Feedback: We love the open sea PvP change - now, what about open PvP zones for World Bosses?

Liniker wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

It’s designed to prevent this in excess. This is the function of corruption that we’ll be testing and assisting the devs to appropriately calibrate during A2.

For the general open world PK sure, but i was referring to Legendary world bosses, which has one of the Best rewards in the game... the reward is way to high for corruption to deter any kind of PK whatsoever, it will do nothing besides being annoying, but zergs will 100% dominate and PK other people during that particular content, that's why I don't see the point in having corruption there

ofc you are correct when it comes down to the general open world, completely different case when it comes down to PKing a random gatherer in the open world

I bet ones who like to repeatedly gank low level players find corruption to be an annoyance too.

So I think world bosses should be multi group/guild pve content where you work together. I don't think there is other content like that, or I haven't heard of it. You will be rewarded on contribution and the equipment drops can be distributed not only to the #1 contributor, but they will have a higher chance of getting it. The chance will be weighted in favor of the higher contributors, but lower contributors can still get it. Besides the equipment, there will still be other rewards/drops that gets distributed to the higher contributors.

You COULD still kill everyone and take it all yourself, but you will be corrupted and other guilds will hate you.

Liniker

Rando88 wrote: »

So I think world bosses should be multi group/guild pve content where you work together. I don't think there is other content like that, or I haven't heard of it. You will be rewarded on contribution and the equipment drops can be distributed not only to the #1 contributor, but they will have a higher chance of getting it. The chance will be weighted in favor of the higher contributors, but lower contributors can still get it. Besides the equipment, there will still be other rewards/drops that gets distributed to the higher contributors.

this isn't Final Fantasy 14...

Liniker wrote: »

Rando88 wrote: »

So I think world bosses should be multi group/guild pve content where you work together. I don't think there is other content like that, or I haven't heard of it. You will be rewarded on contribution and the equipment drops can be distributed not only to the #1 contributor, but they will have a higher chance of getting it. The chance will be weighted in favor of the higher contributors, but lower contributors can still get it. Besides the equipment, there will still be other rewards/drops that gets distributed to the higher contributors.

this isn't Final Fantasy 14...

I've never played that game. I still like the idea.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

Just to correct the original post, ‘we’ do not agree that it’s a good change. It’s a highly inconsistent change. With no basis for why.

It is a great change, they added more areas and have them more towards the pvp side

How so? This has nothing to do with "more PvP".

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rando88 wrote: »

If you think about it though, having corruption enabled makes more sense for high risk/reward in this case. If you really want the world boss you can just all get corrupted killing the other guilds trying to get the boss. What you're asking for is less risk for large established guilds. It's like lobbying the government to benefit your corporation while screwing the small businesses.

PVE brain, no it is not more risk, less people will just pvp. Corruption is made to prevent that.

No, this offers NO risk for the deviant behavior that the Corruption system was supposed to manage. You can now kill without any risk. So, obviously there should be no reward of this either, right?

This will either change back, or the Corruption system will need to be removed entire because it does not work as they were hoping.

Liniker

Lethality wrote: »

No, this offers NO risk for the deviant behavior that the Corruption system was supposed to manage. You can now kill without any risk. So, obviously there should be no reward of this either, right?

Wrong, I, many others, and most importantly, the game's director disagree with you, the changes bring More PvP which equals to More risk, so we are getting higher rewards because of that.

Liniker wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

No, this offers NO risk for the deviant behavior that the Corruption system was supposed to manage. You can now kill without any risk. So, obviously there should be no reward of this either, right?

Wrong, I, many others, and most importantly, the game's director disagree with you, the changes bring More PvP which equals to More risk, so we are getting higher rewards because of that.

There is no basis on which to assume this will bring "more PvP"

The only thing we OBJECTIVELY know, is there will be no risk for killing without cause anymore.

The game director can come in here and dispute that if he wants

Because they offered no rationale for this change at all, and in fact it just undermines the idea that the Corruption system as designed works *at all*. By removing it here, it admits that... because the entire reason it exists is to prevent the behavior above whole KEEPING risk/reward in tact.

Liniker

Lethality wrote: »

The game director can come in here and dispute that if he wants

lol imagine being this entitled... I'm not even gonna bother replying to your nonsense.

a person that says a game removing the punishment system for PK in a zone, doesn't mean we will have more PvP in that zone because theres no basis to assume that.... is already braindead.

Lethality wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

Just to correct the original post, ‘we’ do not agree that it’s a good change. It’s a highly inconsistent change. With no basis for why.

It is a great change, they added more areas and have them more towards the pvp side

How so? This has nothing to do with "more PvP".

I can tell you aren't a pvper, it has everything to do with more PvP. Corruption has everything to do with reducing pvp, the reason for you wanting that is so people won't attack you.

