Corruption/pvp

How many of you will still be engaging in in world pvp/ ganking reguardless of corruption?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

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.

I'm here for it honestly. Carebears and griefers will always duke it out in this argument. If I have to side with one it'd be griefers simply because siding with the other means the death of all PvP. But I honestly just want a solid system to promote PvX, not some super basic system that instantly marks you with the severe negatives simply because other people refuse to participate in half of the game, nor a system that lets people rampage PKing whoever they want as much as they want without consequence. Corruption to me should depend on many variables, but I won't fret too much until it gets tested.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

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.

You mean the fact that I have been using the same termanology on this topic since several years before you joined these forums means you actually agree with me, you just never realized.

If they need to think about it in any form it means there is deterrent.

Perhaps.

However, if the very few people in these very rare situations have to think before attacking and may then still attack, then one could say corruption is very minor deterrent in some rare cases, which is kind of the same as saying that corruption isn't all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP - because that is not saying it isn't ever a deterrent.

So now, back to my original point;

Noaani wrote: »

I dont see corruption as being all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

Do you now agree with this point that I made months ago?

You are making too many assumptions why trying to say it can only be one way..., we how have established it is a deterrent. Now we are at the point where it is subjective to the level of deterrent.

I'm not going to go with it being a small deterrent, though I won't say it stops pvp since that isn't the design focus of it clearly. But also something they can tweak to the level of deterrent they want it to be.

Mag7spy

I'm not going based on w.e is said months ago I may or may not have seen. I'm going based on you saying it isn't a deterrent now...

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

You are making too many assumptions why trying to say it can only be one way..., we how have established it is a deterrent.

I literally said in the first post of mine in this thread that it won't be one way, I said it isn't MUCH of a deterrent.

Being not much of a thing means it is a small amount of that thing.

That is literally saying it isn't "one way", it is specifically not being "black or white" - both things you seem fixated on assuming I am saying.

Mag7spy wrote: »

I'm not going based on w.e is said months ago I may or may not have seen. I'm going based on you saying it isn't a deterrent now...

I mean, I am talking about the start of this thread - the post Abarat quoted that started this whole thing off again.

If you aren't talking about a post from months ago, why are you even in this months old thread?

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

You are making too many assumptions why trying to say it can only be one way..., we how have established it is a deterrent.

I literally said in the first post of mine in this thread that it won't be one way, I said it isn't MUCH of a deterrent.

Being not much of a thing means it is a small amount of that thing.

That is literally saying it isn't "one way", it is specifically not being "black or white" - both things you seem fixated on assuming I am saying.

Mag7spy wrote: »

I'm not going based on w.e is said months ago I may or may not have seen. I'm going based on you saying it isn't a deterrent now...

I mean, I am talking about the start of this thread - the post Abarat quoted that started this whole thing off again.

If you aren't talking about a post from months ago, why are you even in this months old thread?

I don't care what was said months ago again, i care what you said the other day that it is not a deterrent. Again subjective to the level of deterrent until we play the game and see what people do.

If you don't agree with your own statement simply correct yourself, it is pretty easy to do.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

If you don't agree with your own statement simply correct yourself, it is pretty easy to do.

I still don't know what statement it is you think I made that I now disagree with.

I mean, I know what you think I said, what I don't know is where you think I said it. Without knowing what comment it is you are misunderstanding (which is once again what is going on here), I can't really comment.

I can only think of two posts in this thread where you could even misunderstand what I said to mean what you think I said.

The first of those posts is this;

Noaani wrote: »

I dont see corruption as being all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

It may alter the outcome of PvP, however.

This is the post from months ago that you just said you don't care about. It is also the one you did care about until an hour or two ago when I explained to you that "being all that much" means being some, but not much.

The other post where I could see you (specifically only you) misunderstanding to mean the thing you think I said is this;

Noaani wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I dont see corruption as being all that much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

Noaani
Can you please explain the specific corruption penalties that you feel are not a deterrent?

...

p.s. i plan on making you KOS in game, regardless of the corruption penalties.

Why ask me a question when you already have your answer?

Corruption isnt going to be a deterrent to many people, regardless of what the penalties are

As such, I dont see corruption as being all that much of a deterrent.

