Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The reason for this statement is blatantly clear to anyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of the corruption system in Ashes (obviously Abarat lacks one of these) Aha. Now we are getting somewhere. I will deal with the brain issue. Can you, @Noaani , please enlighten me to your valuable basic knowledge of the corruption system which gives you such a strong and absolute understanding that the system will fail? Specifically? I looked up the word 'specific' for you... i am not sure that is a word you are familiar with based upon your responses so far. Specific: precise detail; clearly defined or identified for example... "the cost of a freehold is time and organization" is not specific That is what I am asking for. I am guessing you will again answer in cryptic, nebulous generalities that have almost no basis in fact, but, lets take another shot. I think you're imagining that Noaani said the system will fail.
Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The reason for this statement is blatantly clear to anyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of the corruption system in Ashes (obviously Abarat lacks one of these) Aha. Now we are getting somewhere. I will deal with the brain issue. Can you, @Noaani , please enlighten me to your valuable basic knowledge of the corruption system which gives you such a strong and absolute understanding that the system will fail? Specifically? I looked up the word 'specific' for you... i am not sure that is a word you are familiar with based upon your responses so far. Specific: precise detail; clearly defined or identified for example... "the cost of a freehold is time and organization" is not specific That is what I am asking for. I am guessing you will again answer in cryptic, nebulous generalities that have almost no basis in fact, but, lets take another shot.
Noaani wrote: » The reason for this statement is blatantly clear to anyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of the corruption system in Ashes (obviously Abarat lacks one of these)
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The reason for this statement is blatantly clear to anyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of the corruption system in Ashes (obviously Abarat lacks one of these) Aha. Now we are getting somewhere. I will deal with the brain issue. Can you, @Noaani , please enlighten me to your valuable basic knowledge of the corruption system which gives you such a strong and absolute understanding that the system will fail? Specifically? I looked up the word 'specific' for you... i am not sure that is a word you are familiar with based upon your responses so far. Specific: precise detail; clearly defined or identified for example... "the cost of a freehold is time and organization" is not specific That is what I am asking for. I am guessing you will again answer in cryptic, nebulous generalities that have almost no basis in fact, but, lets take another shot. I think you're imagining that Noaani said the system will fail. If attacking a player does not affect a players care of gaining corruption and worry of consequences between that and dying than you can start to have discussion where the system is failing. PvP isn't you attack someone a few times and stop or a one sided fight with someone watching you hit them.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The reason for this statement is blatantly clear to anyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of the corruption system in Ashes (obviously Abarat lacks one of these) Aha. Now we are getting somewhere. I will deal with the brain issue. Can you, @Noaani , please enlighten me to your valuable basic knowledge of the corruption system which gives you such a strong and absolute understanding that the system will fail? Specifically? I looked up the word 'specific' for you... i am not sure that is a word you are familiar with based upon your responses so far. Specific: precise detail; clearly defined or identified for example... "the cost of a freehold is time and organization" is not specific That is what I am asking for. I am guessing you will again answer in cryptic, nebulous generalities that have almost no basis in fact, but, lets take another shot. I think you're imagining that Noaani said the system will fail. If attacking a player does not affect a players care of gaining corruption and worry of consequences between that and dying than you can start to have discussion where the system is failing. PvP isn't you attack someone a few times and stop or a one sided fight with someone watching you hit them. Uh... yes. I think.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The reason for this statement is blatantly clear to anyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of the corruption system in Ashes (obviously Abarat lacks one of these) Aha. Now we are getting somewhere. I will deal with the brain issue. Can you, @Noaani , please enlighten me to your valuable basic knowledge of the corruption system which gives you such a strong and absolute understanding that the system will fail? Specifically? I looked up the word 'specific' for you... i am not sure that is a word you are familiar with based upon your responses so far. Specific: precise detail; clearly defined or identified for example... "the cost of a freehold is time and organization" is not specific That is what I am asking for. I am guessing you will again answer in cryptic, nebulous generalities that have almost no basis in fact, but, lets take another shot. I think you're imagining that Noaani said the system will fail. If attacking a player does not affect a players care of gaining corruption and worry of consequences between that and dying than you can start to have discussion where the system is failing. PvP isn't you attack someone a few times and stop or a one sided fight with someone watching you hit them. Uh... yes. I think. If general normal player has 0 interest in killing you because of not wanting to be corrupt would you say that corruption would be a deterrent affecting the gameplay around pvp towards a player they had decided they wouldn't kill? If there is no fear, worry or care than you can say the system could be failing if the normal player (Not weird outlier types) are not deterred by the thought of corruption and consequences from it and leading towards it.