2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » 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. Yes we are talking and trying to have constructive dialogue about a system that isn't yet fully flushed out, all voices should be heard on this subject. I admit I am coming at this topic from the view of a corrupted player, but the mischaracterization of all "bad guys" as griefers is ill informed, some bad guys like disrupting high end guilds and pvping with high geared players. Griefers killing low levels and pvers for the lulz is not the kind of stuff I'm fighting for.
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.
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: » 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.
GodsThesis wrote: » 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.
Neurath wrote: » How can you request reductions to penalties when we aren't clear what the current penalties are? We understand the theories but no specific stats have been revealed. I do not understand this obsession by some to counter-act the penalties put in place for inappropriate behaviour. IS does not want to encourage inappropriate behaviour, and, if the current penalties do not dissuade enough people then penalties could even be increased.
GodsThesis wrote: » 2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » 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. Yes we are talking and trying to have constructive dialogue about a system that isn't yet fully flushed out, all voices should be heard on this subject. I admit I am coming at this topic from the view of a corrupted player, but the mischaracterization of all "bad guys" as griefers is ill informed, some bad guys like disrupting high end guilds and pvping with high geared players. Griefers killing low levels and pvers for the lulz is not the kind of stuff I'm fighting for. Yeah man, that's cool I understand what yall's trying to do even though I disagree (said it in one of the 10 other threads). I think the perspective against it is something like this. Being a corrupted player is in itself already a niche population. Being a good-bad buy is even more niche. So changing the system to benefit the good-bad guy will naturally benefit the many more bad guys who will go farther with their choices. Something like... for every Punisher (the hero) there are a hundred criminals.
SSRogue wrote: » Conversation - a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged Argument - a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. So you see the is a fact and a thing you got incorrect. As for my topic in my thread and my statement, then everything stands because it is directly referring to the intent of the thread which is not subject to the fact-checking of current in-game systems. As stated, those of us interested in this thread are seeking constructive ideas on news systems or tweaks to the systems to bring out more player vs player scenarios while still holding a higher standard of common curtsey for individuals who wish to not participate in said pvp. Thusly any replies that are focus don tellin us that we are wrong, or we are going against the intent of the devs or that we do not understand the in-game systems are either A) confused on the threads subject or only want to argue and not have a conversation. So GodsThesis with all this being said, if you so desire a conversation about this thread's topic then please feel free to have thoughts for or against it withing the topic of the thread and bring into this conversation new ideas and thoughts. If you desire to only argue then I cannot stop you from trolling, or trying to have a dick measuring contest, but I can and will simply overlook you because you will have nothing of worth to say for this specific thread's topic. I do appreciate your time and I thank you for your input. I greatly apologize if in some weird and unknown way, I am completely unable to comprehend your honest interest in wanting to have a back and forth conversation about new ideas to add or tweak the current system. If this is the case then please present the ideas, but just as a reminder... we are well aware of the current system and we are quite understanding of the current ideal meta as it stands at this moment. We are discussing our thoughts beyond this.
2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » Neurath wrote: » How can you request reductions to penalties when we aren't clear what the current penalties are? We understand the theories but no specific stats have been revealed. I do not understand this obsession by some to counter-act the penalties put in place for inappropriate behaviour. IS does not want to encourage inappropriate behaviour, and, if the current penalties do not dissuade enough people then penalties could even be increased. I've been told there will be a 20% of dropping 1 piece of gear if u die with a large amount of corruption points, I suggested 3 or 4 pieces at 100% drop rate, definitely not a request to lessen punishments
Adlehyde wrote: » You also suggested that bounty hunters should be punished, and that corrupt players should only be punished if they die to a bounty hunter. You are presenting ideas to change the system to function in a way that gives people an incentive to play that way, which is antithetical to the entire function and reason the system will exist. SSrogue had a nice well spoken post just above, which could be summed up as essentially "Stop arguing with us if you don't agree with us." You guys are interested in changing a system the game is going to have to be a system completely contrary to the developer's vision for the game. I have to ask... what's the point guys? If it's just sort of spit balling for fun, that's one thing, but you gotta understand why people are pointing out that your ideas quite literally can't exist in the game right? DOn't get so defensive about it. Being a corrupted player is not going to be remotely rewarding. If you become corrupt, it's going to be something you did out of necessity, not because it is a playstyle. As a result, being a bounty hunter cannot be an effective playstyle either. You're just sort of going "I hear you... but what if it could be, by disregarding the vision of the game?" That's obviously going to annoy people. Coming up with ideas and posting them to share with others is fun. Coming up with ideas that have absolutely no hope of even tangentially being implemented is... pointless.
GodsThesis wrote: » Again, this thread falls under "discussion". I am not arguing with you. If you think that's what my post is an argument against you, you are looking at it too shortsightedly. I am saying the opposing viewpoints have something worth considering.
Adlehyde wrote: » Out of curiosity... how do you guys plan on becoming a corrupted player without griefing?
Adlehyde wrote: » I understand both of your points. I think that's fine, but at the same time, putting forth ideas that have a fundamental flaw, in the hopes a developer will address them.... to tell you about the flaw, when other people have already told you about the flaw... is meaningless. You both seem to agree that griefing is horrible, but fail to see that the only functional way to become a corrupt player is to be a griefer. I think you should start by addressing that part first.
SSRogue wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Again, this thread falls under "discussion". I am not arguing with you. If you think that's what my post is an argument against you, you are looking at it too shortsightedly. I am saying the opposing viewpoints have something worth considering. "There cannot be any reward for corruption if the system is to function as a deterrent, which is the intent and full reason why it is so punishing. The devs do not want players to have any benefit from being corrupted" This is what lead to the back and forth replies in which you came into by leaving a comment directed to me. In this, the poster of the first reply said information we know about that game and didn't ask to be informed us as we are talking about systems outside the current in-game mechanics. That lead to your comments and where we are now. So after reading everything again, not once did I see the "conversation" bring about an opposing idea, I only saw the original commenter saying we were wrong for ignoring what the intent of the game currently is. Both of you have since said that you do not mind out conversation topic but neither of you have contributed to it, you only point out how what we are saying isn't supported within the current system which yet again we know... So please contribute to the actual topic, you do not have to agree with it but if you insist on commenting then at least continue the conversation. It can be something to point how it may not work and it can be something to try and make it work but it absolutely is not based on it working as the game currently is at this moment. This topic is "We need good bad guys, a plea for a solid bounty hunter system" This thread is not about griefing, it is not about the mechanics as they exist right this moment and it isn't trying to fit the idea of this thread into the current system. This is about expanding the current game and thinking of a way to fit a better bounty system in it, how do we do it, how could it work?
Quin wrote: » The problem with a bounty system is that your punishing players for PvP Adding system like locking XP gain when your not flagging for PvP or Increase PvE loot when you toggle a PvP flag is the first step to get everyone into the PvP camp. Adding a Anti PK guild role so that less skilled players can work as a sort of "Sheriff" against Reds At this point people who like to PvP might be interested in joining a Sheriff guild because they get increased damage at the cost of less harvesting/PvE loot. To enhance a guild who takes on this roll they could be given contracts to guard players or an area so that all the correct PvP damage they rack up gives them a reward out of a Trust Fund. A contact could also be used to limit the amount of players an anti PvP guild is willing to bring into a fight by weakening their buffs when they leave an area or if they have too many players on the field. PvP in a MMO is always a numbers game so getting two sides as close to balanced as possible will create longer more interesting fights.
