Neurath wrote: » Was going to link my toons to my forum signature for a change. Usually I keep them separate. Might request a forum name change to match my main though.
Galaturc wrote: » Simply put... if I don't experience corruption management and its challenges firsthand as a pirate or a caravan raider, I won't feel I played this game to its full extent...
Azherae wrote: » Galaturc wrote: » Simply put... if I don't experience corruption management and its challenges firsthand as a pirate or a caravan raider, I won't feel I played this game to its full extent... Unfortunately(?), as it stands (depending on your perception of pirate), you will not experience any corruption for this.
hleV wrote: » Indeed, if PKing for reasons other than those that the corruption system is intended to prevent (griefing, mass-murdering for fun) poses an unreasonable (IMO) risk of taking a precious item from you, then there's hardly a reason to stick around. At that point a PvP on/off flagging system does a better job because it removes the need to make decisions that can lose you precious gear and potentially have you quit the game. Now something like that may have worked a decade and a half ago, but now..? I have my doubts, people have way more alternatives now. I do have some faith in devs balancing it well enough in the end, though I don't think I've heard their current opinion about corruption as a whole, like whether they're still willing to have a small chance to extremely punish for even the lowest levels of corruption.
hleV wrote: » I do have some faith in devs balancing it well enough in the end, though I don't think I've heard their current opinion about corruption as a whole, like whether they're still willing to have a small chance to extremely punish for even the lowest levels of corruption.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » considering node sieges are a whole political declaration and resource thing (monthly allowance?) and with the whole flagging thing for non-combat and their handicap feature of not being abled to be cc'd with how cc works now and corruption, sounds like they kicked a bunch of pvp community members in the dick with those design changes (no not a ganking advocate). I imagine there will still be a good amount of pvp and wars but it sounds like they're putting a bunch of safety nets so players can just PvE more over PvP. But that's my opinion. Quite a turn off from the game for me.
unknownsystemerror wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » considering node sieges are a whole political declaration and resource thing (monthly allowance?) and with the whole flagging thing for non-combat and their handicap feature of not being abled to be cc'd with how cc works now and corruption, sounds like they kicked a bunch of pvp community members in the dick with those design changes (no not a ganking advocate). I imagine there will still be a good amount of pvp and wars but it sounds like they're putting a bunch of safety nets so players can just PvE more over PvP. But that's my opinion. Quite a turn off from the game for me. "Sanctioned" pvp systems like node sieges, guild wars, battlegrounds, arenas, open sea, and others (think the total is 9 or so dedicated pvp systems) are outside the flagging/corruption system. It is only those that get their kicks by killing others outside those systems that have a risk v reward to calculate.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Your reasoning doesn't do any justice to my perspective on the matter especially when you start adding up all the features for "safer" experience in the world. On their own, they sound great but when you start adding them all up, it does start to feel like a care bear system and design. Oh well lol it's just starting to sound quite less appealing. Could still be a good game for the demographic this appeals to.
NiKr wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Your reasoning doesn't do any justice to my perspective on the matter especially when you start adding up all the features for "safer" experience in the world. On their own, they sound great but when you start adding them all up, it does start to feel like a care bear system and design. Oh well lol it's just starting to sound quite less appealing. Could still be a good game for the demographic this appeals to. Carebearness of the game will highly depend on content design and how costly a war declaration will be. If content pretty much requires you to have a party at all (or at least most) times - you'll probably want to join a guild to have a semi-constant group of people to play with. If you're in a guild and farming something even semi-valuable - there's other people who want to do the same and will be willing to wardec your guild. At that point they'll be free to kill you at any point in any location w/o any penalties. Same goes for node wars, caravans (that you'll need to use if you want to transfer smth or play the market), open seas, sieges (that can be forced upon your node). Now if the content (at least the valuable one) does not require a party and/or guild war declarations cost a shitton of resources - now that would be a pretty good argument for the game being a carebear den. But both of those things will most likely get tuned and tested in later stages of alpha2, so it's hard to say either way.
