Noaani wrote: » So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest. Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum. The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this. If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort. Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding. If you come across someone that does this, you have three options. 1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way. 2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption. 3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there. Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic.
Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest. Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum. The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this. If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort. Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding. If you come across someone that does this, you have three options. 1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way. 2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption. 3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there. Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic. Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution...
Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest. Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum. The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this. If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort. Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding. If you come across someone that does this, you have three options. 1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way. 2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption. 3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there. Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic. Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution... People putting in serious effort to gain some system based protection is not an exploit. As to your point about gear being destroyed rather than dropped on corrupt death, PvP is Ashes way of redistributing gear, destroying it goes against that. Gear dropping is less a penalty for the corrupt player, and more of a reward for the attacker.
Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest. Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum. The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this. If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort. Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding. If you come across someone that does this, you have three options. 1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way. 2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption. 3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there. Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic. Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution... People putting in serious effort to gain some system based protection is not an exploit. As to your point about gear being destroyed rather than dropped on corrupt death, PvP is Ashes way of redistributing gear, destroying it goes against that. Gear dropping is less a penalty for the corrupt player, and more of a reward for the attacker. If the action is meant to be a system based protection system sure. But if it is not designed specifically for that reason, thats a potential exploit. And yes, you can still provide a reward for players such as materials or currency. But at the same time causing a punishment for the corrupted player while preventing another possible exploit is just a good idea. Or should we just say "nah its fine" and just ignore possible exploits to the systems we are being presented with?
CROW3 wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Logging in is consenting to PvP. This. Full stop.
bloodprophet wrote: » Logging in is consenting to PvP.
Dygz wrote: » If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP.
bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that. I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules. Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. Logging in is consenting to PvP.
Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that. I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules. Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
Norkore wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that. I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules.
SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that.
CROW3 wrote: » Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged. This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing. Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r. Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty.
Okeydoke wrote: » Dygz wrote: » If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP. That's just the risk vs reward system's implementation into the corruption system. There are rewards for killing non combatants too. Double the loot. More risk, more reward. That is your choice to stay a non combatant and requires your consent. More broadly, by logging in, you consent to the rules of the game and thus whatever pvp the game allows. One of the best red herrings I've ever seen before though.
CROW3 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP. Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged. This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing. Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r. Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty.
SirChancelot wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP. Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged. This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing. Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r. Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty. My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green.
SirChancelot wrote: » My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green.
Dygz wrote: » LMAO It's not really double the loot.
Okeydoke wrote: » The loot you get killing a non combatant instead of a combatant is exactly double. No more, no less, precisely double, according to the wiki. That is the reward for killing a non combatant - the loot, and whatever other goals the killer had for killing him.
Okeydoke wrote: » And then there's the risks, 4x death penalties, stat dampening etc. That is the ying and the yang of the risk vs reward system. And everyone has choices to make in these situations.
Okeydoke wrote: » None of that has anything to do with it though. That's just the risk vs reward and corruption system.
Okeydoke wrote: » No one's saying that IN game you're going to consent to every time you're killed. The most uber leet pvper in the world is going to be killed when they don't want to be sometimes. But by playing the game you consent to the game, it's systems and it's rules. By logic a 7 year old can understand, you are consenting to all potential pvp scenarios. Because you have a choice to play or not to play. Your choice to play is your consent.
The reason why mobas and fps don't have a corruption system is because that's all those games are about is killing people. Ashes isn't just about killing people.
Dygz wrote: » Okeydoke wrote: » The loot you get killing a non combatant instead of a combatant is exactly double. No more, no less, precisely double, according to the wiki. That is the reward for killing a non combatant - the loot, and whatever other goals the killer had for killing him. The loot a non-combatant drops when killed is normal the death penalty loot. So someone who kills and loots a non-combatant receives the normal amount of loot. Someone who kills a combatant recieves half the normal amount of loot. The reward for killing and looting a non-combatant is the normal amount of loot. (Assuming the attacker grabs all of the dropped loot.).
Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that. I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules. Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. Logging in is consenting to PvP. Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology.