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The reason for this statement is blatantly clear to anyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of the corruption system in Ashes (obviously Abarat lacks one of these) Aha. Now we are getting somewhere. I will deal with the brain issue. Can you, @Noaani , please enlighten me to your valuable basic knowledge of the corruption system which gives you such a strong and absolute understanding that the system will fail? Specifically? I looked up the word 'specific' for you... i am not sure that is a word you are familiar with based upon your responses so far. Specific: precise detail; clearly defined or identified for example... "the cost of a freehold is time and organization" is not specific That is what I am asking for. I am guessing you will again answer in cryptic, nebulous generalities that have almost no basis in fact, but, lets take another shot. I think you're imagining that Noaani said the system will fail. If attacking a player does not affect a players care of gaining corruption and worry of consequences between that and dying than you can start to have discussion where the system is failing. PvP isn't you attack someone a few times and stop or a one sided fight with someone watching you hit them. Uh... yes. I think. If general normal player has 0 interest in killing you because of not wanting to be corrupt would you say that corruption would be a deterrent affecting the gameplay around pvp towards a player they had decided they wouldn't kill? If there is no fear, worry or care than you can say the system could be failing if the normal player (Not weird outlier types) are not deterred by the thought of corruption and consequences from it and leading towards it. I don't think intent to kill was brought up in this discussion exactly before now so... I feel like that's a different discussion. You've made some points. On this note I understand Dygz's posting style way better now so I thank you for that.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The reason for this statement is blatantly clear to anyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of the corruption system in Ashes (obviously Abarat lacks one of these) Aha. Now we are getting somewhere. I will deal with the brain issue. Can you, @Noaani , please enlighten me to your valuable basic knowledge of the corruption system which gives you such a strong and absolute understanding that the system will fail? Specifically? I looked up the word 'specific' for you... i am not sure that is a word you are familiar with based upon your responses so far. Specific: precise detail; clearly defined or identified for example... "the cost of a freehold is time and organization" is not specific That is what I am asking for. I am guessing you will again answer in cryptic, nebulous generalities that have almost no basis in fact, but, lets take another shot. I think you're imagining that Noaani said the system will fail. If attacking a player does not affect a players care of gaining corruption and worry of consequences between that and dying than you can start to have discussion where the system is failing. PvP isn't you attack someone a few times and stop or a one sided fight with someone watching you hit them. Uh... yes. I think. If general normal player has 0 interest in killing you because of not wanting to be corrupt would you say that corruption would be a deterrent affecting the gameplay around pvp towards a player they had decided they wouldn't kill? If there is no fear, worry or care than you can say the system could be failing if the normal player (Not weird outlier types) are not deterred by the thought of corruption and consequences from it and leading towards it. I don't think intent to kill was brought up in this discussion exactly before now so... I feel like that's a different discussion. You've made some points. On this note I understand Dygz's posting style way better now so I thank you for that. Its not but all things need to be considered during PvP, the point of pvp is to kill the other player. If you remove the desire to kill a player there is going to be a impact that leads up to the steps and mind set of a player towards that. And therefore has an effect, less care and motivation means less friction. IF that causes a person to test waters and attack someone a few times than stop, I don't consider that pvp. The whole idea trying to downplay the corruption system is the goal here, If it was brought up as people will go purple and fight, sure i agree with that. Though corruption is still affecting their motivation to different degrees and hence having an impact.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The reason for this statement is blatantly clear to anyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of the corruption system in Ashes (obviously Abarat lacks one of these) Aha. Now we are getting somewhere. I will deal with the brain issue. Can you, @Noaani , please enlighten me to your valuable basic knowledge of the corruption system which gives you such a strong and absolute understanding that the system will fail? Specifically? I looked up the word 'specific' for you... i am not sure that is a word you are familiar with based upon your responses so far. Specific: precise detail; clearly defined or identified for example... "the cost of a freehold is time and organization" is not specific That is what I am asking for. I am guessing you will again answer in cryptic, nebulous generalities that have almost no basis in fact, but, lets take another shot. I think you're imagining that