Songcaller wrote: » Its difficult to quantify in truth. I need to test the corruption system in A2. I think a lot of players want to test the corruption system in A2. I'm not sure how long it takes to clear the karma or how long it takes to build the karma. I'm not sure of the karma thresholds or the percentage thresholds for losing gear. I'm also not sure how the dynamics will work because I'd aim to bait players to attack and then finish those players. Of course, if I meet my hard counter and I'm alone I would karma bomb if the challenge stack is indomitable in a hard counters favour.
Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind.
Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind. He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers.
Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind. He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers. You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other.
Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind. He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers. You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other. What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!?
Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind. He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers. You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other. What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!? there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists.
Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind. He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers. You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other. What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!? there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists. I think you are getting conversations mixed up, I'm not talking about general pvp I'm talking about corruption and its effects. in reducing pvp around it. A conversation about the amount of pvp in the game is a different discussion.
Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind. He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers. You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other. What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!? there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists. I think you are getting conversations mixed up, I'm not talking about general pvp I'm talking about corruption and its effects. in reducing pvp around it. A conversation about the amount of pvp in the game is a different discussion. I'm discussing corruption and the effect it has. No corruption on the ocean means pve players won't play. Therefore, a vain attempt to dissuade the pvp players elsewhere through over harsh punishments just won't fly. It won't stop anyone from killing a green because killing a green has reason behind it. It will stop massacres and people killing lower levels. However, green person hoarding resources - prime target. Green person taking my mobs - prime target. Green person training mobs into me - prime target.
Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind. He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers. You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other. What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!? there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists. I think you are getting conversations mixed up, I'm not talking about general pvp I'm talking about corruption and its effects. in reducing pvp around it. A conversation about the amount of pvp in the game is a different discussion. I'm discussing corruption and the effect it has. No corruption on the ocean means pve players won't play. Therefore, a vain attempt to dissuade the pvp players elsewhere through over harsh punishments just won't fly. It won't stop anyone from killing a green because killing a green has reason behind it. It will stop massacres and people killing lower levels. However, green person hoarding resources - prime target. Green person taking my mobs - prime target. Green person training mobs into me - prime target. Saying no corruption on ocean and no pve players will play is too much of a stretch to say that and using an extreme example like dygz does not make a lot of sense. Again corruption has no link to the ocean in a disccusion around will corruption prevent someone from pking and then you are bringing up an entirely different system that does not effect what I'm talking about. Even if someone is a prime target than your goal would be to making some kind of gain be it xp or items from mobs. The thing is people will always be "prime target" and you will lose more than gain from killing everyone farming mobs around you. Again yes you can get a potion of their drops but when you die being red you are dropping far more than you get on top of 4* xp debt. If the game as a population you are going to be seen by people and most likely killed unless you go deeper into corruption. So if your goal is to gain xp / loot corruption is not going to be the best way at removing people without significant risk to losing more than what you got. Leading to relying on other pvp systems int he game over corruption (which means people will choose to not pk and wait to use the other system before killing someone)
Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind. He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers. You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other. What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!? there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists. I think you are getting conversations mixed up, I'm not talking about general pvp I'm talking about corruption and its effects. in reducing pvp around it. A conversation about the amount of pvp in the game is a different discussion. I'm discussing corruption and the effect it has. No corruption on the ocean means pve players won't play. Therefore, a vain attempt to dissuade the pvp players elsewhere through over harsh punishments just won't fly. It won't stop anyone from killing a green because killing a green has reason behind it. It will stop massacres and people killing lower levels. However, green person hoarding resources - prime target. Green person taking my mobs - prime target. Green person training mobs into me - prime target. Saying no corruption on ocean and no pve players will play is too much of a stretch to say that and using an extreme example like dygz does not make a lot of sense. Again corruption has no link to the ocean in a disccusion around will corruption prevent someone from pking and then you are bringing up an entirely different system that does not effect what I'm talking about. Even if someone is a prime target than your goal would be to making some kind of gain be it xp or items from mobs. The thing is people will always be "prime target" and you will lose more than gain from killing everyone farming mobs around you. Again yes you can get a potion of their drops but when you die being red you are dropping far more than you get on top of 4* xp debt. If the game as a population you are going to be seen by people and most likely killed unless you go deeper into corruption. So if your goal is to gain xp / loot corruption is not going to be the best way at removing people without significant risk to losing more than what you got. Leading to relying on other pvp systems int he game over corruption (which means people will choose to not pk and wait to use the other system before killing someone) In my experience a green player won't return to a spot where they've just been ganked. A long time ago i suggest to green players to kill red players on sight and the answers were 'no way' to be polite. Therefore, it is conducive to maintain a grind location for my group by initiating the combat and seeing where the combat leads. Only if my group are up for the challenge of course. If i'm solo i would invite others to join my group but a full group means there is no room for others and no reason to share...
Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind. He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers. You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other. What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!? there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists. I think you are getting conversations mixed up, I'm not talking about general pvp I'm talking about corruption and its effects. in reducing pvp around it. A conversation about the amount of pvp in the game is a different discussion. I'm discussing corruption and the effect it has. No corruption on the ocean means pve players won't play. Therefore, a vain attempt to dissuade the pvp players elsewhere through over harsh punishments just won't fly. It won't stop anyone from killing a green because killing a green has reason behind it. It will stop massacres and people killing lower levels. However, green person hoarding resources - prime target. Green person taking my mobs - prime target. Green person training mobs into me - prime target. Saying no corruption on ocean and no pve players will play is too much of a stretch to say that and using an extreme example like dygz does not make a lot of sense. Again corruption has no link to the ocean in a disccusion around will corruption prevent someone from pking and then you are bringing up an entirely different system that does not effect what I'm talking about. Even if someone is a prime target than your goal would be to making some kind of gain be it xp or items from mobs. The thing is people will always be "prime target" and you will lose more than gain from killing everyone farming mobs around you. Again yes you can get a potion of their drops but when you die being red you are dropping far more than you get on top of 4* xp debt. If the game as a population you are going to be seen by people and most likely killed unless you go deeper into corruption. So if your goal is to gain xp / loot corruption is not going to be the best way at removing people without significant risk to losing more than what you got. Leading to relying on other pvp systems int he game over corruption (which means people will choose to not pk and wait to use the other system before killing someone) In my experience a green player won't return to a spot where they've just been ganked. A long time ago i suggest to green players to kill red players on sight and the answers were 'no way' to be polite. Therefore, it is conducive to maintain a grind location for my group by initiating the combat and seeing where the combat leads. Only if my group are up for the challenge of course. If i'm solo i would invite others to join my group but a full group means there is no room for others and no reason to share... If any people in my group sees a red player they get jumped instantly, that is literally free loot no matter what.
Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind. He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers. You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other. What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!? there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists. I think you are getting conversations mixed up, I'm not talking about general pvp I'm talking about corruption and its effects. in reducing pvp around it. A conversation about the amount of pvp in the game is a different discussion. I'm discussing corruption and the effect it has. No corruption on the ocean means pve players won't play. Therefore, a vain attempt to dissuade the pvp players elsewhere through over harsh punishments just won't fly. It won't stop anyone from killing a green because killing a green has reason behind it. It will stop massacres and people killing lower levels. However, green person hoarding resources - prime target. Green person taking my mobs - prime target. Green person training mobs into me - prime target. Saying no corruption on ocean and no pve players will play is too much of a stretch to say that and using an extreme example like dygz does not make a lot of sense. Again corruption has no link to the ocean in a disccusion around will corruption prevent someone from pking and then you are bringing up an entirely different system that does not effect what I'm talking about. Even if someone is a prime target than your goal would be to making some kind of gain be it xp or items from mobs. The thing is people will always be "prime target" and you will lose more than gain from killing everyone farming mobs around you. Again yes you can get a potion of their drops but when you die being red you are dropping far more than you get on top of 4* xp debt. If the game as a population you are going to be seen by people and most likely killed unless you go deeper into corruption. So if your goal is to gain xp / loot corruption is not going to be the best way at removing people without significant risk to losing more than what you got. Leading to relying on other pvp systems int he game over corruption (which means people will choose to not pk and wait to use the other system before killing someone) In my experience a green player won't return to a spot where they've just been ganked. A long time ago i suggest to green players to kill red players on sight and the answers were 'no way' to be polite. Therefore, it is conducive to maintain a grind location for my group by initiating the combat and seeing where the combat leads. Only if my group are up for the challenge of course. If i'm solo i would invite others to join my group but a full group means there is no room for others and no reason to share... If any people in my group sees a red player they get jumped instantly, that is literally free loot no matter what. Yeah, my whole guild is the same. That does not mean the pvp adverse players are just going to suddenly get a murderous streak and return to kill a red player. The revenge on the instigator is turning them red so others like us get involved for retribution. I see no need to be restricted or to be restrained. I will hunt reds for loot and i will stop greens for loot. Loot is king in ashes. Otherwise you'll just let all the best resources slip through your fingers because if you believe someone carrying legendary resources are going to stand and fight you are mistaken.
Songcaller wrote: » I don't think you've played on a pvp server before if you think its any different to be red. Gankers names get called out on global and you get hunted constantly until you log off.
blat wrote: » I'm wondering if the corruption system can accidentally punish getting "the jump" in wpvp in both 1v1 & group v group scenarios? 1v1: Getting the jump / using environmental advantages is a big, and valid, part of wpvp. Might people (getting jumped) decide they're already at such a disadvantage in the fight anyway, that they'll not bother fighting back and basically dare the attacker to take corruption penalties? This could be despite the victim being a willing and active pvper. The attacker may then stop to avoid corruption, giving the victim the opportunity to heal up, buff up, and attack his attacker. To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way. Group v group: Another related scenario is the example from the recent caravan showcase, where a group waited to ambush and started by focusing one enemy (sensible strat). The attackers were able to focus one enemy and take him down quickly with the group's damage combined. My question here is, outside of a caravan scenario, would this cause the group to all incur corruption + extra 50% drop penalty for the victim, as there was no time to respond? Again here we're assuming the context is two groups of willing & active pvpers, perhaps fighting to control a resource. I want to add here, that the corruption system overall seems a v clever attempt at solving the pvp problem for everyone. We want to minimise griefing particularly for non-pvpers, while also giving the world that element of danger and encouraging fair open world pvp for those who wish to participate (me!). I should also clarify that, in the context of wpvp, "fair" to me is mostly about a) level and b) general appetite for pvp. Mostly level though. Gaining the advantage via situation / environment is (imo) totally valid in a wpvp setting.
Songcaller wrote: » there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists.
Dygz wrote: » Songcaller wrote: » there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists. I consider PvX to be playing on a PvP-centric server, so... I kinda agree. Once I know that it's going to be a PvP-centric server, I'm not going to play. Because gamers who play with that ruleset fail to acknowledge the concept of non-consensual PvP. And I'm not willing to play on the same servers as gamers who fail to acknowledge non-consensual PvP. I'm not an extreme example with regard to non-consensual PvP. It's really just going to be "PvXers" playing Ashes. Precisely as Songcaller stated.
