Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Freeholds should be instanced

13

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Abarat wrote: »
    You are a goal post mover. I am done engaging you directly. You just slide to a spot where you can spout nonsense again.
    I'm not a goalpost mover.

    The problem is, you seem to think there is some competition on these forums to prove me wrong, where I am trying to have a discussion.

    Basically, you think there are goalposts, I do not.

    ---

    My point in this matter is that regardless of what the specifics of obtaining a freehold are, there are only three ways Intrepid can make it so guilds wont have a monopoly on them. They can make them less limited, less desired or obtained via RNG.

    If they are limited and desired, and if there is a set process to acquire them, organized players will complete that process first, because they are organized.

    That has been my point since the day of the livestream announcing these changes. It hasn't changed. It won't change. As such, even if there were goalposts, they have not moved. You just seem to have your own perception of where they are.

    You are 100% a goal post moving on these forums you don't care what others say but yourself. We already have examples of this where you went from trashing L2 compared to all other games. To moving the goal post back to just saying everquest.

    Stop lying on these forums and weaseling out every second. Take ownership when you spread false information or have bad takes.

    Thanks.

    Again, the issue there is I am trying to have a discussion, you are trying to score "points".

    Discussions move and are fluid - but they dont even have goalposts.

    The very notion that you would think a goalpost could exist means you are not here for discussion.
  • TheDarkSorcererTheDarkSorcerer Member, Alpha Two
    +1 for instanced freeholds.
    m6jque7ofxxf.gif
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    +1 for instanced freeholds.

    -5 for instances
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Abarat wrote: »
    You are a goal post mover. I am done engaging you directly. You just slide to a spot where you can spout nonsense again.
    I'm not a goalpost mover.

    The problem is, you seem to think there is some competition on these forums to prove me wrong, where I am trying to have a discussion.

    Basically, you think there are goalposts, I do not.

    ---

    My point in this matter is that regardless of what the specifics of obtaining a freehold are, there are only three ways Intrepid can make it so guilds wont have a monopoly on them. They can make them less limited, less desired or obtained via RNG.

    If they are limited and desired, and if there is a set process to acquire them, organized players will complete that process first, because they are organized.

    That has been my point since the day of the livestream announcing these changes. It hasn't changed. It won't change. As such, even if there were goalposts, they have not moved. You just seem to have your own perception of where they are.

    You are 100% a goal post moving on these forums you don't care what others say but yourself. We already have examples of this where you went from trashing L2 compared to all other games. To moving the goal post back to just saying everquest.

    Stop lying on these forums and weaseling out every second. Take ownership when you spread false information or have bad takes.

    Thanks.

    Again, the issue there is I am trying to have a discussion, you are trying to score "points".

    Discussions move and are fluid - but they dont even have goalposts.

    The very notion that you would think a goalpost could exist means you are not here for discussion.

    If you were having a discussion you would understand your view point is subjective on the amount of pvp corruption would deter. The conversation isn't moving forward you are just stubborn, that is why you only move a little bit not that it has been pointed out to you multiple times.

    I'd agree it be more of a discussion if it wasn't like talking to a wall the refuses to acknowledge other points other than their own in every conversation.
  • Ayeveegaming1Ayeveegaming1 Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Thats a no from me, no instanced things unless its apartment rentals.
    vmw4o7x2etm1.png
  • Veeshan wrote: »
    limiting thing cause friction which causes conflict which causes the game not to stagnate

    Things can stagnate if it's always the same guilds/people fighting over everything because there isn't enough of a variety of players in the wider community.
    "A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities." —J.R.R. Tolkien
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    LadyZel wrote: »
    Veeshan wrote: »
    limiting thing cause friction which causes conflict which causes the game not to stagnate

    Things can stagnate if it's always the same guilds/people fighting over everything because there isn't enough of a variety of players in the wider community.

    well this is what old-school loot rules are for. without personal loot there will be drama. with drama you have a continuous life and death of many guilds. I say it in a half-joking half-serious manner because its actually true.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Veeshan wrote: »
    Ratzu wrote: »
    Noaani I hear Palia has an open beta coming up that you could check out.