Neither do you- so what is your question?

The thing is, I said basically the same thing in this post - that corruption isn't going to be a deterrent to many people - meaning it will be a deterrent to some.

So again, where is it you think I said the thing you are claiming I said?

Depraved

@Noaani and @Mag7spy sitting on a tree...

Mag7spy

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.

You state corruption is not a deterrent against pvp multiple times. You have now gone on record that it is a deterrent and now we are at a subjective point to the level of deterrent it is. You saying it having almost no impact is wrong.

miirym

The group i'm with plan on being in purple zones constantly, so as to always be in the thick of pvp action.

Rocsek

miirym wrote: »

The group i'm with plan on being in purple zones constantly, so as to always be in the thick of pvp action.

You mean always flagged for pvp? There aren't Zones for PvP. PvP can happen in any zone at anytime. Well you could maybe call the Ocean a purple zone. Since its considered a lawless area. But yes, you can stay permanently flagged if you wish I'm sure.

Noaani

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.

You state corruption is not a deterrent against pvp multiple times. You have now gone on record that it is a deterrent and now we are at a subjective point to the level of deterrent it is. You saying it having almost no impact is wrong.

Finally, a quote so se can clear this up.

In this post to Abarat, I am talking about the design goal of corruption. It is not designed as a deterrent. It is designed to add weight (or consequence) to the decision of engaging in PvP.

As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.

The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.

Now, if you want to talk about the design goals of corruption, we can - not a deterrent.
If you want to talk about the impact on players, we can - barely a deterrent.

What we shouldnt do though, is talk about both of these things in the same post, because you'll get confused.

In regards to talking to you, I've always been talking about the effect on players. For the bulk of this thread I have been talking about the effect on players.

Abarat

Noaani wrote: »

The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.

Can you please source this? I think it one of the fundamental points of confusion. I was under the impression it was designed to limit unwanted (by one party) pvp. You have sort of agreed it will do that, but then you nuance it to they will be attacked, but if they dont fight back then maybe they dont get killed because of corruption.

Please source where Intrepid stated/indicated/told us that corruption is not designed to be a deterrent to unwanted PVP/griefing.

What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif

its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote. I think you should dm him and let him know that he got this quote pretty wrong.

semantics aside, i think most reasonable people would agree that griefing and unwanted pvp are essentially the same thing or at least close enough that they understand what is being said.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

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.

You state corruption is not a deterrent against pvp multiple times. You have now gone on record that it is a deterrent and now we are at a subjective point to the level of deterrent it is. You saying it having almost no impact is wrong.

Finally, a quote so se can clear this up.

In this post to Abarat, I am talking about the design goal of corruption. It is not designed as a deterrent. It is designed to add weight (or consequence) to the decision of engaging in PvP.

As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.

The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.

Now, if you want to talk about the design goals of corruption, we can - not a deterrent.
If you want to talk about the impact on players, we can - barely a deterrent.

What we shouldnt do though, is talk about both of these things in the same post, because you'll get confused.

In regards to talking to you, I've always been talking about the effect on players. For the bulk of this thread I have been talking about the effect on players.

You don't understand pvp and the consequences, this is your opinion in what you think. Yet everything you are reference is contradicting yourself. If there is a consequences for something that is by default a deterrent. You continue to show you do not understand the impact of the corruption system on players and mind sets.

You are out there thinking because you can flag on people without corruption gain that suddenly counts as pvp. Without taking into account any of the nature of the game and mind set of the people. If the midn set is corruption is terrible, and their is a fear or worry of gaining it, that is a deterrrrrreeeeeent. This mind set effects players judgement on if they even want to engage in pvp if their mind set was they were not going to kill the person in the first place. It changes the way you will view other player and scales away from flagging on every or most people until a much smaller segment.

Mag7spy

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.

Can you please source this? I think it one of the fundamental points of confusion. I was under the impression it was designed to limit unwanted (by one party) pvp. You have sort of agreed it will do that, but then you nuance it to they will be attacked, but if they dont fight back then maybe they dont get killed because of corruption.