Depraved wrote: » I'm not sure what you mean. the corruption system will prevent mass murder because the killer will die and lose his gear. that's the deterrent. mass murder is probably not the valid reason to go pk, even tho idc lol
unknownsystemerror wrote: »
hleV wrote: » And there you have it, 1 measly point of corruption and you risk losing months of progress via gear drop. Carebears must love this!
Niem Lumel wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » unknownsystemerror wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » considering node sieges are a whole political declaration and resource thing (monthly allowance?) and with the whole flagging thing for non-combat and their handicap feature of not being abled to be cc'd with how cc works now and corruption, sounds like they kicked a bunch of pvp community members in the dick with those design changes (no not a ganking advocate). I imagine there will still be a good amount of pvp and wars but it sounds like they're putting a bunch of safety nets so players can just PvE more over PvP. But that's my opinion. Quite a turn off from the game for me. "Sanctioned" pvp systems like node sieges, guild wars, battlegrounds, arenas, open sea, and others (think the total is 9 or so dedicated pvp systems) are outside the flagging/corruption system. It is only those that get their kicks by killing others outside those systems that have a risk v reward to calculate. Your reasoning doesn't do any justice to my perspective on the matter especially when you start adding up all the features for "safer" experience in the world. On their own, they sound great but when you start adding them all up, it does start to feel like a care bear system and design. Oh well lol it's just starting to sound quite less appealing. Could still be a good game for the demographic this appeals to. This makes no sense. Fighting over objectives is one of the best way to create a good PvP system. The corruption system is what enables this game to have open-world PvP in the long run. It is not needed in PvP events like castle and node sieges.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » unknownsystemerror wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » considering node sieges are a whole political declaration and resource thing (monthly allowance?) and with the whole flagging thing for non-combat and their handicap feature of not being abled to be cc'd with how cc works now and corruption, sounds like they kicked a bunch of pvp community members in the dick with those design changes (no not a ganking advocate). I imagine there will still be a good amount of pvp and wars but it sounds like they're putting a bunch of safety nets so players can just PvE more over PvP. But that's my opinion. Quite a turn off from the game for me. "Sanctioned" pvp systems like node sieges, guild wars, battlegrounds, arenas, open sea, and others (think the total is 9 or so dedicated pvp systems) are outside the flagging/corruption system. It is only those that get their kicks by killing others outside those systems that have a risk v reward to calculate. Your reasoning doesn't do any justice to my perspective on the matter especially when you start adding up all the features for "safer" experience in the world. On their own, they sound great but when you start adding them all up, it does start to feel like a care bear system and design. Oh well lol it's just starting to sound quite less appealing. Could still be a good game for the demographic this appeals to.
hleV wrote: » Depraved wrote: » I'm not sure what you mean. the corruption system will prevent mass murder because the killer will die and lose his gear. that's the deterrent. mass murder is probably not the valid reason to go pk, even tho idc lol No, that's the PK reasons the corruption system is SUPPOSED to prevent, but the way it's currently set out to be, it's going to prevent PKing for ANY reason, including the other guy being a troll, contesting resources YOU want, etc. unknownsystemerror wrote: » And there you have it, 1 measly point of corruption and you risk losing months of progress via gear drop. Carebears must love this!
Noaani wrote: » hleV wrote: » And there you have it, 1 measly point of corruption and you risk losing months of progress via gear drop. Carebears must love this! To be fair, if you have months of progression invested in to one gear slot, you probably dont need that farming spot.
hleV wrote: » Noaani wrote: » hleV wrote: » And there you have it, 1 measly point of corruption and you risk losing months of progress via gear drop. Carebears must love this! To be fair, if you have months of progression invested in to one gear slot, you probably dont need that farming spot. If you have nothing to say, then don't. An expensive gear piece should not be removed from you for something as trivial as low corruption
