Linstead wrote: » IllusionTokomi wrote: » As others have said, there appears to be a misunderstanding surrounding "Corrupt" players. Not necessarily by you, OP. Maybe by you but certainly by others. Corruption is a black spot, a Scarlet Letter, a brand, a societal mark of shame. It has never been communicated to me that this is anything other than that. Adding a game-play style or mechanic, relaxing sanctions, and assuredly adding a reward is counter to its foundational principle. They already added a "game-play style or mechanic" with the bounty hunter system though. I'm sure plenty of people would love to be bounty hunters, but why would anyone ever PK? Meaning an entire in game system, that has probably had dozens of hours poured into it (if not more) will never fully be utilized. The corruption system already seems flawed. I can already see a way people can use it to grief endlessly. 1. be a neutral player 2. have some friends that want to player kill hiding close by 3. go harass a player to the point where they either want to log off or kill you in frustration because you are taking their resources or their mobs or whatever else 4. they turn to attack you, but you don't attack back and let yourself be killed 5. that player is now corrupted 6. your entire guild/party/friends all jump the player and kill him, incurring no penalty unto themselves, and he cannot fight back because he'd gain MORE corruption for fighting back (assuming your friends/guild/party are non-combatants) 7. you get his gear and his resources and have intentionally harassed him to the point where he might not even want to play the game anymore 8. repeat ad nauseum
IllusionTokomi wrote: » As others have said, there appears to be a misunderstanding surrounding "Corrupt" players. Not necessarily by you, OP. Maybe by you but certainly by others. Corruption is a black spot, a Scarlet Letter, a brand, a societal mark of shame. It has never been communicated to me that this is anything other than that. Adding a game-play style or mechanic, relaxing sanctions, and assuredly adding a reward is counter to its foundational principle.
Caeryl wrote: » So in this scenario the player has no access to a basic Ignore, has the mentality of a preeteen, and is also blind to the group of greens in the area? If they’re that bad off then they’ve got bigger problems to deal with than some corruption. Not to mention if one of you kills the player they’re no longer going to be corrupted when they come back, probably with friends, and it’s highly unlikely you would have gotten any gear from them because the penalties after the first kill are minor.
2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » Only corrupted players should be allowed to enter Thieve's guild! Yeah I said it.
Linstead wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » So in this scenario the player has no access to a basic Ignore, has the mentality of a preeteen, and is also blind to the group of greens in the area? If they’re that bad off then they’ve got bigger problems to deal with than some corruption. Not to mention if one of you kills the player they’re no longer going to be corrupted when they come back, probably with friends, and it’s highly unlikely you would have gotten any gear from them because the penalties after the first kill are minor. That's just being disingenuous as Steven himself has said there will be times where you just want to kill someone, start a guild fight, with people who are taking your spawns even if it means being corrupted. Players will do it, because no one likes being griefed for hours on end. If some guy is constantly making your leveling experience hell, and is literally following you around the world (because there is no fast travel and he can do so), why wouldn't you kill him? You don't know that the party of greens around the area is with him or will even pay you any mind.
Linstead wrote: » If some guy is constantly making your leveling experience hell, and is literally following you around the world (because there is no fast travel and he can do so), why wouldn't you kill him? You don't know that the party of greens around the area is with him or will even pay you any mind.
Juk KO wrote: » 2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » Only corrupted players should be allowed to enter Thieve's guild! Yeah I said it. Only Combatants or Corrupted. No Greens.
Phlux wrote: » The design philosophy of AoC is straightforward. This a PvX not PvP or a PvE game. This means that all sides need to be relevant. PvE players far outnumber PvP players within the genre. They are the foundation that the game is built on but can’t change the world beyond the foundational states. PvP players are the drivers of the game. They make the systems evolve and change how the world is shaped. Both sides are needed to make the game feel alive. PvE only and the game will go stale or feel lifeless. PvP only and there will not be enough of a player base or positive community outlook for the game to feel alive and welcoming.
SSRogue wrote: » Linstead wrote: » If some guy is constantly making your leveling experience hell, and is literally following you around the world (because there is no fast travel and he can do so), why wouldn't you kill him? You don't know that the party of greens around the area is with him or will even pay you any mind. Ooooooo I never put a lot of thought into this but selling yourself out to guilds as a professional antagonist could be a good side hustle for a bad guy player. Also please be wary of Caeryl, this person doesn't seem interested in proper forum thread discussion. He/she just seems to want their input viewed as right, vs just trying to have a constructive conversation to grow a topic.