Please source where Intrepid stated/indicated/told us that corruption is not designed to be a deterrent to unwanted PVP/griefing.

What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif

its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote.

semantics aside, i think most reasonable people would agree that griefing and unwanted pvp are essentially the same thing or at least close enough that they understand what is being said.

He legit does not understand the full intent of corruption and he is a brick wall and no matter what, he will say how he views it like tis true, or say someone else is saying what he is saying and try to twist things slightly.

He doesn't understand how if you don't fight back its a pk and how that will influence things. Simply not fighting back and not being flag is a deterrent.

If a player see a green player how often will they attack, if a player sees a purple players how often will they attack, if a player sees a red player how often will they attack. You can see the pattern where if you aren't gaining corruption the higher chance you have to attack said player under normal circumstances for a normal player.

There are quotes on wiki for for corruption and the purpose

Abarat

Mag7spy wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

The reason we can say it isnt in the game as a deterrent is simple - Intrepid told us.

Can you please source this? I think it one of the fundamental points of confusion. I was under the impression it was designed to limit unwanted (by one party) pvp. You have sort of agreed it will do that, but then you nuance it to they will be attacked, but if they dont fight back then maybe they dont get killed because of corruption.

Please source where Intrepid stated/indicated/told us that corruption is not designed to be a deterrent to unwanted PVP/griefing.

What i was able to find is something like this...
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[16] – Steven Sharif

its weird, I wonder why Steven is mistakenly using the word "deterring" in that quote.

semantics aside, i think most reasonable people would agree that griefing and unwanted pvp are essentially the same thing or at least close enough that they understand what is being said.

He legit does not understand the full intent of corruption and he is a brick wall and no matter what, he will say how he views it like tis true, or say someone else is saying what he is saying and try to twist things slightly.

He doesn't understand how if you don't fight back its a pk and how that will influence things. Simply not fighting back and not being flag is a deterrent.

If a player see a green player how often will they attack, if a player sees a purple players how often will they attack, if a player sees a red player how often will they attack. You can see the pattern where if you aren't gaining corruption the higher chance you have to attack said player under normal circumstances for a normal player.

There are quotes on wiki for for corruption and the purpose

I really want to agree with you and bag on @Noaani (cause he is being intentionally difficult, imo), but I think he does understand it. He is being difficult. He is saying the exact same thing we are, just trying to show how smart he thinks he is.

corruption will not necessarily stop any one pvp encounter.. it simply adds risk if you decide to kill someone for their stuff... it makes you weaker and more vulnerable over time. Steven wants us to be able to kill each other at times, even if one party does not fight back, with minimal penalty... he just doesnt want griefers running around souring the experience for others. In other words, he wants Dygz to be scared when he is exploring... he wants groups in dungeons to be aware of their surroundings and feel at least somewhat unsafe, he wants you to be able to kill Noanni in game for no other reason than you dont like him.

You simply cannot engage Noanni like you would a normal person. He does not want to debate or understand things better, he wants to use semantics and language nuance to cause disagreements to amuse himself I think. aka, Troll.

BlackBrony

You keep looking at the issue from the attacker. Corruption does nothing to prevent PvP. I can attack anyone I want, and unless I kill them, I won't be corrupted.
What corruption does is make things worse for those who don't enjoy PvP. Because once they get attacked they don't know.
- is the attacker going to kill them no matter what? Thus corruption does nothing
- is the attacker bored and wants to try some PvP but doesn't want to got corrupted? Corruption still doing nothing. The decision is on my side.

I don't know what the attacker will do. They might keep hitting me, lowering my HP. Now, let's say I really don't wanna PvP and I am at 50% HP:
- if I die as green I lose MORE xp and drop MORE mats. This is a loss for me
- if I fight back and die, I STILL lose shit and now the attacker can kill try killing me again

However you look it, the unwilling PvPer loses. Corruption does nothing for them in this process.

Dygz

Phlight wrote: »

Interesting take because for as long as I can remember AoC has been marketed as a PvX. Are you trying to advocate for PvE servers outside of open water and sieges? To be clear, competing against other players in PvP only? I like Co-OP better than solo play. Hell I even enjoy PvE more than PvP. Probably at a 70/30 split.

