Abarat wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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.
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.
Dygz wrote: » Abarat wrote: » 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. I expect to be testing right up until launch. But, the moment they added permanent zones that auto-flag Purple - all of the other features became moot. Uncovering the entire map is probably my most important goal in any MMORPG. And I'm not going to play an MMORPG where I have to auto-flag Purple to accomplish that.
Abarat wrote: » 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.
Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » 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. I think you're once again imagining that Noaani said either of those specific things. You're getting caught up in something Mag7 causes, which we're constantly trying to stop on this forum. Mag7 talks in ways that forces other people to be extremely specific and verbose in everything they say, and then whenever they 'slip up', uses it as a 'gotcha' and derails conversations. Basically, puts words in people's mouths and then convinces other people to argue with the things Mag claims those other people said. Just be careful about it, it is easy to end up frustrated or in situations where you feel like something is an argument because of the divisiveness this causes.
Abarat wrote: » 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.
Mag7spy wrote: » lp Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » 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. I think you're once again imagining that Noaani said either of those specific things. You're getting caught up in something Mag7 causes, which we're constantly trying to stop on this forum. Mag7 talks in ways that forces other people to be extremely specific and verbose in everything they say, and then whenever they 'slip up', uses it as a 'gotcha' and derails conversations. Basically, puts words in people's mouths and then convinces other people to argue with the things Mag claims those other people said. Just be careful about it, it is easy to end up frustrated or in situations where you feel like something is an argument because of the divisiveness this causes. Please point out when made him say his initial point (and pretty much continued point) that corruption is a deterrent to pvp. You are making stuff up right now.
Noaani wrote: » As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused. However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players. That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT. Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see. So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see.
Noaani wrote: » Abarat wrote: » 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. While you wonder why he is using the word "deterring", you should perhaps be reflecting on why he is using the word "grief", rather than PvP.
Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused. However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players. That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT. Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see. So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see. if freeholds *act* as a catalyst to rmt, they ARE a catalyst to rmt and should be addressed. You are 100% wrong about this. I am sorta kinda starting to feel bad for you see @Mag7spy. he will spiral the conversation to create confusion and discomfort. classic troll. he will become sad when we stop reacting. he wont actually respond to the things he is BLATANTLY wrong about, but will spin it into another argument which is convoluted. then, others will respond... naturally confused and he will begin again. Just ignore him.
Noaani wrote: » Abarat wrote: » 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. As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused. However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players. That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT. Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see. So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see.
Azherae wrote: » I am in support of this. This seemingly didn't start because of anything Noaani said, but because you quoted a thing Noaani said and tried to get... let's call it clarification. It would be quite helpful if both you and Mag7 ignored Noaani, and also me. Just outright ignored. If you have this sort of belief about us, there is no need to have conversations at all.
Abarat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I am in support of this. This seemingly didn't start because of anything Noaani said, but because you quoted a thing Noaani said and tried to get... let's call it clarification. It would be quite helpful if both you and Mag7 ignored Noaani, and also me. Just outright ignored. If you have this sort of belief about us, there is no need to have conversations at all. Lol, someone thinks they are important. I dont even know who you are. Why would i ignore you?
Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » As Azherae said above, this is getting in to a semantic argument that Mag has caused. However, I'm order to illustrate to you the difference, freeholds as they currently are designed are not designed to be a catalyst for third party RMT, however, it will *ACT* as a catalyst for third party RMT among a very small number of players. That doesnt mean we should label freeholds as a catalyst for third party RMT. Now, I know you'll want to say "you can't compare RMT to corruption" or some such, and you are right. The thing is, I'm not comparing them. What I am doing is trying to illustrate the concept to you, and the veat way to do that is to give an example where things are much more bold, and thus easier to see. So, that is what the above is, an example to illustrate to you the difference between something that is a thing, and something that acts as a thing, just using a much bolder example to where the differences are easier to see. if freeholds *act* as a catalyst to rmt, they ARE a catalyst to rmt and should be addressed. You are 100% wrong about this. I am sorta kinda starting to feel bad for you see @Mag7spy. he will spiral the conversation to create confusion and discomfort. classic troll. he will become sad when we stop reacting. he wont actually respond to the things he is BLATANTLY wrong about, but will spin it into another argument which is convoluted. then, others will respond... naturally confused and he will begin again. Just ignore him. I am in support of this. This seemingly didn't start because of anything Noaani said, but because you quoted a thing Noaani said and tried to get... let's call it clarification. It would be quite helpful if both you and Mag7 ignored Noaani, and also me. Just outright ignored. If you have this sort of belief about us, there is no need to have conversations at all.
Azherae wrote: » Abarat wrote: » 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. I think you're once again imagining that Noaani said either of those specific things.
