Corruption system in relation to auto-flagging in open sea

Dygz wrote: »

I consider PvX to have people flagged as Non-Combatant by default at the very least... and probably also include Corruption.
Otherwise, it's literally a flag proclaiming you're in the area to fight.
And it's not possible to flag to indicate you are there for PvE.

Your consideration of PvX is wrong.
@Dolyem I gave my contribution on the first page of the second "oceans" topic.
Come on...

George_Black wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

I consider PvX to have people flagged as Non-Combatant by default at the very least... and probably also include Corruption.
Otherwise, it's literally a flag proclaiming you're in the area to fight.
And it's not possible to flag to indicate you are there for PvE.

Your consideration of PvX is wrong.
@Dolyem I gave my contribution on the first page of the second "oceans" topic.
Come on...

yes, but your most recent comments are just jabs at people. Just contribute to the conversation instead of being negative everytime @Dygz says something even if you disagree with it. I am not a fan of many things he has said but I still think he has every right to give input. The best thing you can do is give reasoning as to why you think what he says is incorrect, while not making it personal

Dygz

George_Black wrote: »

Your consideration of PvX is wrong.

LMAO
Yeah, didn't you say that PvX is just another way of saying PvP.

Dygz wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Your consideration of PvX is wrong.

LMAO
Yeah, didn't you say that PvX is just another way of saying PvP.

Am I supposed to give reasoning for this?
@Dolyem

George_Black wrote: »

Am I supposed to give reasoning for this?

You could state what your opinion is of the difference between a PvP MMO and a PvX MMO.

Noaani wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Am I supposed to give reasoning for this?

You could state what your opinion is of the difference between a PvP MMO and a PvX MMO.

I did. First page of this original thread. I even explained as to why it may be difficult to have the PK system work when there is cannons, sails, ship hauls and players involved and how hitting a ship with a cannonball and how the announced change is a good thing for the flow if naval combats.

George_Black wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Am I supposed to give reasoning for this?

You could state what your opinion is of the difference between a PvP MMO and a PvX MMO.

I did. First page of this original thread. I even explained as to why it may be difficult to have the PK system work when there is cannons, sails, ship hauls and players involved and how hitting a ship with a cannonball and how the announced change is a good thing for the flow if naval combats.

Cool, so you repost it.

If someone is questioning you in regards to something you feel you have already stated, don't just assume that the person in question has read everything you have written. This is ESPECIALLY true if you are talking about a different thread.

We keep telling newcomers "search the forums before xyz..." yet I can see how, with all the answers burried after fluff and endless pages of irrelevant stuff, newcomers may as well just ignore the search button.

Carry on, recycle the same back and forth. Im done with Dygzs thread and his definitions and sense of betrayal by the devs in regards to the games designs.

George_Black wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Your consideration of PvX is wrong.

LMAO
Yeah, didn't you say that PvX is just another way of saying PvP.

Am I supposed to give reasoning for this?
@Dolyem

If I recall it all started because you shot him down when he said he disagreed with the decision and was going to not play the game. But at this point you both look silly for the public back n forth jabs. Take it to your DMs. As for contributing to the discussion... Exclusively PVP has no world progression. Its entirely based on combat between players, having nothing to do with gathering, crafting, killing NPCs, etc. The only exceptions being those things in an objective event where those things are required to win a match between teams of players under specific winning conditions.
A PvX game requires you to do all sorts of PVE content to progress in game, while contending with other players also fighting for that content. Your participation in several events that could be considered PVE, or PVP, or both are all required, such as fighting over a world boss against a rival guild, attacking a competing node, escorting caravans, finishing content within a node to help progress it, taking materials from a neighboring node to diminish it. And so on.
In comparison, a PVE only game has zero direct player character conflict.

Dygz

Yeah, that would basically be an MMOFPS.
I’m not aware of any MMORPG with PvP that doesn’t have both PvP and PvE.
If you play WoW on a PvP server, that may as well be PvX by that definition.

Doesn’t sound like the Open Seas does much for world progression.

George_Black wrote: »

We keep telling newcomers "search the forums before xyz..."

Yeah, for entire threads on topics - not for an individual posters thoughts on a topic.

Dolyem wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Your consideration of PvX is wrong.

LMAO
Yeah, didn't you say that PvX is just another way of saying PvP.

