Dygz wrote: » 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. Also... the issue isn't really about PKing. Who dies is irrelevant. When I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not in the mood for PvP combat. And, if I'm "forced" to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood, I'm going to rage quit. Traditionally, I start MMORPGs on PvP-Optional servers because I like PvP sometimes. But, I end up rage-quitting to PvE-Only servers because people won't let me be when I tell them I'm not in the mood for PvP.
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.
Dygz wrote: » 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. I would say there is a chance of being involved in PvP. It's not really about risk in my view.
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.
iccer wrote: » Dygz wrote: » 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. Also... the issue isn't really about PKing. Who dies is irrelevant. When I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not in the mood for PvP combat. And, if I'm "forced" to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood, I'm going to rage quit. Traditionally, I start MMORPGs on PvP-Optional servers because I like PvP sometimes. But, I end up rage-quitting to PvE-Only servers because people won't let me be when I tell them I'm not in the mood for PvP. That's the key thing for me. I don't want to be forced into PvP AT ALL TIMES. Archeage had safe zones/war cycle, where zones would go from peaceful, where you couldn't really just attack enemy players, to full out war where PvP happens regularly. It allowed you to pick and choose when and where you would PvP. It allowed you to chill out in peaceful zones if you just wanted to do other stuff. It allowed you to go to full conflict zones if you wanted that risk of PvP. Ashes, as it stands, won't allow for this kind of choice, sadly. But if the corruption system, and other systems relating to PvP are designed in a good way, I don't think it will be a massive problem.
Phlight wrote: » " iccer wrote: » Dygz wrote: » 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. Also... the issue isn't really about PKing. Who dies is irrelevant. When I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not in the mood for PvP combat. And, if I'm "forced" to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood, I'm going to rage quit. Traditionally, I start MMORPGs on PvP-Optional servers because I like PvP sometimes. But, I end up rage-quitting to PvE-Only servers because people won't let me be when I tell them I'm not in the mood for PvP. That's the key thing for me. I don't want to be forced into PvP AT ALL TIMES. Archeage had safe zones/war cycle, where zones would go from peaceful, where you couldn't really just attack enemy players, to full out war where PvP happens regularly. It allowed you to pick and choose when and where you would PvP. It allowed you to chill out in peaceful zones if you just wanted to do other stuff. It allowed you to go to full conflict zones if you wanted that risk of PvP. Ashes, as it stands, won't allow for this kind of choice, sadly. But if the corruption system, and other systems relating to PvP are designed in a good way, I don't think it will be a massive problem. There has to be a balance. Some people get the most joy from camping low levels all day long regardless of corruption. No doubt he will eventually be killed by someone and he will start to drop gear, weapons, and items. Which they wont care about. They know the risk. I understand being ganked isn't fun, but If I need ore and you are mining ore, well it's my ore now. My risk is surviving going corrupt. Your risk is surviving long enough to return home safely. If there is a player killing low level players you can now attack the corrupted player without penalty in hopes he drops some stuff you can loot. Only time will tell how much effect being corrupted will have on a player. As Steven has stated "There is no incentive to go corrupt... There's zero incentive for a player to go red. It actually gives you negatives for doing that- very significant downsides.
Abarat wrote: » 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?
Raven016 wrote: » A risk, a chance... these are expressions used in every day speech. If you do a trip every day between 2 nodes for 3-4 months, you can quantify the events and then if there are just 2-3 occurrences, it may turn out that they were looking for you specifically. So it was not even a risk but a non-consensual one sided decision. But if you say the game will be balanced to always allow PvP everywhere, then yes, I agree with that last sentence too. Still, use a fast mount, run and live if fighting is not what you want.
