, at least, a PvP rating of 1.5
Because there are large permanent zones that auto-flag as Purple.
Basically the only PvP-free areas are houses on Freeholds.
PvPers have to PvX on PvP servers - that is not new.
And... I move from PvP-Optional servers to PvE-Only servers.
So, for me to play on an Ashes server, it would need to feel most like PvP rating of .75.
Most importantly - I would need to be able to explore and uncover the entire map with the Corruption mechanic in place. Because the "deal" more me to play is that everywhere on the map, if another player chooses to kill me while I'm Green, they will be punished with Corruption.
The moment you add large permanent areas where that is not the case, the game becomes more PvP-centric than a PvP-Optional server for EQ or WoW. And I have no interest in playing on a server that is above a 1 PvP rating. Labeling the server PvX or Tyrannasaurus Rex is irrelevent. Steven can use whatever term he wants.
It's not a server ruleset I want play.
If all I meant was PvP combat, I would have specified PvP combat.
I don't compete with other players for claiming mobs. And my preference for MMORPGs are ones where we can share mobs. Another thing I love about Dragonflight - I never have to compete for mobs.
Gamers are too greedy for me to use the Auction House, so I avoid using the Auction House as much as possible.
I'd rather make my own stuff or purchase from NPCs.
So... AOC will be different in regard to mob competition.
Currently, the Ashes does not fit my playstyle.
Pretty sure we're all clear on that point.
Exactly. But... that's not what Steven says.
What Steven says is that Corruption should be enough of a deterrent that PvErs, in general, should feel comfortable playing Ashes. Because that was the case, from his perspective, with Lineage 2 and Corruption is a bit harsher than Karma.
Also, what Steven originally said is that the mitigating aspect of just one PvP ruleset for all servers is that the Corruption mechanic is in play across the entire server - which means you can always choose to stay Green and punish PKers with Corruption. As of September 2022, there are large permanent areas of the map where Corruption is turned off. So... that's the dealbreaker for me.
I like PvP sometimes - I just require more agency in choosing when I'm flagged for PvP and when I'm not flagged for PvP than what Ashes provides. And... Corruption would have to be in play across the entire map.
If I die as a Green, I lose NORMAL xp and drop mats at a NORMAL rate. Same as dying from a mob.
If I die while Purple, I lose HALF the NORMAL xp and drop mats at HALF the NORMAL rate. Half the loss of dying from a mob.
I think you are going to end up being ok with it Dygz. I get you dont like the feeling of risk, but I really do think that there are enough structured PVP events / paths, and that corruption will be powerful enough to make ganking rare, that you will find a way to be good with this.
I know i have been an agitator in the past, but I sincerely hope you give the game an honest try before bailing.
@Noaani I am not a semantics expert like you, but I AM pretty sure that something that *ACTS* like a deterrent IS a deterrent.
You must be a VERY bored person, lol. still awaiting your sourcing on the FACT that Intrepid did not design corruption to deter unwanted pvp/griefing.
But, the moment they added permanent zones that auto-flag Purple - all of the other features became moot.
Uncovering the entire map is probably my most important goal in any MMORPG. And I'm not going to play an MMORPG where I have to auto-flag Purple to accomplish that.
I think you're once again imagining that Noaani said either of those specific things.
You're getting caught up in something Mag7 causes, which we're constantly trying to stop on this forum. Mag7 talks in ways that forces other people to be extremely specific and verbose in everything they say, and then whenever they 'slip up', uses it as a 'gotcha' and derails conversations.
Basically, puts words in people's mouths and then convinces other people to argue with the things Mag claims those other people said.
Just be careful about it, it is easy to end up frustrated or in situations where you feel like something is an argument because of the divisiveness this causes.
was it not recently revealed that pvp death penalties were removed in teh open ocean? did i dream that?
While you wonder why he is using the word "deterring", you should perhaps be reflecting on why he is using the word "grief", rather than PvP.
Please point out when made him say his initial point (and pretty much continued point) that corruption is a deterrent to pvp. You are making stuff up right now.
I honestly think both ya derail conversations and try everything in your power not to own up to some points you make.
If you make absolute points like this that are hugely fundamental to the system with pvp and corruption. And I'm asking a question I'm going to make sure I'm understanding it right and you are meaning exactly what is said before I point out why it is wrong.
Also you are currently trying to derail.
As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused.
However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players.
That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT.
Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see.
So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see.
Its amusing, you quote a post where Azherae says you do a specific thing, and then do that exact thing.
if freeholds *act* as a catalyst to rmt, they ARE a catalyst to rmt and should be addressed. You are 100% wrong about this. I am sorta kinda starting to feel bad for you
see @Mag7spy. he will spiral the conversation to create confusion and discomfort. classic troll. he will become sad when we stop reacting.
he wont actually respond to the things he is BLATANTLY wrong about, but will spin it into another argument which is convoluted. then, others will respond... naturally confused and he will begin again.
Just ignore him.
The fact you don't understand it is all connected is the issue here. The fact you think something that is to deter greifing/ pking doesn't strongly relate to pvp is a issue when what you need to do to achieve the result both lead down the same path.
Again you are already said it does have an effect, we are auguring about the level at this point. You are trying to make yourself right by saying since it is little it doesn't change anything so it is the same. But since that is subjective logically you have to be open to other situations and can't fully predict how the game will go.
Trying to make an absolute stance at this point is illogical of corruptions level of affect in pvp player mentality.
I am in support of this. This seemingly didn't start because of anything Noaani said, but because you quoted a thing Noaani said and tried to get... let's call it clarification.
It would be quite helpful if both you and Mag7 ignored Noaani, and also me. Just outright ignored. If you have this sort of belief about us, there is no need to have conversations at all.
semantic debate lol? You are trying to be a wall so you can say your original point is right. All you need to do is at the very least be open to the fact corruption will directly lower pvp (more in terms of random chaotic fights)
I know ive been doing this dance with him for years at this point.
Lol, someone thinks they are important. I dont even know who you are. Why would i ignore you? by accident, i guess, i already have been
Good point, carry on.
There is a feature in the forum where you can set people to ignore. Every time i want to be chill with ya, listen and understand while having respectful convo between each other I feel you just do me dirty. Even when i said I'm play you in soul cal was out of respect.
If you don't want to hear me just use the mute, that goes for both you and noaani. Though if you start wilding out and complain with bad points I'll criticize, but I won't go on and on since we both won't be commenting to each other.
@Mag7spy proof... simply a sad troll. entirely semantics based argument.
sourcing on the whole intrepid did not design corruption to be a deterrent? How are we doing on that?
lol your act can be broken down to one word... semantics. its old, sad and not really helpful.
I am NOT imagining that @Noaani said intrepid specifically indicated Corruption was not designed as a deterrent. but, as of now, he is unable to provide any back up for that... @Azherae since you are apparently auditioning for the new sidekick position, since @BlackBrony has been defeated, can you provide any actual references for this claim?