Lethality wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rando88 wrote: »

If you think about it though, having corruption enabled makes more sense for high risk/reward in this case. If you really want the world boss you can just all get corrupted killing the other guilds trying to get the boss. What you're asking for is less risk for large established guilds. It's like lobbying the government to benefit your corporation while screwing the small businesses.

PVE brain, no it is not more risk, less people will just pvp. Corruption is made to prevent that.

No, this offers NO risk for the deviant behavior that the Corruption system was supposed to manage. You can now kill without any risk. So, obviously there should be no reward of this either, right?

This will either change back, or the Corruption system will need to be removed entire because it does not work as they were hoping.

Actual PvE brain your response to his shows there is rick because you know people will attack you. It has nothing to do with risk you want deterrent from people attacking you and are masking it behind "risk". More players willing to PvP = more danger = more risk

Corruption = punishment = reduced PvP

PvP = more danger = risk (corruption causing reduced PvP) = less risk.

All you are yelling about again is you want to punish people attacking you, because you realize the risk that will be out there for you.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

Just to correct the original post, ‘we’ do not agree that it’s a good change. It’s a highly inconsistent change. With no basis for why.

It is a great change, they added more areas and have them more towards the pvp side

How so? This has nothing to do with "more PvP".

I can tell you aren't a pvper, it has everything to do with more PvP. Corruption has everything to do with reducing pvp, the reason for you wanting that is so people won't attack you.

So you think the people who don't want to fight now suddenly will want to fight?

Again the only objective fact we have is that this removes risk for players that want to grief.

That's it.

This means LESS PvP.

But, I always forget, you're not actually looking for a fight. You're looking for players to steamroll without consequences, which is what this allows.

If the Corruption system was working as it was intended, there would be no reason to remove it from the oceans because it was designed specifically to allow this kind of play but WITH RISK attached. Now, no risk.

This change will either need to revert, or the Corruption system removed entirely.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rando88 wrote: »

If you think about it though, having corruption enabled makes more sense for high risk/reward in this case. If you really want the world boss you can just all get corrupted killing the other guilds trying to get the boss. What you're asking for is less risk for large established guilds. It's like lobbying the government to benefit your corporation while screwing the small businesses.

PVE brain, no it is not more risk, less people will just pvp. Corruption is made to prevent that.

No, this offers NO risk for the deviant behavior that the Corruption system was supposed to manage. You can now kill without any risk. So, obviously there should be no reward of this either, right?

This will either change back, or the Corruption system will need to be removed entire because it does not work as they were hoping.

Actual PvE brain your response to his shows there is rick because you know people will attack you. It has nothing to do with risk you want deterrent from people attacking you and are masking it behind "risk". More players willing to PvP = more danger = more risk

Corruption = punishment = reduced PvP

PvP = more danger = risk (corruption causing reduced PvP) = less risk.

All you are yelling about again is you want to punish people attacking you, because you realize the risk that will be out there for you.

You're not getting more PvP with this... actual fact. You'll have no more people that are looking for a fight than you did before. Another fact.

All this does is remove the risk for YOU to attack. That's not even PvP. That's griefing when your only interest is preventing someone from playing.

Again, removing the Corruption system removes the risk for the attacker.

There's no debate to be had around this.

There is no rationale they've given about why this change was made, there was no play testing... and likewise, there's no reason to remove Corruption from "some" of the game... if there is, then there is reason to remove it entirely.

Lethality wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

Just to correct the original post, ‘we’ do not agree that it’s a good change. It’s a highly inconsistent change. With no basis for why.

It is a great change, they added more areas and have them more towards the pvp side

How so? This has nothing to do with "more PvP".

I can tell you aren't a pvper, it has everything to do with more PvP. Corruption has everything to do with reducing pvp, the reason for you wanting that is so people won't attack you.

So you think the people who don't want to fight now suddenly will want to fight?

Again the only objective fact we have is that this removes risk for players that want to grief.

That's it.

This means LESS PvP.

But, I always forget, you're not actually looking for a fight. You're looking for players to steamroll without consequences, which is what this allows.

If the Corruption system was working as it was intended, there would be no reason to remove it from the oceans because it was designed specifically to allow this kind of play but WITH RISK attached. Now, no risk.

This change will either need to revert, or the Corruption system removed entirely.

Welcome to more PvP if you are trying to do content on the ocean there is risk from any player. No one is getting griefed everyone is a combatant, and there is enough shoreline to go where every you want to go.

No it means more PvP because you will be fighting back or running knowing the risk of conflict.

If you can't handle the content and are not strong enough don't do it simple as that, welcome to PvP the hardest content in the game. You try to dress the words up with griefing and steamrolling, get gud and work with a group and you won't get streamrolled.

Corruption words as intended limiting the pvp by severely punishing people who kill non flagged players. It allows nodes to progress without it being a free for all in land that is more limited and your main source of content in the game.