Noaani said the system will fail. If attacking a player does not affect a players care of gaining corruption and worry of consequences between that and dying than you can start to have discussion where the system is failing. PvP isn't you attack someone a few times and stop or a one sided fight with someone watching you hit them. Uh... yes. I think. If general normal player has 0 interest in killing you because of not wanting to be corrupt would you say that corruption would be a deterrent affecting the gameplay around pvp towards a player they had decided they wouldn't kill? If there is no fear, worry or care than you can say the system could be failing if the normal player (Not weird outlier types) are not deterred by the thought of corruption and consequences from it and leading towards it. I don't think intent to kill was brought up in this discussion exactly before now so... I feel like that's a different discussion. You've made some points. On this note I understand Dygz's posting style way better now so I thank you for that. Its not but all things need to be considered during PvP, the point of pvp is to kill the other player. If you remove the desire to kill a player there is going to be a impact that leads up to the steps and mind set of a player towards that. And therefore has an effect, less care and motivation means less friction. IF that causes a person to test waters and attack someone a few times than stop, I don't consider that pvp. The whole idea trying to downplay the corruption system is the goal here, If it was brought up as people will go purple and fight, sure i agree with that. Though corruption is still affecting their motivation to different degrees and hence having an impact. Are you saying that Abarat is trying to downplay the corruption system? I'm fairly sure that's not what is happening.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The reason for this statement is blatantly clear to anyone with a brain and a basic knowledge of the corruption system in Ashes (obviously Abarat lacks one of these) Aha. Now we are getting somewhere. I will deal with the brain issue. Can you, @Noaani , please enlighten me to your valuable basic knowledge of the corruption system which gives you such a strong and absolute understanding that the system will fail? Specifically? I looked up the word 'specific' for you... i am not sure that is a word you are familiar with based upon your responses so far. Specific: precise detail; clearly defined or identified for example... "the cost of a freehold is time and organization" is not specific That is what I am asking for. I am guessing you will again answer in cryptic, nebulous generalities that have almost no basis in fact, but, lets take another shot. I think you're imagining that Noaani said the system will fail. If attacking a player does not affect a players care of gaining corruption and worry of consequences between that and dying than you can start to have discussion where the system is failing. PvP isn't you attack someone a few times and stop or a one sided fight with someone watching you hit them. Uh... yes. I think. If general normal player has 0 interest in killing you because of not wanting to be corrupt would you say that corruption would be a deterrent affecting the gameplay around pvp towards a player they had decided they wouldn't kill? If there is no fear, worry or care than you can say the system could be failing if the normal player (Not weird outlier types) are not deterred by the thought of corruption and consequences from it and leading towards it. I don't think intent to kill was brought up in this discussion exactly before now so... I feel like that's a different discussion. You've made some points. On this note I understand Dygz's posting style way better now so I thank you for that. Its not but all things need to be considered during PvP, the point of pvp is to kill the other player. If you remove the desire to kill a player there is going to be a impact that leads up to the steps and mind set of a player towards that. And therefore has an effect, less care and motivation means less friction. IF that causes a person to test waters and attack someone a few times than stop, I don't consider that pvp. The whole idea trying to downplay the corruption system is the goal here, If it was brought up as people will go purple and fight, sure i agree with that. Though corruption is still affecting their motivation to different degrees and hence having an impact. Are you saying that Abarat is trying to downplay the corruption system? I'm fairly sure that's not what is happening. ? The point is corruption is a deterrent for pvp.
rocsek wrote: » I spent a good bit of time in Lineage 2. A mix of solo, duo and group play. After the first few weeks I rarely saw players willing to turn red, and that system was relaxed compared to what Ashes sounds like. The majority of the time it was a PK alt that stayed red just to grief and mess with lower level players. Second to that were the enforcers for RMT groups.
Azherae wrote: » I think you're imagining that Noaani said the system will fail.
rocsek wrote: » I spent a good bit of time in Lineage 2. A mix of solo, duo and group play. After the first few weeks I rarely saw players willing to turn red, and that system was relaxed compared to what Ashes sounds like. The majority of the time it was a PK alt that stayed red just to grief and mess with lower level players. Second to that were the enforcers for RMT groups. They would come in and try to force you out of a grind area for their workers. Last were a few people here and there trying to get some solo PvP going, and most of them didn't go red very much. What I did see a lot of was people waiting till I pulled and hit me so the mob would kill me, or training mobs on groups. Luckily I was a Sorc. with Sleep and Sleeping Cloud so I had an out in those situations. So I'm still just waiting to see how much weight is on the corruption tag. Can't really know until its tested, and fine tuned.
