NiKr wrote: » Sometimes I wonder if Noaani is just masterfully trolls half the forum with his semantics discussions I feel like ~70% of long discussions are just Noaani x Someone discussing some random "term" whose definition they can't agree on.
Azherae wrote: » You say that but it's more like certain people are reverse-trolling, cause you have had long discussions with many of those same people for the same reasons.
rocsek wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Corruption is a deterrent against griefing others, That's what he said... a deterrent for PvP... I keed I keed
Noaani wrote: » Corruption is a deterrent against griefing others,
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » You say that but it's more like certain people are reverse-trolling, cause you have had long discussions with many of those same people for the same reasons. Could be. Though it does feel like semantics are Noaani's specialty. Or maybe I just pay more attention to when Noaani discusses them and don't notice when I argue the same stuff.
Noaani wrote: » Look through my post history and I'm sure you'll (eventually) find it.
Mag7spy wrote: » 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.
Azherae wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » You say that but it's more like certain people are reverse-trolling, cause you have had long discussions with many of those same people for the same reasons. Could be. Though it does feel like semantics are Noaani's specialty. Or maybe I just pay more attention to when Noaani discusses them and don't notice when I argue the same stuff. It'd be that. Or rather that Noaani cares for longer and you don't. For instance, Mag7's last post. One could ignore the 'I bet you don't even play these games!', one could ignore the 'you should try to take things more seriously and use real logic', you could ignore the blatant logical error in paragraph 2 (even my parser can). But the 'You are wrong because my definition of PvP is different from yours and nearly everyone else's' is harder to ignore because it sticks out, not just as a difference in discussion but as a pure contradiction. You'd have to have 'trained' to explicitly ignore the contradictions to not have it irk you, if you're already a certain type of person. I'd be 'required' to call it out if I was still 'on duty', personally.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » You say that but it's more like certain people are reverse-trolling, cause you have had long discussions with many of those same people for the same reasons. Could be. Though it does feel like semantics are Noaani's specialty. Or maybe I just pay more attention to when Noaani discusses them and don't notice when I argue the same stuff. It'd be that. Or rather that Noaani cares for longer and you don't. For instance, Mag7's last post. One could ignore the 'I bet you don't even play these games!', one could ignore the 'you should try to take things more seriously and use real logic', you could ignore the blatant logical error in paragraph 2 (even my parser can). But the 'You are wrong because my definition of PvP is different from yours and nearly everyone else's' is harder to ignore because it sticks out, not just as a difference in discussion but as a pure contradiction. You'd have to have 'trained' to explicitly ignore the contradictions to not have it irk you, if you're already a certain type of person. I'd be 'required' to call it out if I was still 'on duty', personally. We could go point by point, the thing is i understand the larger picture on the larger impact these systems have. Not understanding the point on how the connect and how it affects players is just naïve to try to say corruption doesn't deter players when the end goal is killing a player and there is consequences for that. My entire point stands.
Dygz wrote: » 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. Dunno why you assume you will be the winner of that encounter. I would say that the vast majority of the time, PvP isn’t fun. I vastly enjoy cooperative play over competitive play. I have 0 interest in competing against other players when I play MMORPGs. Sometimes, I enjoy the RP of defending towns against enemies - which could include other player. But, I find the concept of players being content for other players to be repulsive.
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.
Dygz wrote: » Phlight wrote: » My risk is surviving going corrupt. Your risk is surviving long enough to return home safely. I prefer my risk to come from mobs/NPCs, rather than from other players. I want to cooperate with other players, rather than compete with them.
Phlight wrote: » My risk is surviving going corrupt. Your risk is surviving long enough to return home safely.
Dygz wrote: » 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. Also, not enough incentive to play the game for people who have little interest in PvP.
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.
Depraved wrote: » tbh in this part i have to agree with nooani. people will still attack others, and thats pvp even if the othe rperson doesnt fight back..its like being in a boxing match and letting the other person punch you. the outcome of the pvp will change tho, since the attacking player will probably dont wanna be corrupted so he will stop attacking and maybe just let a mob finish their target, or simply leave. also, you could attack someone (aybe with your 2nd account) to bait them into becoming purple to just kill them with your main and avoid corruption. get creative!