    It is very freeholdy with there housing :p and everyone will be able to get one :P lol
    @Veeshan

    Interestingly, I have never said everyone should be able to get a freehold in Ashes.

    I have said more people than the current plan should be able to, but not everyone.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    If you were having a discussion you would understand your view point is subjective on the amount of pvp corruption would deter.
    My stance on this is based on years of discussions with people on these forums. It isn't just something I pulled out of a hat - like your opinions seem to be.

    There have been hundreds pf people on these forums (and the old forums) that have said corruption isn't going to stop them from PvP. Even I have said that - and you like to think I am some PvE carebear.

    There are only a handful of people that have ever claimed that corruption will deter them from PvP in any situation in which they would otherwise have wanted PvP.

    The thing is, CLEARLY anyone that would be deterred by corruption in Ashes isn't all that much of a PvP player. If they were, it wouldn't bother them - or at least wouldn't stop them.

    People that would be bothered by corruption simply don't have what it takes to play Ashes anyway - meaning the occurances of this would be even less frequent.

    If someone came to me and said "I want to play Ashes, but I am afraid of corruption", I would simply tell them "my dude, it's ok, Ashes isn't for everyone".
  • BlackBronyBlackBrony Member, Alpha Two
    Phlight wrote: »
    Kravell wrote: »
    I think freeholds should be instanced because the way they talk about it makes it seem like it is very limited and ultimately game breaking.

    Freeholds will be very limited as intended. AoC has a risk/reward philosophy.

    But there's a difference. If I go out in the world, I assume the risks. Freeholds are not a risk vs reward mechanic based on individual level, but on a guild's or group of people level. I think this is different, because the loss is large, but individually it might be a lot less.
  • Counter suggestion- cut the number of freeholds in half and make them guild only. Take the remaining half of land parcels and turn them into shoulder-to-shoulder subdivisions with half acre plots for individuals. They would have enough room to do some stuff, but not as much as a freehold.

    Still open world and bigger guilds still get the best stuff, but the little people would get something. A half acre would be enough for an individual/couple to have a farm or a couple crafting slots.
  • RazThemunRazThemun Member, Alpha Two
    Each player has their opinion in regards to housing and or freeholds being instanced. I personally would prefer them not to be instanced. I really dislike instance content as it appears to pull you out of the world so you don't see those who are in that same zone and they can not see you. In WOW WOD that was one of the huge complaints with the garrisons. They served a purpose but they were instanced and everyone spent all this time in their garrison... so you rarely saw these players out in the world or doing the other content.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    If you were having a discussion you would understand your view point is subjective on the amount of pvp corruption would deter.
    My stance on this is based on years of discussions with people on these forums. It isn't just something I pulled out of a hat - like your opinions seem to be.

    There have been hundreds pf people on these forums (and the old forums) that have said corruption isn't going to stop them from PvP. Even I have said that - and you like to think I am some PvE carebear.

    There are only a handful of people that have ever claimed that corruption will deter them from PvP in any situation in which they would otherwise have wanted PvP.

    The thing is, CLEARLY anyone that would be deterred by corruption in Ashes isn't all that much of a PvP player. If they were, it wouldn't bother them - or at least wouldn't stop them.

    People that would be bothered by corruption simply don't have what it takes to play Ashes anyway - meaning the occurances of this would be even less frequent.

    If someone came to me and said "I want to play Ashes, but I am afraid of corruption", I would simply tell them "my dude, it's ok, Ashes isn't for everyone".

    We can confirm you pulled it out of a hat, i was clear in my points, and Steven again talked about this on stream.

    Talking about it on forums without understanding the system does not mean you will have a clear picture of reality. Having people agree with you (like the sidekick) on the forums does not make your points valid. It just means you and whomever else have a misunderstanding both on How it will work and the dev's intention.

    You again make points that are not true of pvp players or making any kind of sense you are as you say "pulling it out of a hat", assuming intention of players , assuming understanding how the strength of the system, and trying to make an absolute judgement what makes a PvP player.