Phlight wrote: » rocsek wrote: » I spent a good bit of time in Lineage 2. A mix of solo, duo and group play. After the first few weeks I rarely saw players willing to turn red, and that system was relaxed compared to what Ashes sounds like. The majority of the time it was a PK alt that stayed red just to grief and mess with lower level players. Second to that were the enforcers for RMT groups. They would come in and try to force you out of a grind area for their workers. Last were a few people here and there trying to get some solo PvP going, and most of them didn't go red very much. What I did see a lot of was people waiting till I pulled and hit me so the mob would kill me, or training mobs on groups. Luckily I was a Sorc. with Sleep and Sleeping Cloud so I had an out in those situations. So I'm still just waiting to see how much weight is on the corruption tag. Can't really know until its tested, and fine tuned. My time in Lineage II I spent PK'ing a lot. I was always willing to be red but only because I was with a large group of players willing to fight back and trap ourselves in a tower behind tough mobs. The Risk was if you tried to come collect on a red target you would die to the hoards of mobs we were behind or by the hands of other players. In AoC it seems the penalty for being red will be severe enough for you to actively choose not to be red. A loss of stats, HP, Mana, damage, mobility, etc could be devastating.
rocsek wrote: » Phlight wrote: » rocsek wrote: » I spent a good bit of time in Lineage 2. A mix of solo, duo and group play. After the first few weeks I rarely saw players willing to turn red, and that system was relaxed compared to what Ashes sounds like. The majority of the time it was a PK alt that stayed red just to grief and mess with lower level players. Second to that were the enforcers for RMT groups. They would come in and try to force you out of a grind area for their workers. Last were a few people here and there trying to get some solo PvP going, and most of them didn't go red very much. What I did see a lot of was people waiting till I pulled and hit me so the mob would kill me, or training mobs on groups. Luckily I was a Sorc. with Sleep and Sleeping Cloud so I had an out in those situations. So I'm still just waiting to see how much weight is on the corruption tag. Can't really know until its tested, and fine tuned. My time in Lineage II I spent PK'ing a lot. I was always willing to be red but only because I was with a large group of players willing to fight back and trap ourselves in a tower behind tough mobs. The Risk was if you tried to come collect on a red target you would die to the hoards of mobs we were behind or by the hands of other players. In AoC it seems the penalty for being red will be severe enough for you to actively choose not to be red. A loss of stats, HP, Mana, damage, mobility, etc could be devastating. Yeah, a PK with a group deep in a dungeon made sense. Protect the grind spot or loot location. That makes me wonder how grouping and helping PKers in Ashes will be handled. If you heal/buff/help a corrupt player or a purple and that player kills a green do you suffer corruption for that help. It also seems that it'll be hard for players to help corrupted players due to greens staying green while attacking a red. And I'm guessing that if red kills the green that attacked him, since he is green, that will stack more corruption. Unless I missed something here?
Dolyem wrote: » Also in regards to everyone's arguments about corruption. I believe corruption penalties should scale as it is continued in terms of severeness. Do I think someone should lose gear after 2 or 3 corruption kills of equal level? No Do I think continued killing should cause corrupted to drop gear on death? Sure Do I think killing 1 or 2 significantly lower evel players should cause a corrupted to drop gear on death? Yes Do I think killing 1 or 2 significantly lower level players with high gathering skills should cause a corrupted player to drop gear on death? No To me, it's all variables that should be considered in the system.as opposed to 1 set form of corruption. But no matter what, carebears will want more punishments, griefers will want less punishments. But I believe there should be a middle ground that keeps the focus on PvX. Not too much punishment as to deter PvP, but not too much leniency to promote griefing. Also there's no such thing as non-consensual PvP in a game where it is built into its system. Consent to the systems is given upon logging into the world.
Liniker wrote: » Yup. Most people that are talking and complaining about AoC corruption system never played L2 and are probably just making shit up or basing their opinions on what other people that also never played L2 say about it. The reality is - while it wasn't perfect, karma system in L2 worked great and pk was never an issue for the game, game wasn't a gank box, you wouldn't get PKed all the time there were plenty of PvErs in the game and intrepid is working on the system to make even better, so there's nothing to be concern about before people actually see it working in game.
Raven016 wrote: » I agree except with the last sentence. But I cannot disagree with it either. I would rather say, players should be aware that there is a risk of being involved into PvP even when they expect it the least.