Am I supposed to give reasoning for this?
@Dolyem

If I recall it all started because you shot him down when he said he disagreed with the decision and was going to not play the game. But at this point you both look silly for the public back n forth jabs. Take it to your DMs. As for contributing to the discussion... Exclusively PVP has no world progression. Its entirely based on combat between players, having nothing to do with gathering, crafting, killing NPCs, etc. The only exceptions being those things in an objective event where those things are required to win a match between teams of players under specific winning conditions.
A PvX game requires you to do all sorts of PVE content to progress in game, while contending with other players also fighting for that content. Your participation in several events that could be considered PVE, or PVP, or both are all required, such as fighting over a world boss against a rival guild, attacking a competing node, escorting caravans, finishing content within a node to help progress it, taking materials from a neighboring node to diminish it. And so on.
In comparison, a PVE only game has zero direct player character conflict.

I have a slightly different expectation of both PvP and PvX.

By your definition, most FPS games would be PvX as there are usually things like weapons or health packs you can pick up (which can be considered gathering). By this definition, a capture the flag match is PvX, as the flag is a part of the environment.

While you may argue that I am picking extreme examples, I am still picking examples that fit in with your above definition - which is why I personally think it isn't a great definition (you may, that's fine).

Based on that, a PvP game, to me, is where all activities are subject to PvP. Sure, there may be a world boss, but if that world boss is going to be killed by who ever PvP's best, then that world boss is PvP content. Players will put an emphasis on PvP, because if you don't win at PvP, you don't win at anything.

To me, a PvX game is one where players put equal (or near equal) emphasis on the PvP and PvE aspects of the game. As such, players need times to focus on PvP, and they also need times to focus on PvE.

If you always need to focus at least somewhat on PvP, then your game is PvP.

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Your consideration of PvX is wrong.

LMAO
Yeah, didn't you say that PvX is just another way of saying PvP.

Am I supposed to give reasoning for this?
@Dolyem

If I recall it all started because you shot him down when he said he disagreed with the decision and was going to not play the game. But at this point you both look silly for the public back n forth jabs. Take it to your DMs. As for contributing to the discussion... Exclusively PVP has no world progression. Its entirely based on combat between players, having nothing to do with gathering, crafting, killing NPCs, etc. The only exceptions being those things in an objective event where those things are required to win a match between teams of players under specific winning conditions.
A PvX game requires you to do all sorts of PVE content to progress in game, while contending with other players also fighting for that content. Your participation in several events that could be considered PVE, or PVP, or both are all required, such as fighting over a world boss against a rival guild, attacking a competing node, escorting caravans, finishing content within a node to help progress it, taking materials from a neighboring node to diminish it. And so on.
In comparison, a PVE only game has zero direct player character conflict.

I have a slightly different expectation of both PvP and PvX.

By your definition, most FPS games would be PvX as there are usually things like weapons or health packs you can pick up (which can be considered gathering). By this definition, a capture the flag match is PvX, as the flag is a part of the environment.

While you may argue that I am picking extreme examples, I am still picking examples that fit in with your above definition - which is why I personally think it isn't a great definition (you may, that's fine).

Based on that, a PvP game, to me, is where all activities are subject to PvP. Sure, there may be a world boss, but if that world boss is going to be killed by who ever PvP's best, then that world boss is PvP content. Players will put an emphasis on PvP, because if you don't win at PvP, you don't win at anything.

To me, a PvX game is one where players put equal (or near equal) emphasis on the PvP and PvE aspects of the game. As such, players need times to focus on PvP, and they also need times to focus on PvE.

If you always need to focus at least somewhat on PvP, then your game is PvP.

I actually addressed that with my exception
The only exceptions being those things in an objective event where those things are required to win a match between teams of players under specific winning conditions. at its heart, those things are designed in that way to defeat other players.

And honestly I don't really disagree with you, but for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game. The goal is to keep the playing field as level as possible when PvP occurs, in other words no P2W. I do agree and want a mostly balanced game of PVE and PVP. And with the corruption system on land, and no corruption at sea, while most of the core systems are on land, I honestly think this is pretty balanced and will consider it that until we all get to test it. And if it is way too PVP oriented to the point where it doesnt even feel like PVE is manageable I will support a change in it, but I really dont think its going to be as insane as everyone is making it out to be.

Dolyem wrote: »

for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.

Indeed - which makes it PvP.

To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.

Indeed - which makes it PvP.

To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.

I think the corruption system as designed is quite good at balancing out the worlds of unchecked pvp and one that makes people think twice