Dolyem wrote: » 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. And while that is regrettable, not all like you will quit. And if it helps any, despite my bloodthirsty outlook for PVP, I would be willing to have yall play and make sure you don't have to deal with as much open pvp as possible. I want you guys to have fun, and by pvping for you guys I think that sounds fun to me as well
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: » 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: » Oh yes, I am sure you do.
Gelfzin wrote: » So basically this makes the Oceans "Guild Only". No solo or small group content as your life expectancy is nil due to gankers. As a balance, not only should Corruption be active, the local coastal nodes should have AI patrol ships (guards) to police the area within 10 km off their shores to give some safety to solo and small group explorers.
Dolyem wrote: » 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? No PvP is just PVE. Autoflagged PVP in a PVE zone with PVE incentives is 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?
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: » 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?
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: » 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 For me, the only relevant goal of the corruption system is prevent griefing. That limit is also required on the ocean. At leat that is my view and I am not willing to move on that. If you have way to remove the side effect of limiting PvP activity as a whole, I am all ears. I have no problem with removing that if the rest still works.
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
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: » 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.
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).
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.
Mag7spy 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 system is broken you are looking at this with bias and you are going to be running in a circle as you are trying to force things to look from a singular perspective. You need to realize on land and ocean game play loops are going to be different. Yes there will be threats on the ocean but that isn't going to be as well crafted on content on the land. You are simply going to be in a large ocean with a different kind of gameplay loop for that kind of content. You are making huge assumptions of the corruption system it is very effective for what it does, but it isn't going to prevent war declarations and people able to kill you and camp you. It is only failing if you are having a misunderstanding of the overall gameplay involving PvP and thinking you can simply and only be a pve player. If you continue to think i am a PvE players you are not, you are a PvX players as that is what AoC is. PvP is part of the game as well as PvE.
Mag7spy wrote: » 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. And there are tons of other people that will playing in your stead. People from my own guild get more interested and love hearing more types of content into the game.
Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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. And while that is regrettable, not all like you will quit. And if it helps any, despite my bloodthirsty outlook for PVP, I would be willing to have yall play and make sure you don't have to deal with as much open pvp as possible. I want you guys to have fun, and by pvping for you guys I think that sounds fun to me as well I'm not saying that you should stop supporting a change that makes the game better for you. I'm saying that you should consider what level of changes are capable of making the game better for 'no one' by bringing the population of willing players too low for it to sustain itself. It's not like this never happens. In the precise situation given, we are looking at 'a change that we don't see a reason for which may reduce the population of players to sustain the game'. Even just demographics wise, there are less 'of you' than there are 'of Dygz' and probably less 'of you' than they are 'of me'. So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Mag7spy 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 system is broken you are looking at this with bias and you are going to be running in a circle as you are trying to force things to look from a singular perspective. You need to realize on land and ocean game play loops are going to be different. Yes there will be threats on the ocean but that isn't going to be as well crafted on content on the land. You are simply going to be in a large ocean with a different kind of gameplay loop for that kind of content. You are making huge assumptions of the corruption system it is very effective for what it does, but it isn't going to prevent war declarations and people able to kill you and camp you. It is only failing if you are having a misunderstanding of the overall gameplay involving PvP and thinking you can simply and only be a pve player. If you continue to think i am a PvE players you are not, you are a PvX players as that is what AoC is. PvP is part of the game as well as PvE. I think you are wrong. This may be a PvX game, but very, very many players will still be to a very high degree PvE or PvP players. Players gravitate to a playstyle. And in my experience those that gravitate to PvP are more likely to also enjoy PvE than players that gravitate to PvE are enjoying PvP gameplay.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » 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. And there are tons of other people that will playing in your stead. People from my own guild get more interested and love hearing more types of content into the game. As you know, I never believe a word you say. At this point I don't think I even believe you actually have a guild.
Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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? No PvP is just PVE. Autoflagged PVP in a PVE zone with PVE incentives is PVX I understand that if what I was saying is make an entire server pve. But that's not what I'm asking about. How does having mostly middle ground with corruption with two areas for the opposite poles of ffa pvp and no pvp not still leave Ashes as a whole a pvx game? Why does either side have to have all or nothing? Ashes should be about balance if it is going to succeed in bringing these two very different populations together. I'm still playing either way.
Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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. And while that is regrettable, not all like you will quit. And if it helps any, despite my bloodthirsty outlook for PVP, I would be willing to have yall play and make sure you don't have to deal with as much open pvp as possible. I want you guys to have fun, and by pvping for you guys I think that sounds fun to me as well I'm not saying that you should stop supporting a change that makes the game better for you. I'm saying that you should consider what level of changes are capable of making the game better for 'no one' by bringing the population of willing players too low for it to sustain itself. It's not like this never happens. In the precise situation given, we are looking at 'a change that we don't see a reason for which may reduce the population of players to sustain the game'. Even just demographics wise, there are less 'of you' than there are 'of Dygz' and probably less 'of you' than they are 'of me'. So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it? That depends entirely on the studios goal. If they are trying to maintain a population of millions of players like wow, it's likely not as beneficial. But if they aren't worried with how many play and simply want to make the game they want to play, even if that means having only a couple servers, then the change is completely fine. And honestly, most games that failed in this way did so because they didn't provide ANY safety for PVEers. But at least with this game, you get to be safe where the core systems are utilized and can choose if you want to venture into the zone which you dislike or not.
Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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. And while that is regrettable, not all like you will quit. And if it helps any, despite my bloodthirsty outlook for PVP, I would be willing to have yall play and make sure you don't have to deal with as much open pvp as possible. I want you guys to have fun, and by pvping for you guys I think that sounds fun to me as well I'm not saying that you should stop supporting a change that makes the game better for you. I'm saying that you should consider what level of changes are capable of making the game better for 'no one' by bringing the population of willing players too low for it to sustain itself. It's not like this never happens. In the precise situation given, we are looking at 'a change that we don't see a reason for which may reduce the population of players to sustain the game'. Even just demographics wise, there are less 'of you' than there are 'of Dygz' and probably less 'of you' than they are 'of me'. So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it? That depends entirely on the studios goal. If they are trying to maintain a population of millions of players like wow, it's likely not as beneficial. But if they aren't worried with how many play and simply want to make the game they want to play, even if that means having only a couple servers, then the change is completely fine. And honestly, most games that failed in this way did so because they didn't provide ANY safety for PVEers. But at least with this game, you get to be safe where the core systems are utilized and can choose if you want to venture into the zone which you dislike or not. And I agree with this completely. That's why I asked somewhere earlier if Steven was actually trying to make a 'bigger than ArcheAge' game or not. If Intrepid isn't aiming that high, then it's a non-issue. The approach taken to those who disagree with this decision is correct. There's not much point in 'letting those people think that they will enjoy Ashes' and then they leave and everything looks like it is failing. Stable population is important. I'm simply pointing out to anyone who didn't understand the potential reasoning. If the response is 'well don't play then', that's great, no sarcasm at all. I just wanted to make sure that the 'don't play then' wasn't based on 'you're not interested in PvP so don't play' and closer to 'You don't want to be annoyed by a higher population of griefer-minds, so don't play' (in your case, you find those people to be good content and I don't, as example).
Azherae wrote: » So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it? I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call. There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid. There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?
mcstackerson wrote: » There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid.
mcstackerson wrote: » There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it? I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call. There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid. There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised? I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'? Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three. I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding? I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness?