    The thing is you lack experience in PvP games and only go based on your logic that is lacking from actual experience playing these types of games. While my own view points come from experience playing these games giving me a better perspective on the reality of what will happen.

    The fact you are trying to argue people won't be pvp players if they are scared about corruption shows you utter lack of experience on the huge impact that has on their experience with being a open target for everyone with the draw backs.


    Do I seriously need to educate you on the draw backs to corruption? Like do not go down this argument, i promise you are going to look real silly, this is your once chance to retract your statement on players willing to be corrupted on the norm and not be deterred by it.

    If you do go down this path I promise I will expose your hard lack of experience on pvp in mmorpgs as a whole based on this statement.
  • leameseleamese Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    i like freeholds in the world itself, but not as it is currently planned.
  • HarlowHarlow Member, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Kravell wrote: »
    I think freeholds should be instanced because the way they talk about it makes it seem like it is very limited and ultimately game breaking.

    I personally agree with you about it being limited (I don't think it will be game breaking though), and I don't like that BECAUSE I used to play ArcheAge, and once people got their land, they held on to it. It was almost impossible to get any. The only way to get it was when servers merged and all the land went up for grabs.

    However, I do understand why Ashes is making it uninstanced. And knowing there are other housing choices (city apartments, etc) makes me not be so bothered by it.
    i0xzy5byic4r.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Bwahaha!
    I mean... Freeholds are open world precisely so they can fuel competition and PvP combat.
    Instanced Freeholds would defeat that purpose.
  • AbaratAbarat Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Noaani wrote: »

    The thing is, CLEARLY anyone that would be deterred by corruption in Ashes isn't all that much of a PvP player. If they were, it wouldn't bother them - or at least wouldn't stop them.

    People that would be bothered by corruption simply don't have what it takes to play Ashes anyway - meaning the occurances of this would be even less frequent.

    This is CLEARLY utterly nonsense.

    Corruption is not to deter PVP, it is to deter repeated unwanted pvp (griefing). This is not a hard thing to understand, at least to me.

    @Noaani Will you please go through the effects of corruption? remind us, since you are the expert.

    For example, what would be the stat loss and risk of losing an item be if I gank (they dont fight back) a character four levels lower than me four times?

    You seem certain it is not going to stop anyone, so I can naturally assume you are well versed on the specifics?

  • AbaratAbarat Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Noaani wrote: »
    [

    Interestingly, I have never said everyone should be able to get a freehold in Ashes.

    I have said more people than the current plan should be able to, but not everyone.

    Exactly how many more? Why will that number be better than the current?

    Also, what are you basing this determination on?

    Did you participate in A1?



  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Abarat wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    [

    Interestingly, I have never said everyone should be able to get a freehold in Ashes.

    I have said more people than the current plan should be able to, but not everyone.

    Exactly how many more? Why will that number be better than the current?

    Also, what are you basing this determination on?

    in another thread he confirmed he was trolling in this post apparently...
  • AbaratAbarat Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    @Mag7spy what do you think his objective on the forum is?

    he seems to shy away from specific questions... like a vampire from sunlight

    "i was just trolling" seems like a pretty good out for.. i f*cked up and said something stupid.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Abarat wrote: »
    @Mag7spy what do you think his objective on the forum is?

    he seems to shy away from specific questions... like a vampire from sunlight

    Get people to agree with him, and start pushing certain changes towards more PvE focused content. And say all these people agree with him. This also extends to focus on tab combat over action.

    You can see in his post his points always revolve around people are forum agree with me, my friends agree with me, millions of people want this, etc.

    Prob has fears of certain things, and wants other certain types of content to change but that is a hard read on what exactly. Also partly for his own ego, in the past he was most likely doing hard content so wants to hold onto he was "the best" even if that isn't relevant to current mmorpgs, and he doesn't play current mmorpgs in def.

    Just my guess though basked on talking to him and the way he had more of a negative and aggressive view towards certain things with people and the game. Doesn't feel like he is discussing as much as rather actually trying to convince people towards his view point.
  • AbaratAbarat Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    have you noticed that he does not respond to specifics? Its odd.

    no one who is interested in AoC should listen to @Noaani in my opinion. He has an agenda that is not what is best for the game.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Abarat wrote: »
    You seem certain it is not going to stop anyone
    I literally didn't say this.