Again... PvX is just a car salesman term that means PvPers will have to do some PvX.

PvE-Only server = 0
PvP-Optional server = 1
PvP server = 2

Ashes has, at least, a PvP rating of 1.5
Because there are large permanent zones that auto-flag as Purple.
Basically the only PvP-free areas are houses on Freeholds.
PvPers have to PvX on PvP servers - that is not new.

And... I move from PvP-Optional servers to PvE-Only servers.
So, for me to play on an Ashes server, it would need to feel most like PvP rating of .75.
Most importantly - I would need to be able to explore and uncover the entire map with the Corruption mechanic in place. Because the "deal" more me to play is that everywhere on the map, if another player chooses to kill me while I'm Green, they will be punished with Corruption.
The moment you add large permanent areas where that is not the case, the game becomes more PvP-centric than a PvP-Optional server for EQ or WoW. And I have no interest in playing on a server that is above a 1 PvP rating. Labeling the server PvX or Tyrannasaurus Rex is irrelevent. Steven can use whatever term he wants.
It's not a server ruleset I want play.

Phlight wrote: »

When you say compete do you mean only in PvP? In all MMOs you have to compete at some level whether it's PvP, PvE claiming mobs, prices on an auction house, etc. AoC won't be any different.

If all I meant was PvP combat, I would have specified PvP combat.
I don't compete with other players for claiming mobs. And my preference for MMORPGs are ones where we can share mobs. Another thing I love about Dragonflight - I never have to compete for mobs.
Gamers are too greedy for me to use the Auction House, so I avoid using the Auction House as much as possible.
I'd rather make my own stuff or purchase from NPCs.
So... AOC will be different in regard to mob competition.

Dygz wrote: »

Maybe AoC isn't for you.

Currently, the Ashes does not fit my playstyle.
Pretty sure we're all clear on that point.

Dygz wrote: »

You being those who don't like the idea of being forced into PvP. I know it's been said on these forums a lot but only because Steven has driven this point home. If someone likes PvP I wouldn't suggest FFXIV to them. If you dislike PvP AoC shouldn't appeal to you.

Exactly. But... that's not what Steven says.
What Steven says is that Corruption should be enough of a deterrent that PvErs, in general, should feel comfortable playing Ashes. Because that was the case, from his perspective, with Lineage 2 and Corruption is a bit harsher than Karma.
Also, what Steven originally said is that the mitigating aspect of just one PvP ruleset for all servers is that the Corruption mechanic is in play across the entire server - which means you can always choose to stay Green and punish PKers with Corruption. As of September 2022, there are large permanent areas of the map where Corruption is turned off. So... that's the dealbreaker for me.
I like PvP sometimes - I just require more agency in choosing when I'm flagged for PvP and when I'm not flagged for PvP than what Ashes provides. And... Corruption would have to be in play across the entire map.

Dygz

BlackBrony wrote: »

- if I die as green I lose MORE xp and drop MORE mats. This is a loss for me
- if I fight back and die, I STILL lose shit and now the attacker can kill try killing me again

Uh. No.
If I die as a Green, I lose NORMAL xp and drop mats at a NORMAL rate. Same as dying from a mob.
If I die while Purple, I lose HALF the NORMAL xp and drop mats at HALF the NORMAL rate. Half the loss of dying from a mob.

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

Currently, the Ashes does not fit my playstyle.
Pretty sure we're all clear on that point.

I think you are going to end up being ok with it Dygz. I get you dont like the feeling of risk, but I really do think that there are enough structured PVP events / paths, and that corruption will be powerful enough to make ganking rare, that you will find a way to be good with this.

I know i have been an agitator in the past, but I sincerely hope you give the game an honest try before bailing.

Abarat

Noaani wrote: »

As you and I have discussed, it may *ACT* as a deterrent in a very limited number of cases, but only in its function as a means of adding weight.

@Noaani I am not a semantics expert like you, but I AM pretty sure that something that *ACTS* like a deterrent IS a deterrent.

You must be a VERY bored person, lol. still awaiting your sourcing on the FACT that Intrepid did not design corruption to deter unwanted pvp/griefing.

Child Item