Azherae wrote: » "Your Bad Omen Feeling Intensifies." We now seem to be 'well it's your mistake for not thinking the game might not be for you in the first place, and clearly the goal is to have some free for all areas, you could just not play in those'. I see the implication here as 'but you should play anyway, it's not a big deal'. But some PvE players, and at least the PvP players I know personally, have seen this in other games and it usually amounts to just the 'wolf and sheep' thing. Because in the end, some people prefer their danger and challenge to primarily come from PvE content. And if you say 'the world is supposed to feel dangerous' but then go 'so we have increased the PvP content', those people have no recourse. AI plays fair, people don't, and I'm not talking about power gaps. If an AI starts to do something contrary to 'general reason' that is somehow annoying (not even necessarily effective), a PvE player complains, or flags it as a bug. If a human starts to do something 'contrary to general reason' that is somehow annoying (again, not necessarily effective), the PvE player can't be sure it will or won't continue. Some people say 'just adapt', but the stronger option is just better because most PvP opponents are not fun. The stronger option being the one chosen. "Just don't play". That's the core here. If you can't grasp why Dygz doesn't play on servers with autoflag PvP zones, one big potential reason is because games like that get more of a certain annoying type of player in their population. My fighting game experience applies in this case only because it's the psychology of players that applies, not the mechanics. In those games if I get into a match where my opponent's entire goal is to annoy and negate any option I have, even if I win I lose so I stop fighting. I can 'leave altogether'. Some of those people will invite me back, sometimes I'll go back because I think their intention is 'Ok ok I'll stop'. 8 out of 10 times it isn't. They're so dedicated to just being annoying that they do this anyway. So from my end, PvP heavy games aren't unappealing because of the threat of people killing me. They're unappealing because people are annoying, often instead of actually fighting. Ashes explicitly has no defenses against people being annoying in their owPvP as it is. To me, this would be a big deal. This may not apply to any of you talking now, but I know you know they exist. The most appealing thing about a strongly designed PvX game for me was the idea that the 'person who plays just to annoy' would not even want to play. I feel like that's been eroded now, but I'm not sure, so I'll await the 'reassurances'. Corruption wasn't even going to resolve this in 1v1, and if I start fighting and start winning but then keep being pinged or 'harassed' by an opponent who now flees, every time I flag Combatant I have removed any chance they have corruption. I've looked into ArcheAge, and am doing so more and more from this. It's not the same as playing it, but it's certainly not showing up any good points so far. I'm already thinking about how the 'attacking a ship in coastal waters from Open Sea' and 'moving in and out of open sea or neutral waters quickly' mechanics will work in Ashes (I expect they will be fine, but expectation isn't a strong factor around here at the moment)tl;dr People suck and this change makes more of the worst people more willing to play this game.
Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "Your Bad Omen Feeling Intensifies." We now seem to be 'well it's your mistake for not thinking the game might not be for you in the first place, and clearly the goal is to have some free for all areas, you could just not play in those'. I see the implication here as 'but you should play anyway, it's not a big deal'. But some PvE players, and at least the PvP players I know personally, have seen this in other games and it usually amounts to just the 'wolf and sheep' thing. Because in the end, some people prefer their danger and challenge to primarily come from PvE content. And if you say 'the world is supposed to feel dangerous' but then go 'so we have increased the PvP content', those people have no recourse. AI plays fair, people don't, and I'm not talking about power gaps. If an AI starts to do something contrary to 'general reason' that is somehow annoying (not even necessarily effective), a PvE player complains, or flags it as a bug. If a human starts to do something 'contrary to general reason' that is somehow annoying (again, not necessarily effective), the PvE player can't be sure it will or won't continue. Some people say 'just adapt', but the stronger option is just better because most PvP opponents are not fun. The stronger option being the one chosen. "Just don't play". That's the core here. If you can't grasp why Dygz doesn't play on servers with autoflag PvP zones, one big potential reason is because games like that get more of a certain annoying type of player in their population. My fighting game experience applies in this case only because it's the psychology of players that applies, not the mechanics. In those games if I get into a match where my opponent's entire goal is to annoy and negate any option I have, even if I win I lose so I stop fighting. I can 'leave altogether'. Some of those people will invite me back, sometimes I'll go back because I think their intention is 'Ok ok I'll stop'. 8 out of 10 times it isn't. They're so dedicated to just being annoying that they do this anyway. So from my end, PvP heavy games aren't unappealing because of the threat of people killing me. They're unappealing because people are annoying, often instead of actually fighting. Ashes explicitly has no defenses against people being annoying in their owPvP as it is. To me, this would be a big deal. This may not apply to any of you talking now, but I know you know they exist. The most appealing thing about a strongly designed PvX game for me was the idea that the 'person who plays just to annoy' would not even want to play. I feel like that's been eroded now, but I'm not sure, so I'll await the 'reassurances'. Corruption wasn't even going to resolve this in 1v1, and if I start fighting and start winning but then keep being pinged or 'harassed' by an opponent who now flees, every time I flag Combatant I have removed any chance they have corruption. I've looked into ArcheAge, and am doing so more and more from this. It's not the same as playing it, but it's certainly not showing up any good points so far. I'm already thinking about how the 'attacking a ship in coastal waters from Open Sea' and 'moving in and out of open sea or neutral waters quickly' mechanics will work in Ashes (I expect they will be fine, but expectation isn't a strong factor around here at the moment)tl;dr People suck and this change makes more of the worst people more willing to play this game. This is entirely an opinion. I have fun trying to outsmart and beat those people
Dolyem wrote: » Lethality wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Lethality wrote: » If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea. Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions. They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time! So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change? Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones. Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that? Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea? Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