Mag7spy wrote: » If a player already had it set in their mind they aren't going to be corrupted it builds a state where less people will attack.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » 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. Mag, take note of the post of mine that you quoted. I specifically said that corruption in combination with death penalties should encourage PvP. It is the death penalty aspect of this that is in play with what you are talking about here. The death penalty system is intertwined with corruption, and corruption should never be considered without also considering the death penalty system. If Intrepids plan was to deter PvP in any way, they would not have created the whole system as it is. If the idea was a PvP deterrent, they would have made it so you gain corruption when attacking a player, or made it so a green player remains green when defending themselves. The fact that these two things exist - in combination with Intrepid stating that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system - *should* tell you that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system. But then, you have a history of looking at a thing and refusing to accept it as being anything other than somethign that fits in to your pre-existing narrative - so I doubt you'll ever actually understand any of the above.
rocsek wrote: » That doesn't mean it wont be a deterrent for PvP for some in some cases.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » If a player already had it set in their mind they aren't going to be corrupted it builds a state where less people will attack. Are you not factoring in Intrepids intention that PvP in Ashes always have some weight to it? The idea that players will not want to attack others for no reason? That is the idea of corruption - that is why I said it isn't a deterrent, it is there to add weight to the decision. To be in a situation where you would not attack another player due to the potential of gaining corruption, you need some very specific things to be in place. The main thing you need is for your reason to attack that player to be incredibly low. If you have an actual reason to attack them, then they have a reason to want to fight back. This means that if that reason for you to attack actually exists, then there is a very low chance of gaining corruption. If you consider the notion that corruption may stop meaningless PvP from happening to be a *deterrent*, then I guess that could be accurate. Outside of that one potential notion, you are just flat out wrong.
rocsek wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » 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. Mag, take note of the post of mine that you quoted. I specifically said that corruption in combination with death penalties should encourage PvP. It is the death penalty aspect of this that is in play with what you are talking about here. The death penalty system is intertwined with corruption, and corruption should never be considered without also considering the death penalty system. If Intrepids plan was to deter PvP in any way, they would not have created the whole system as it is. If the idea was a PvP deterrent, they would have made it so you gain corruption when attacking a player, or made it so a green player remains green when defending themselves. The fact that these two things exist - in combination with Intrepid stating that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system - *should* tell you that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system. But then, you have a history of looking at a thing and refusing to accept it as being anything other than somethign that fits in to your pre-existing narrative - so I doubt you'll ever actually understand any of the above. The intent of the design by Intrepid doesn't mean they control how some players feel about it. The system itself isn't designed to be a PvP deterrent, but is there to stop griefing. That doesn't mean it wont be a deterrent for PvP for some in some cases. Both statements can be true. All it takes is 1 person to say I refuse to attack a green because I don't want to go red, even by accident. I don't want to deal with the corruption. That makes the system a deterrent for PvP for that person in that instance. The same thing goes for griefing. You may have someone go red but then also says, I got what I came for, and I don't want any more corruption to have to work off and leaves the area. Now that becomes the deterrent for that person not to grief. One is by design, and the other a byproduct of that design.
Noaani wrote: » rocsek wrote: » That doesn't mean it wont be a deterrent for PvP for some in some cases. @rocsek See my above post.
Noaani wrote: » The fact that these two things exist - in combination with Intrepid stating that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system - *should* tell you that the corruption system is not a PvP deterrent system. /quote] **But just because you say that, and Intrepid says that, doesn't mean people wont see it as a deterrent, which in turn makes it a PvP deterrent for those people, design or not.** You also say The death penalty system is intertwined with corruption, and corruption should never be considered without also considering the death penalty system. **Which I say not in all cases. I could go red, never die or even think of death, and just go work off my corruption. I'm just deterred from going red because I don't want to be hampered by the other negatives that come with corruption and waste time grinding off the Exp.**
Mag7spy wrote: » The fact you use words like " weight to the decision" in correlation to corruption shows you are saying I'm right. But you are to stubborn to go back on what you say and triple down even if it looks really dumb.
If they need to think about it in any form it means there is deterrent.
Noaani wrote: » I dont see corruption as being all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.