    The reason I don't give specifics in relation to you and Mag is because of the twisting you do.

    I say corruption isn't much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP, which is quite specific (as it, is is a deterrent to some in engaing in PvP, and is a deterrent to even more people for killing other players in PvP) and you twist that to me saying that corruption isn't going to stop anyone.

    Why would I give you any specifics on any thing if that is what you are going to do with those specifics?
    Abarat wrote: »
    have you noticed that he does not respond to specifics? Its odd.

    no one who is interested in AoC should listen to Noaani in my opinion. He has an agenda that is not what is best for the game.
    Even if I had an agenda (I don't) you wouldn't be able to tell what it is based on the twisting of words that you do and seem to actually believe.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Noaani wrote: »
    Abarat wrote: »
    You seem certain it is not going to stop anyone
    I literally didn't say this.

    The reason I don't give specifics in relation to you and Mag is because of the twisting you do.

    I say corruption isn't much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP, which is quite specific (as it, is is a deterrent to some in engaing in PvP, and is a deterrent to even more people for killing other players in PvP) and you twist that to me saying that corruption isn't going to stop anyone.

    Why would I give you any specifics on any thing if that is what you are going to do with those specifics?
    Abarat wrote: »
    have you noticed that he does not respond to specifics? Its odd.

    no one who is interested in AoC should listen to Noaani in my opinion. He has an agenda that is not what is best for the game.
    Even if I had an agenda (I don't) you wouldn't be able to tell what it is based on the twisting of words that you do and seem to actually believe.


    You are the only one twisting anything, its funny you are trying to pint hat on other people in forums from your own actions.

    Stop being a immature and take ownership of your own actions. Corruption will be a deterrent to pvp that includes all aspects like engaging in pvp.

    My call out to you is you trying to say it won't be a deterrent. When you said it will be in some form I said that it is subjective and we need to look at the goal of the design which will be adjusted if it doesn't meet the requirement.

    What does lying on a forum get you, and trying to label other people with your own actions. You simply just refuse to give straight answer and derail to avoid answering. nor do you use actual mmorpg experience in any of your arguments, and ignore the ones that do use it towards you.

    Stop acting like a victim when you are the one derailing, slinging insults, and lying.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    My call out to you is you trying to say it won't be a deterrent.
    Cool, I didn't say that. Lets go over this again.

    I said it won't be much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

    Not much of a deterrent means, by actual definition, that it will be some deterrent.

    So, since I am saying, by definition, that it will be some deterrent, that means I am *not* saying - again by definition - that it won't be a deterrent. I am literally saying that it will be a deterrent to some people, you just don't seem to grasp that.

    Then there is the engaging in PvP part. You can still engage in PvP without getting corruption. I said corription wouldn't be MUCH of a deterrent to people engaging in PvP.

    Since manual flagging isn't a thing in Ashes, engaging someone in PvP is likely to be the default way to see if someone is up for PvP just for the sake of PvP. If they flag back, it's on. If they don't, it might not be.

    Now, you may find some quote of me in the discussion with you afterwards where I said not a deterrent - but as we both know, I don't take discussion with you seriously, and that first post is my point in relation to that specific topic.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    My call out to you is you trying to say it won't be a deterrent.
    Cool, I didn't say that. Lets go over this again.

    I said it won't be much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

    Not much of a deterrent means, by actual definition, that it will be some deterrent.

    So, since I am saying, by definition, that it will be some deterrent, that means I am *not* saying - again by definition - that it won't be a deterrent. I am literally saying that it will be a deterrent to some people, you just don't seem to grasp that.

    Then there is the engaging in PvP part. You can still engage in PvP without getting corruption. I said corription wouldn't be MUCH of a deterrent to people engaging in PvP.

    Since manual flagging isn't a thing in Ashes, engaging someone in PvP is likely to be the default way to see if someone is up for PvP just for the sake of PvP. If they flag back, it's on. If they don't, it might not be.