Lethality wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Lethality wrote: » If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea. Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions. They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time! So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change? Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones. Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that? Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
mcstackerson wrote: » Lethality wrote: » If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea. Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
Lethality wrote: » If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Azherae wrote: » Oh yes, I am sure you do.
Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk.
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Lethality wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Lethality wrote: » If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea. Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions. They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time! So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change? Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones. Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that? Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea? Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic? For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so. But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing. Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all?
Lethality wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Lethality wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Lethality wrote: » If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea. Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions. They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time! So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change? Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones. Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that? Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea? Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic? If the corruption system was working at what it was designed to do, there'd be no reason to remove it. Further, there's no way to come to this conclusion without actual play tests. To our knowledge, there has not been any. Which means this design --- which has been in place for at least 5 public years -- changed based on recent "thoughts" about it - not data. So it's not going to be "more PvP". only "more" ganking from players who will no longer be deterred by potential Corruption. In other words, no increased risk for them - only increased rewards. Or worse, NO rewards, just unchecked freedom. Again, the issue I have is with consistency. I would like to hear from Steven and the dev team, because right now, the pieces just don't add up. There could be a VERY good reason for this, but I need to hear it before I can buy in.
Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Lethality wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Lethality wrote: » If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea. Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions. They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time! So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change? Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones. Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that? Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea? Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic? For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so. But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing. Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not). Corruption is not meant to prevent pvp, it is meant to limit it. So it is not broken if you are simply allowing more pvp in a designated area. Node zones are limited and lawful, oceans are lawless.
Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all? Because that isn't PVX
Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all? Because that isn't PVX How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp?
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Lethality wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Lethality wrote: » If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea. Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions. They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time! So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change? Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones. Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that? Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea? Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic? For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so. But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing. Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not). Corruption is not meant to prevent pvp, it is meant to limit it. So it is not broken if you are simply allowing more pvp in a designated area. Node zones are limited and lawful, oceans are lawless. I did not say it has the intent to prevent PvP, I said it may have the effect. Therefore, if one want to increase PvP activity one may come to the conclusion that removing it is doing just that. Otherwise you could just keep it, if it has no affect on PvP activity.
Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Oh yes, I am sure you do. I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee!
Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Oh yes, I am sure you do. I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee! Except that I am now also considering not playing. And if enough of 'me' and 'Dygz' don't play, there's no circle anymore.
Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Lethality wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Lethality wrote: » If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea. Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions. They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time! So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change? Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones. Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that? Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea? Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic? For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so. But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing. Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not). Corruption is not meant to prevent pvp, it is meant to limit it. So it is not broken if you are simply allowing more pvp in a designated area. Node zones are limited and lawful, oceans are lawless. I did not say it has the intent to prevent PvP, I said it may have the effect. Therefore, if one want to increase PvP activity one may come to the conclusion that removing it is doing just that. Otherwise you could just keep it, if it has no affect on PvP activity. I mean a limit is an affect, and the limit is there for a reason. Just as not having a limit in open ocean has a reason. Order and disorder. Your land zone are where all of the systems are located, so they may require the corruption to function properly. The open ocean doesn't have those systems so it may not require the limiter