Caeryl wrote: » I’d have a discussion if everything put forth wasn’t exaggerated, wrong, or plain dishonest. I’m happy to concede points if they’re based on fact and logic, but I’m not budging when it’s just a handful of people who refuse to understand why the system functions like it does. When you see both “corruption is too punishing” and “corruption is not punishing enough” threads, then it seems like corruption is probably in a decent spot.
Copperfield wrote: » imo.. bounty system should work when there are corruption players. The thing with going corrupt imo.. there no benefits in doing so.. which makes me wonder if this bounty system will work in the current settings. Corruption players need to stuff do get or achieve for going corrupt. highly suggest quest's or pvp goals for corrupt players in order to keep things balanced
SSRogue wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » I’d have a discussion if everything put forth wasn’t exaggerated, wrong, or plain dishonest. I’m happy to concede points if they’re based on fact and logic, but I’m not budging when it’s just a handful of people who refuse to understand why the system functions like it does. When you see both “corruption is too punishing” and “corruption is not punishing enough” threads, then it seems like corruption is probably in a decent spot. You have the right to comment and the right to be apart of a thread but you have many rights to do many things that you shouldn't do just because you can. I am not in pve threads because those systems do not entertain me and I do not want to voice my opinions even though I read over many posts and have things to say. These threads that you are in right now are not discussing what we think the game is, we are discussing what we want the game to be. It is like when you talk about what you would do if you found a million dollars, will you ever just come across that? almost certainly not, but it is fun to talk about and make plans and have ideas. We are talking about ideas and ideas aren't factually unless they lead to something a dev sees and makes reality. So... is this a hard concept? I do not want to alienate opposing points of view, nor do I want to say do not reply ever again. I just want you to see why you are thinking we are posting such varying things and are base don current in-game facts. We are discussing the potential of change, the "what if" type conversation. This thread topic is about wanting to create a reason for bounty hunters because we feel that people wouldn't want to waste their time doing it. We want more reasons for people to be bounty hunters and therefore more reasons for people to be corrupted. Nobody is asking to reward griefing or the killing of lower-level players or incentivize the killing of unwilling participants. The current corruption system doesn't quite work in our heads for what we want. So we are discussing ways people can become corrupted and then be able to have fun killing other corrupted people and good guys trying to attack us because we are bad guys or bounty hunters whos job it is to hunt us bad guys. This is the entire point of this thread and it is not to tell us we are wrong because the corruption system isn't designed for this... we know ffs. So please take one step back and grasp the full intent of the thread topic and read all the posts and then see if this is a thread that you want to be a part of, because from where I stand I do not think it is. I think you are more focused on the game as it is without changing it and that is fine, but that is not this thread.
Caeryl wrote: » Some things are not reasonable requests because they go against the spirit of what Ashes of Creation is trying to be.
SSRogue wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Some things are not reasonable requests because they go against the spirit of what Ashes of Creation is trying to be. This isn't for you to decide! Again, you can have views but you can't tell us we are wrong because we are bringing up ideas about a game that isn't out and isn't finished and the devs are openly looking for community feedback and ideas. Even if Steven himself said something is a certain way, who knows what it will be 5 years down the road? Nobody is fighting you on this, you just are trying to defend the game as if we are attacking it. We just point out things we want to see or think would be fun or cool and interesting. So why do you feel the need to police this thread and a few others where you take such an offensive stand to tell others they are wrong when we aren't seeking fact checks? If someone asks clarification on something in-game as it is intended right now then you are the individual to look for. We aren't needing that here. This is hypothetical conversation and imaginative concepts for a dev to see and possibly think over or just for us to have fun wishing about.