Dygz wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » A risk, a chance... these are expressions used in every day speech. If you do a trip every day between 2 nodes for 3-4 months, you can quantify the events and then if there are just 2-3 occurrences, it may turn out that they were looking for you specifically. So it was not even a risk but a non-consensual one sided decision. But if you say the game will be balanced to always allow PvP everywhere, then yes, I agree with that last sentence too. Still, use a fast mount, run and live if fighting is not what you want. Yeah - both can often be used interchangeably. I’m quibbling over the distinctions in this thread because risk includes a high possibility of loss - as if the primary concern is losing (xp, gear, the battle). Whereas for me it’s weighing the %chance that I will be forced into gameplay I don’t particularly like much - when I’m absolutely not in the mood for that gameplay. I think it doesn’t matter to me whether people are out to get me specifically.
Spif wrote: » I'm L50, why would I care about XP debt?
Phlight wrote: » I understand being ganked isn't fun, but If I need ore and you are mining ore, well it's my ore now.
Phlight wrote: » My risk is surviving going corrupt. Your risk is surviving long enough to return home safely.
Phlight wrote: » If there is a player killing low level players you can now attack the corrupted player without penalty in hopes he drops some stuff you can loot.
Phlight wrote: » Only time will tell how much effect being corrupted will have on a player. As Steven has stated "There is no incentive to go corrupt... There's zero incentive for a player to go red. It actually gives you negatives for doing that- very significant downsides.
How many of you will still be engaging in in world pvp/ ganking reguardless of corruption?
Chroninho wrote: » Lets not forget about this: "A character's PK value increases with each non-combatant player killed over the lifetime of that character." So it will not be easy to always have the "lowest level" of corruption if you plan to constantly go red. Also we will have A2, where many systems will be tested and changed if needed, so if there is a way to do it, be sure it will be patched way before official release.
Noaani wrote: » The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL. What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others.
Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL. What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others. Ok, i feel less confused now. You are saying the system will fail in its attempt to stop unwanted pvp, but WILL stop (or at least decrease) unwanted killing in pvp. About right?
Noaani wrote: » Corruption is a deterrent against griefing others,
Noaani wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL. What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others. Ok, i feel less confused now. You are saying the system will fail in its attempt to stop unwanted pvp, but WILL stop (or at least decrease) unwanted killing in pvp. About right? No. In regards to corruption, any time you say "so you think corruption will fail at..." you are wrong. Corruption will succeed at what it is designed for. The problem is, you have the wrong idea as to what it is designed for. Corruption is not a deterrent against PvP. If anything, the whole system (in combination with death penalties) should encourage actual PvP. Corruption is a deterrent against griefing others, but not against PvP. Corruption exists to maintain a sense of risk vs reward for players, even if the fight is goingto be one sided. Corruption is not, however, a PvP deterrent.
CROW3 wrote: » @Dolyem - well, we made it two weeks beyond the monthly update before there was a corruption food fight. I feel like our community is maturing.
Mag7spy wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL. What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others. Ok, i feel less confused now. You are saying the system will fail in its attempt to stop unwanted pvp, but WILL stop (or at least decrease) unwanted killing in pvp. About right? No. In regards to corruption, any time you say "so you think corruption will fail at..." you are wrong. Corruption will succeed at what it is designed for. The problem is, you have the wrong idea as to what it is designed for. Corruption is not a deterrent against PvP. If anything, the whole system (in combination with death penalties) should encourage actual PvP. Corruption is a deterrent against griefing others, but not against PvP. Corruption exists to maintain a sense of risk vs reward for players, even if the fight is goingto be one sided. Corruption is not, however, a PvP deterrent. This take is so wrong and refusing to take into account of actual logic. Makes it clear you don't play pvp games if you think there is no deterrent with the corruption system and flagging. You blindly ignore the wider scope of the consequences, and ignore intent. Corruption is a deterrent to griefing and to pvp in general to limit how much goes on in the world. The more you attack someone the higher you risk killing them and going corrupted. Meaning there is more push back to stop attacking if your intent from the beginning is not to be corrupted. Attacking someone a few times that is not fighting back is not PvP. Being unable to understand basic things shows you really don't know much about the world of pvp and lack experience. You need to paly these types of games before you start talking in absolutes and actually learn something.