    Now, you may find some quote of me in the discussion with you afterwards where I said not a deterrent - but as we both know, I don't take discussion with you seriously, and that first post is my point in relation to that specific topic.

    Feels like this is the circle again but that is fine, like i said before that is subjective on the level of deterrent it will end up being. I brought up examples in other games for this already and showed the pattern the more harsh the penalty the more pvp happens of all types.

    Based on those games and my experience with pvp saying not much of a deterrent does not sound correct. Not much means that there should be a high chance you get attacked. To me in BDO there is not much of a deterrent because you have a buffer before you are flagged as red karma. But people are not running around pking everywhere every second (though things can vary based on the spot).

    In a game like AoC where the penalty is instant we can again use BDO as an example when a player is about to become red. The main information I'd be looking for is does the player stop and leave or continue. I'd say about 80% (that is generous) the player ends up leaving if they can't get away around that to kill you.

    Of course it doesn't mean it will work exactly like this in AoC but it showed a big indication on player mind set when it comes to having to deal with penalties. They have a high chance on not engaging or leaving when having to deal with them. When players have a buffer it still isn't normal for players to be pvping everywhere as they respect it and do not waste it as eagerly (knowing they have 0 loss while having this buffer)

    Now further if we look at BDO on arsha you can see people are high to very highly aggressive in pvping while not having to deal with corruption or worrying about having a buffer when it comes to engaging in PvP.


    So when you say "Not much of a deterrent" that feels highly subjective and based on my past experiences I'd say a safer bet would be saying an average amount of deterrent from engaging in pvp. To me that would still be high balling my experience tells me it be more of a high average deterrent for the normal player.

    Again as i said before this is open development, they will want things to be a certain way and will be able to adjust the dials and how things work to get it to the point they want. As said by steven on the stream previously and their intent for corruption.

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Based on those games and my experience with pvp saying not much of a deterrent does not sound correct. Not much means that there should be a high chance you get attacked.
    It would mean there is a high chance of getting attacked if there is a reason for you to be attacked.

    If you are harvesting a resource that is scarce, only enough for one person to harvest, then there is a high chance of getting attacked for that resource, even with corruption.
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    In a game like AoC where the penalty is instant we can again use BDO as an example when a player is about to become red. The main information I'd be looking for is does the player stop and leave or continue. I'd say about 80% (that is generous) the player ends up leaving if they can't get away around that to kill you.

    Of course it doesn't mean it will work exactly like this in AoC but it showed a big indication on player mind set when it comes to having to deal with penalties. They have a high chance on not engaging or leaving when having to deal with them. When players have a buffer it still isn't normal for players to be pvping everywhere as they respect it and do not waste it as eagerly (knowing they have 0 loss while having this buffer)
    These situations - people engaging in PvP to see if the other player is up for a fight and then that fight not happening for various reasons (the player walking away, the player not walking away but also not flagging and the attacker not wanting corruption), these are the things I was talking about when I said it may change the outcome of PvP.

    All of these situations are still situations where PvP was engaged in, and so fall under the aspect of my comment where corruption wasn't a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

    It is indeed open development, but unless Intrepid move the gaining of corruption from killing a player to engaging in PvP, I don't see any of the above changing. If you only get corruption from killing, players are still going to attack people in order to see if that player is willing to fight for what ever activity it is they are doing.
    So when you say "Not much of a deterrent" that feels highly subjective and based on my past experiences I'd say a safer bet would be saying an average amount of deterrent from engaging in pvp.
    Cool, so why have you kept repeating that I have said corruption isn't a deterrent at all?

    That is the part I have taken issue with, and I have been very clear that I have taken issue with it.

    If you want to discuss that it is subjective, thats great. That is discussion.

    If you try to claim I said something that I did not say, however, that is not.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    It would mean there is a high chance of getting attacked if there is a reason for you to be attacked.

    If you are harvesting a resource that is scarce, only enough for one person to harvest, then there is a high chance of getting attacked for that resource, even with corruption.

    1.