Caeryl wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Some things are not reasonable requests because they go against the spirit of what Ashes of Creation is trying to be. This isn't for you to decide! Again, you can have views but you can't tell us we are wrong because we are bringing up ideas about a game that isn't out and isn't finished and the devs are openly looking for community feedback and ideas. Even if Steven himself said something is a certain way, who knows what it will be 5 years down the road? Nobody is fighting you on this, you just are trying to defend the game as if we are attacking it. We just point out things we want to see or think would be fun or cool and interesting. So why do you feel the need to police this thread and a few others where you take such an offensive stand to tell others they are wrong when we aren't seeking fact checks? If someone asks clarification on something in-game as it is intended right now then you are the individual to look for. We aren't needing that here. This is hypothetical conversation and imaginative concepts for a dev to see and possibly think over or just for us to have fun wishing about. I have not decided what is against the spirit of Ashes. The devs had. It’s not been a secret they intend Corruption to be the risk, not a reward. It is the penalty you have to weigh against the potential reward before you kill someone. It shouldn’t give you a one-up when you kill a Bounty Hunter, who you face on even stat ground with anyway. The system already will let you always get the full resource drop off greens, but that comes hand in hand with more corruption if your willing to risk it. Corruption has no direct effect on PvE, which is used to clear corruption. It has no effect against Bounty Hunters. It will not be a factor in large battles or sieges or caravans. It will not affect your group’s ability to clear a dungeon. It will not drop your gear after the first kill. So much pushback for the system comes from people misunderstanding how the penalties scale, and this is true for both sides of the argument. Someone killing 1 or 2 people will be treated very differently than someone killing 20 by the Corruption system. People still act like stat damps are exclusive to the corruption system too, for some reason? Experience debt will do the same thing for PvE and PvP combat, while Corruption-based stat damps only apply to PvP combat. Like yeah you want corruption to be easier to deal with, it already is as long as you’re not making a habit of killing greens.
GodsThesis wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » I’d have a discussion if everything put forth wasn’t exaggerated, wrong, or plain dishonest. I’m happy to concede points if they’re based on fact and logic, but I’m not budging when it’s just a handful of people who refuse to understand why the system functions like it does. When you see both “corruption is too punishing” and “corruption is not punishing enough” threads, then it seems like corruption is probably in a decent spot. You have the right to comment and the right to be apart of a thread but you have many rights to do many things that you shouldn't do just because you can. I am not in pve threads because those systems do not entertain me and I do not want to voice my opinions even though I read over many posts and have things to say. These threads that you are in right now are not discussing what we think the game is, we are discussing what we want the game to be. It is like when you talk about what you would do if you found a million dollars, will you ever just come across that? almost certainly not, but it is fun to talk about and make plans and have ideas. We are talking about ideas and ideas aren't factually unless they lead to something a dev sees and makes reality. So... is this a hard concept? I do not want to alienate opposing points of view, nor do I want to say do not reply ever again. I just want you to see why you are thinking we are posting such varying things and are base don current in-game facts. We are discussing the potential of change, the "what if" type conversation. This thread topic is about wanting to create a reason for bounty hunters because we feel that people wouldn't want to waste their time doing it. We want more reasons for people to be bounty hunters and therefore more reasons for people to be corrupted. Nobody is asking to reward griefing or the killing of lower-level players or incentivize the killing of unwilling participants. The current corruption system doesn't quite work in our heads for what we want. So we are discussing ways people can become corrupted and then be able to have fun killing other corrupted people and good guys trying to attack us because we are bad guys or bounty hunters whos job it is to hunt us bad guys. This is the entire point of this thread and it is not to tell us we are wrong because the corruption system isn't designed for this... we know ffs. So please take one step back and grasp the full intent of the thread topic and read all the posts and then see if this is a thread that you want to be a part of, because from where I stand I do not think it is. I think you are more focused on the game as it is without changing it and that is fine, but that is not this thread. I don't think you understand what a discussion is. A discussion naturally ranges from those for the idea and those against it. That is the actual full scope: some ideas are worth considering and talking about, some are not and should be disregarded immediately. If you think only those who want to want to build/ change up the original points is considered "constructively discussing," you are wrong. What you are actually trying to construct is an echo chamber. It's imperative that you realize this, despite hypocritically saying you want opposing views. People who disagree are not doing so because they are in bad faith, unworthy, or whatever maligned reasoning. They too have perspectives possibly worth considering. Your "concept" of whose worthy to speak is weak. Who decides who is worthy, knowledgeable enough, skilled, or w/e prerequisite when the system hasn't been fully revealed nor tested. In that case, none of us should be talking about it but here we are. Also, I am a believer in letting people freely speak to learn/ better themselves, even should it mean they considerably make a mistake or say something dumb. This isn't an academic forum peer-reviewing a decade long study.
