Dygz wrote: » Increased challenge is not the same thing as increased risk. You seem to be trying to say something like: with greater rewards comes increased competition. Which is not what Steven said.
BaSkA13 wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » The ocean are not realy know form being popping with content even in archage u could be sailing around for an hour before you manage to get 1-2 minutes worth of content. Land generaly offers more content close together the ocean is rather vast and u can be out there for long time for little gameplay experience. Sorry but comparing Ashes to any other game has a 50% chance of being accurate and a 50% chance of being completely off. Even if ArcheAge is a "inspiration", it's a flawed game and Steven himself used to diss that game constantly and say how many bad design choices it had. I hope that, despite what they are "known for", the ocean is popping with PvE content because, like on land, that's what brings conflict and fun (PvP).
Veeshan wrote: » The ocean are not realy know form being popping with content even in archage u could be sailing around for an hour before you manage to get 1-2 minutes worth of content. Land generaly offers more content close together the ocean is rather vast and u can be out there for long time for little gameplay experience.
Dygz wrote: » Time is an investment, maybe, but not a risk - especially when there is no risk of Corruption and death penalties are cut in half.
mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Time is an investment, maybe, but not a risk - especially when there is no risk of Corruption and death penalties are cut in half. Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it. If the death penalty being reduce on the ocean is an issue then let's raise it, maybe it could be higher than it is on land.
Dygz wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Time is an investment, maybe, but not a risk - especially when there is no risk of Corruption and death penalties are cut in half. Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it. If the death penalty being reduce on the ocean is an issue then let's raise it, maybe it could be higher than it is on land. I don't know that it's an issue - it just doesn't jive with the international waters excuse.
mcstackerson wrote: » Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it.
NaughtyBrute wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it. There is some word gymnastics going on here. Risk is evaluated against the reward. Risk of corruption exists independently of whether you chose to risk it or not. You actually make your choice based on this risk. So, as Steven said in the past:
Iandriel wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » The risk for pvpers in the ocean is actually time tbh more than anything. The ocean are not realy know form being popping with content even in archage u could be sailing around for an hour before you manage to get 1-2 minutes worth of content. Land generaly offers more content close together the ocean is rather vast and u can be out there for long time for little gameplay experience. I mean... that's an interesting assumption... But, time is not a risk. Time is always a risk there nothing more valuable than time. if somone offers you a job for $10 and hour its not worth your time, farming mobs for gold is always calculated as gold per hour in games for a reason, Xp gain per hour everything comes back to time. Time is what makes the world go round if anything its the most valuable currency in the world when it comes down to it. I definitely think time combined with the chance of me losing a lot of my loot upon death, maybe even my presumably expensive ship, would deter me from venturing out there without significant insurance and if there’s not consequences like corruption; I feel like everyone will just be killing everyone else all the time, because of the added incentive that isn’t in other games. If there isn’t corruption out there, there should at the very least be a bounty system.
Veeshan wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » The risk for pvpers in the ocean is actually time tbh more than anything. The ocean are not realy know form being popping with content even in archage u could be sailing around for an hour before you manage to get 1-2 minutes worth of content. Land generaly offers more content close together the ocean is rather vast and u can be out there for long time for little gameplay experience. I mean... that's an interesting assumption... But, time is not a risk. Time is always a risk there nothing more valuable than time. if somone offers you a job for $10 and hour its not worth your time, farming mobs for gold is always calculated as gold per hour in games for a reason, Xp gain per hour everything comes back to time. Time is what makes the world go round if anything its the most valuable currency in the world when it comes down to it.
Dygz wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » The risk for pvpers in the ocean is actually time tbh more than anything. The ocean are not realy know form being popping with content even in archage u could be sailing around for an hour before you manage to get 1-2 minutes worth of content. Land generaly offers more content close together the ocean is rather vast and u can be out there for long time for little gameplay experience. I mean... that's an interesting assumption... But, time is not a risk.
Veeshan wrote: » The risk for pvpers in the ocean is actually time tbh more than anything. The ocean are not realy know form being popping with content even in archage u could be sailing around for an hour before you manage to get 1-2 minutes worth of content. Land generaly offers more content close together the ocean is rather vast and u can be out there for long time for little gameplay experience.
mcstackerson wrote: » NaughtyBrute wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it. There is some word gymnastics going on here. Risk is evaluated against the reward. Risk of corruption exists independently of whether you chose to risk it or not. You actually make your choice based on this risk. So, as Steven said in the past: You only have the risks associated with corruption if you have corruption. You only have corruption if you choose to kill a none-combatant. Just because you consider the risk vs the reward doesn't change the fact you will ultimately choose to take that risk.
NaughtyBrute wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » NaughtyBrute wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it. There is some word gymnastics going on here. Risk is evaluated against the reward. Risk of corruption exists independently of whether you chose to risk it or not. You actually make your choice based on this risk. So, as Steven said in the past: You only have the risks associated with corruption if you have corruption. You only have corruption if you choose to kill a none-combatant. Just because you consider the risk vs the reward doesn't change the fact you will ultimately choose to take that risk. I think we are talking about different things. When you say 'risk of corruption' do you mean the risk that comes after you gain corruption and as a red you are in more risk of getting attacked and losing items?