    First again corruption system needs to be taken into account what do you have to lose, what are the chances of you getting away and working off the corruption, etc. It does not mean suddenly you are going to be attacked but yes it will increase your value as a target. As for the value increase more information would need to be accessed before it before making any for sure statements.

    2.

    So are you basing pvp off more rare instances where someone finds a rare material / drop so we are moving away from normal instances. This does not do your point any favors as far as frequency of pvp.


    These situations - people engaging in PvP to see if the other player is up for a fight and then that fight not happening for various reasons (the player walking away, the player not walking away but also not flagging and the attacker not wanting corruption), these are the things I was talking about when I said it may change the outcome of PvP.

    All of these situations are still situations where PvP was engaged in, and so fall under the aspect of my comment where corruption wasn't a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

    Well aware of these types of things, corruption attacking as a deterrent will make them less likely to happen. Design needs to be taken into account as well for their goals (things we are still learning of course). If your inventory is full, or you feel you don't have the right bags, etc will further impact your decision on attacking people. As well as how people are in the game normally, if the norm if someone attacking you trying to get you to flag and be purple is often ignored. It will further influence how often people will do that type of thing overall even more so if it is ineffective. As well as the guild system in place and how decing other guilds will work. The means to flag without needing to use corruption further reduces reason for players to use it making the deterrent stronger.
    Cool, so why have you kept repeating that I have said corruption isn't a deterrent at all?

    That is the part I have taken issue with, and I have been very clear that I have taken issue with it.

    If you want to discuss that it is subjective, thats great. That is discussion.

    If you try to claim I said something that I did not say, however, that is not.

    You are very clearly trying to suggest something that isn't much of a deterrent means it will happen very frequency. Your wording here again on saying not much relates it very closely to saying it won't be a deterrent. On top of you arguing so aggressively against the idea it will be more than just a littler deterrent. It makes you look closed minded and not open to other possibilities when you are already working with a subjective statement. Even in the face of examples given to you.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    So are you basing pvp off more rare instances where someone finds a rare material

    I said scarce.

    According to Steven, scarcity is a key aspect of the games risk vs reward pillar.

    As such, harvesting a scarce resource in Ashes could well be translated to "harvesting a resource".

    Your wording here again on saying not much relates it very closely to saying it won't be a deterrent.
    But it specifically isn't saying that it won't be a deterrent. They are factually different things. You coudl say they are close - but in the same way saying 100+100=101 is close.

    It's wrong, but only by 1%. That's close, right?

    If I said something as factually incorrect as this, I would expect you to jump all over it. It shouldn't be any wonder that I am refusing to engage with any comment that contains "you said corruption isn't a deterrent" or any variation of that.

    You are welcome to disagree, but if you do, disagree with the thing I said, not with the thing I never said.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    So are you basing pvp off more rare instances where someone finds a rare material

    I said scarce.

    According to Steven, scarcity is a key aspect of the games risk vs reward pillar.

    As such, harvesting a scarce resource in Ashes could well be translated to "harvesting a resource".

    Your wording here again on saying not much relates it very closely to saying it won't be a deterrent.
    But it specifically isn't saying that it won't be a deterrent. They are factually different things. You coudl say they are close - but in the same way saying 100+100=101 is close.

    It's wrong, but only by 1%. That's close, right?

    If I said something as factually incorrect as this, I would expect you to jump all over it. It shouldn't be any wonder that I am refusing to engage with any comment that contains "you said corruption isn't a deterrent" or any variation of that.

    You are welcome to disagree, but if you do, disagree with the thing I said, not with the thing I never said.

    Scarcity would be a thing and it would be logical to think that is also not a normal circumstance player are going to commonly face in terms finding it, someone seeing them and pvping them over it. So that would be more of a rare event of pvp and again not common.


    I've made it clear, i disagree with your use of it being not much of a deterrent based on your wording you are talking about extremely low values. If something is not much of a deterrent it means there is a very high likely chance people will do it.

    Akin to being like you have a 5 % chance to enhance something and saying "You won't have much of a chance chance to get it." meaning the majority of the time people would be flagging to fight....
Sign In or Register to comment.