Dygz wrote: » People who don't want to PvP should not be in an "open PvP zone". People who refuse to PvP will very likely die if someone in an "open PvP zone" chooses to kill them. Yes.
Dygz wrote: » No. An Open PvP Zone might colloquially be referred to as "risk" of PvP for those who don't want to PvP. But, that's not "risk". That is choice. People who don't want to PvP should not be in an "open PvP zone". People who refuse to PvP will very likely die if someone in an "open PvP zone" chooses to kill them. Yes. The person chose to go into the PvP zone. The person chose not to fight back. If the person chooses to fight back, they might not die. Not wanting to PvP is not the same thing as sucking at PvP. But, if you refuse to fight in a PvP zone, you are very likely to die...sure.
Mag7spy wrote: » Less draw back = More PvP = more chance to die and lose your mats = more risk That is fine if you are losing half the amount or whatever they decide, the chance of dying out there is higher with the amount of people willing to PvP so it helps balance that out. Increased corruption does not inherently mean more deaths either. If they have no death penalty than there wouldn't be more risk, you just suicide and go to land. (but now we are making too many assumptions, i dont see they doing that as their goal.) You are well aware that corruption is a deterrent to PvP that is why you needed to test it to see if it would be strong enough. That deterrent being strong enough should stop pvp from being as active on the water (even more so if you can make someone red by having them kill a lower level member on your boat). Meaning if the goal with corruption is to lower the amount of pvp it would effectively do that on the ocean causing less risk if people wouldn't deem the punishment worth to kill a green.
Lethality wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Less draw back = More PvP = more chance to die and lose your mats = more risk That is fine if you are losing half the amount or whatever they decide, the chance of dying out there is higher with the amount of people willing to PvP so it helps balance that out. Increased corruption does not inherently mean more deaths either. If they have no death penalty than there wouldn't be more risk, you just suicide and go to land. (but now we are making too many assumptions, i dont see they doing that as their goal.) You are well aware that corruption is a deterrent to PvP that is why you needed to test it to see if it would be strong enough. That deterrent being strong enough should stop pvp from being as active on the water (even more so if you can make someone red by having them kill a lower level member on your boat). Meaning if the goal with corruption is to lower the amount of pvp it would effectively do that on the ocean causing less risk if people wouldn't deem the punishment worth to kill a green. What's the risk for the attacker?
Mag7spy wrote: » Lethality wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Less draw back = More PvP = more chance to die and lose your mats = more risk That is fine if you are losing half the amount or whatever they decide, the chance of dying out there is higher with the amount of people willing to PvP so it helps balance that out. Increased corruption does not inherently mean more deaths either. If they have no death penalty than there wouldn't be more risk, you just suicide and go to land. (but now we are making too many assumptions, i dont see they doing that as their goal.) You are well aware that corruption is a deterrent to PvP that is why you needed to test it to see if it would be strong enough. That deterrent being strong enough should stop pvp from being as active on the water (even more so if you can make someone red by having them kill a lower level member on your boat). Meaning if the goal with corruption is to lower the amount of pvp it would effectively do that on the ocean causing less risk if people wouldn't deem the punishment worth to kill a green. What's the risk for the attacker? The risk is PvP and losing what you have from any player on the sea. TH same person that is attacking can be a defending next. The fact you are looking at attacks and defending being different is also wrong, you are all players, and their is a much higher risk of PvP meaning it is naturally more difficult to get all the loot you have and any other gameplay concepts they have. If you are trying to insinuate there needs to be punishment for pvp, you are simply saying you want less pvp which equals less risk.
Lethality wrote: » What's the risk for the attacker?
Liniker wrote: » Okeydoke wrote: » What was the suggestion? Territorial corruption? Or faster resource respawn rate in areas where pvp is happening? I watched the video, just not sure what suggestion you're referring to. both, but specially the corruption thing that you lose standing with your node to kind of "protect" players inside their ZOIs with less chances of ganking by fellow node citizens
Okeydoke wrote: » What was the suggestion? Territorial corruption? Or faster resource respawn rate in areas where pvp is happening? I watched the video, just not sure what suggestion you're referring to.
Liniker wrote: » Dying (??) this isn't Archeage where someone will insta kill you, everyone has a chance of fighting back the time to kill is 30 seconds to a minute and gear represents 40% of your overall power
Liniker wrote: » High risk, high reward, the open sea change was one of the best possible changes Intrepid made, now, we know that on the open seas we will have unique NPCs and rewards, but the best gear and materials that are legendary tier only drop from legendary world bosses, because of that, I would love to see the area around the legendary world bosses being open pvp zones as well, so people can't abuse the corruption system and rely on that to try to do the legendary world bosses without the risk of being killed by other Guilds the corruption system is amazing but it should be used only for it's intended purpose: deter ganking and PKing in the open world where there is nothing to gain, I feel like Legendary World bosses fall under the same ruleset as the open seas, and because of that I would love to see this change. I feel like similar to the open seas, this would help to protect the PvErs in the game, by alleviating the need for gankers to PK random people, since now they have the oceans and they would also have the open world bosses areas to PK, and this would make the content even more challenging, and reducing the number of people that have access to Legendary gear, making it actually Legendary and not the "endgame" set that every guild can obtain.
Warth wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Lethality wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Less draw back = More PvP = more chance to die and lose your mats = more risk That is fine if you are losing half the amount or whatever they decide, the chance of dying out there is higher with the amount of people willing to PvP so it helps balance that out. Increased corruption does not inherently mean more deaths either. If they have no death penalty than there wouldn't be more risk, you just suicide and go to land. (but now we are making too many assumptions, i dont see they doing that as their goal.) You are well aware that corruption is a deterrent to PvP that is why you needed to test it to see if it would be strong enough. That deterrent being strong enough should stop pvp from being as active on the water (even more so if you can make someone red by having them kill a lower level member on your boat). Meaning if the goal with corruption is to lower the amount of pvp it would effectively do that on the ocean causing less risk if people wouldn't deem the punishment worth to kill a green. What's the risk for the attacker? The risk is PvP and losing what you have from any player on the sea. TH same person that is attacking can be a defending next. The fact you are looking at attacks and defending being different is also wrong, you are all players, and their is a much higher risk of PvP meaning it is naturally more difficult to get all the loot you have and any other gameplay concepts they have. If you are trying to insinuate there needs to be punishment for pvp, you are simply saying you want less pvp which equals less risk. @Mag7spy PvE Carebear wills never see that points my friend. They see themselves as perpetual victims as they wont/will rarely be the ones attacking. They will never admit to it, even if they are open minded enough to see the point you are making (and the point Intrepid is clearly pushing), as that would go against the agenda they have been trying to push for a very long time. Trying to talk logic in an emotional argument will never serve any results. It will merely extend this thread (where everything has been said already) forever, same as the DPS Meter one.
Dolyem wrote: » Just stopping in to say risking dying more often even at reduced penalties still equates to greater risk if the chances of you dying multiple times are greater than in the area where you'd receive higher penalties though less likelihood of being killed by other players, in other words less dying, less risk.
Strevi wrote: » If a team defeats a World Boss and gets legendary mats, will other teams let them leave peacefully?
JustVine wrote: » Strevi wrote: » If a team defeats a World Boss and gets legendary mats, will other teams let them leave peacefully? This is true both on land and sea. Corruption isn't going to stop people trying to get those. Just makes it a little more strategic.
Volgaris wrote: » Lets just not have corruption. FFA PVP! Find your side! Bend the knee! Pay tribute to live and play the game! It's been sooo successful with every other game that's done it! Trust no one! Paranoia is true when they are really after you!