Azherae wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=499-V3-GB-c Peon explains a flaw in ArcheAge content-wise in this video (the creator himself will explain at the beginning, which timestamp to jump to). It is possible that for a certain segment of the population, that flaw will be fixed with this change.
mcstackerson wrote: » You only have the risks associated with corruption if you have corruption. You only have corruption if you choose to kill a none-combatant. Just because you consider the risk vs the reward doesn't change the fact you will ultimately choose to take that risk.
mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Time is an investment, maybe, but not a risk - especially when there is no risk of Corruption and death penalties are cut in half. Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it. If the death penalty being reduce on the ocean is an issue then let's raise it, maybe it could be higher than it is on land. I don't know that it's an issue - it just doesn't jive with the international waters excuse. Then lets raise it. Full loot, lets go!
mcstackerson wrote: » NaughtyBrute wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » NaughtyBrute wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it. There is some word gymnastics going on here. Risk is evaluated against the reward. Risk of corruption exists independently of whether you chose to risk it or not. You actually make your choice based on this risk. So, as Steven said in the past: You only have the risks associated with corruption if you have corruption. You only have corruption if you choose to kill a none-combatant. Just because you consider the risk vs the reward doesn't change the fact you will ultimately choose to take that risk. I think we are talking about different things. When you say 'risk of corruption' do you mean the risk that comes after you gain corruption and as a red you are in more risk of getting attacked and losing items? Yes, i'm talking about the risks associated with having corruption.
BaSkA13 wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Time is an investment, maybe, but not a risk - especially when there is no risk of Corruption and death penalties are cut in half. Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it. If the death penalty being reduce on the ocean is an issue then let's raise it, maybe it could be higher than it is on land. In my opinion saying that corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it is like saying the law isn't a "risk" unless you choose to break it. Obviously you might break the law unknowingly or by accident, but you can't become corrupted by accident, still I believe that the analogy stands. You are probably able to make that sentence make sense, but I believe there's another simpler explanation which is more logical: corruption is a deterrent against attacking other players, regardless if you'll do it or not, but it doesn't stop you from doing it. Is it good or is it bad? I don't know, but I don't think that's the topic of the current discussion. Regarding the idea of raising the death penalty, I believe that you didn't understand Dygz' point. He's talking about the fact that non-combatants lose twice as much as combatants, therefore it doesn't matter if you're an aggressor, a victim, fight back or not, a PvE or a PvP player, the death penalties will be cut in half. The fact is that the mechanic which takes care of how much loot is lost on a owPvP death was removed, so now all sorts of "problems" exist. mcstackerson wrote: » You only have the risks associated with corruption if you have corruption. You only have corruption if you choose to kill a none-combatant. Just because you consider the risk vs the reward doesn't change the fact you will ultimately choose to take that risk. Wait, what? Yeah, if corruption is removed from anywhere then the risks associated with it are also removed, that's the whole point of the debate: should they remove or should they not remove corruption from places? And, more importantly, why. I also think that there's some confusion going on, at least I'm getting confused by the wording (or mental gymnastics, not sure yet). You'll only become corrupted if you choose to kill a non-combatant: true. However, you will always be subject to the corruption system regardless if you are the aggressor or the victim and that ultimately adds risk to the open world PvP. The aggressor has the power to decide if they will turn purple and somewhat decide if they will turn red. The victim has the power to decide if they will turn or remain purple, remain green or turn the aggressor red by not fighting back. For that reason, because people have to consider the risk vs. reward when engaging in owPvP, the ocean has now lost a lot of its risk, because, as an aggressor, having the chance of losing gear is typically riskier and more dangerous than the certainty of losing resources on death. I believe that everything I said is logical and factual, however, I'm not stating that this will make naval gameplay better or worse, I just think that nobody is able to state that either.
Mag7spy wrote: » Iandriel wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » The risk for pvpers in the ocean is actually time tbh more than anything. The ocean are not realy know form being popping with content even in archage u could be sailing around for an hour before you manage to get 1-2 minutes worth of content. Land generaly offers more content close together the ocean is rather vast and u can be out there for long time for little gameplay experience. I mean... that's an interesting assumption... But, time is not a risk. Time is always a risk there nothing more valuable than time. if somone offers you a job for $10 and hour its not worth your time, farming mobs for gold is always calculated as gold per hour in games for a reason, Xp gain per hour everything comes back to time. Time is what makes the world go round if anything its the most valuable currency in the world when it comes down to it. I definitely think time combined with the chance of me losing a lot of my loot upon death, maybe even my presumably expensive ship, would deter me from venturing out there without significant insurance and if there’s not consequences like corruption; I feel like everyone will just be killing everyone else all the time, because of the added incentive that isn’t in other games. If there isn’t corruption out there, there should at the very least be a bounty system. What so you mean you do drop loot on death already.