Stop trying to compare the added sea areas as being the same as land content when you can't compare the two together for reasons for corruption. You have a giant ass ocean and that isn't mandatory for you to be out there as it isn't going to stop your progress. Nor are you spawning in town and seeing someone you the gate ready to kill you making it so you can't do anything.

At the end of the day you aren't even remotely a pvper clearly if you think anyone that kills you is griefing, this is a PvX game you can't avoid pvp including on land. People can kill you without corruption already. You crying about the "added" sea content is already a red flag, I don't think you relize fully that PvP is a big focus for AoC as well. This is your wake up call.

Warth

Lethality wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rando88 wrote: »

If you think about it though, having corruption enabled makes more sense for high risk/reward in this case. If you really want the world boss you can just all get corrupted killing the other guilds trying to get the boss. What you're asking for is less risk for large established guilds. It's like lobbying the government to benefit your corporation while screwing the small businesses.

PVE brain, no it is not more risk, less people will just pvp. Corruption is made to prevent that.

No, this offers NO risk for the deviant behavior that the Corruption system was supposed to manage. You can now kill without any risk. So, obviously there should be no reward of this either, right?

This will either change back, or the Corruption system will need to be removed entire because it does not work as they were hoping.

Actual PvE brain your response to his shows there is rick because you know people will attack you. It has nothing to do with risk you want deterrent from people attacking you and are masking it behind "risk". More players willing to PvP = more danger = more risk

Corruption = punishment = reduced PvP

PvP = more danger = risk (corruption causing reduced PvP) = less risk.

All you are yelling about again is you want to punish people attacking you, because you realize the risk that will be out there for you.

You're not getting more PvP with this... actual fact. You'll have no more people that are looking for a fight than you did before. Another fact.

All this does is remove the risk for YOU to attack. That's not even PvP. That's griefing when your only interest is preventing someone from playing.

Again, removing the Corruption system removes the risk for the attacker.

There's no debate to be had around this.

There is no rationale they've given about why this change was made, there was no play testing... and likewise, there's no reason to remove Corruption from "some" of the game... if there is, then there is reason to remove it entirely.

Corruption exists to prevent senseless attacking of others.
By removing the corruption, you inevitably will get more attacks and hence inevitably increase the risk of being attacked by anyone you may come across.
As you have said yourself, the risk in attacking is lower, which will directly facilitate more people being attacked and hence increase the risk (of being attacked) and reduce the chance of making it out alive with that loot as its more likely that you will die.

Arguing, that this wont be the case in order to voice your support for the corruption mechanic is asinine at best: You argue that the removal of corruption doesnt increase the likelihood of players attacking other players. If that was true (which it is not), then corruption wouldnt serve a purpose in the first place.

Intrepid clearly sees corruption as a tool to discourage mindless attacking of others in the open world.
They do not apply it to caravans, because they dont want potential raiders to be discouraged from attacking a caravan and obtaining the resources.
They do not apply it to the open sea, because they dont want players to be discouraged from attacking other ships and contest the resources present in the open ocean.

With this being said, i disagree with the notion, that we need open pvp zones around world bosses.

Liniker wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

No, this offers NO risk for the deviant behavior that the Corruption system was supposed to manage. You can now kill without any risk. So, obviously there should be no reward of this either, right?

Wrong, I, many others, and most importantly, the game's director disagree with you, the changes bring More PvP which equals to More risk, so we are getting higher rewards because of that.

Use all the mental gymnastics you want

"Corruption is just another word for risk.[15] – Steven Sharif"

Do you know how many times the word risk is used on the wiki page for corruption?

Dygz

If it's likely you will die from one hit - sure, being attacked more often means you will probably die more often.

Rando88 wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

No, this offers NO risk for the deviant behavior that the Corruption system was supposed to manage. You can now kill without any risk. So, obviously there should be no reward of this either, right?

Wrong, I, many others, and most importantly, the game's director disagree with you, the changes bring More PvP which equals to More risk, so we are getting higher rewards because of that.

Use all the mental gymnastics you want

"Corruption is just another word for risk.[15] – Steven Sharif"

Do you know how many times the word risk is used on the wiki page for corruption?

Nice cherry picking quotes, what about the ones about open sea flagging.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rando88 wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

No, this offers NO risk for the deviant behavior that the Corruption system was supposed to manage. You can now kill without any risk. So, obviously there should be no reward of this either, right?

Wrong, I, many others, and most importantly, the game's director disagree with you, the changes bring More PvP which equals to More risk, so we are getting higher rewards because of that.

Use all the mental gymnastics you want

"Corruption is just another word for risk.[15] – Steven Sharif"

Do you know how many times the word risk is used on the wiki page for corruption?

Nice cherry picking quotes, what about the ones about open sea flagging.

It's not cherry picking. Where did he say otherwise? I didnt see it. I agree with the open sea change.

Really the question is risk for who?