Ravicus wrote: » Its possible to agree to disagree and move on from this circular argument as well.
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.
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.
Abarat wrote: » i think Noaani 's internet went out.
Noaani wrote: » Abarat wrote: » i think Noaani 's internet went out. No, I'm just busy right now. Able to post small replies and such, but not much else.
Noaani wrote: » [ The problem with this stance is that we also know that corruption being absent from the seas is turning players off the game.
Noaani 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. The problem with this stance is that we also know that corruption being absent from the seas is turning players off the game. While it is only a few players (from my perspective), if we are going to take the stance of "if it *acts* as this, it IS this and should be addressed", then there are many things we need to address. As a stance, this is dangerous.
Abarat wrote: » Noaani wrote: » [ The problem with this stance is that we also know that corruption being absent from the seas is turning players off the game. changing the subject again. sources?
Sweatycup wrote: » Maybe they should just knock off xp and essentially levels slowly from gaining corruption. So a 50 can be bumped down to a 49 and so on. Would be cool too to gain buffs from not getting corrupted after successful defense pvp too. Then you can min max your kills.
Abarat wrote: » was it not recently revealed that pvp death penalties were removed in teh open ocean? did i dream that?
Abarat wrote: » 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. I am NOT imagining that Noaani said intrepid specifically indicated Corruption was not designed as a deterrent.
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.
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.
Abarat wrote: » 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. I am NOT imagining that @Noaani said intrepid specifically indicated Corruption was not designed as a deterrent. but, as of now, he is unable to provide any back up for that... @Azherae since you are apparently auditioning for the new sidekick position, since @BlackBrony has been defeated, can you provide any actual references for this claim?
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.
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.
Chicago wrote: » How many of you will still be engaging in in world pvp/ ganking reguardless of corruption?
Dizz wrote: » .... Don't build you happiness on someone else's pain ......
Dygz wrote: » Abarat wrote: » was it not recently revealed that pvp death penalties were removed in teh open ocean? did i dream that? "If you are not Corrupt and enter the Open Seas, you take a mitigated form of the death penalties, you will have a debuff applied upon death and in addition, you will still suffer the gear degradation and gear decay upon death as well. But you will either be significantly reduced in the experience debt accrued through death in the Open Seas if you're not Corrupt or there won't be experience debt if you're not Corrupt." --- Steven on The Ashen Forge 100th Episode July 9, 2023 The Open Seas has death penalties. The Open Seas might not have experience debt. I don't understand why you mentioned death penalties, though. I have no issues with the death penalties. Even if we die while Green, it's the same death penalties as dying from a mob. I simply don't want other players to force me to experience PvP combat when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat - because PvP combat is more intense/hardcore than PvE combat and I am a Casual Challenge player. If people forced me to eat cake when I'm not in the mood for cake, I would become engraged. And, the retort, "Well, why are you at a birthday party if you don't want to eat cake...?" would enrage me more. I would avoid being in any space where people could force me to eat cake when I'm not in the mood for cake. And, I would also avoid being near people who think it's OK to force people to eat cake when they aren't in the mood for cake. I like to eat cake sometimes. That doesn't mean I'm OK with other people making me eat cake when I'm not in the mood for cake. And really, there is no magic number above 1 time where I will be OK with that. I'm not butthurt about anything related to Ashes. The people who are OK with people being forced to eat cake should get to go to the parties where people like to do that. I'm not gonna go to those parties. And I don't have to experience those parties to know that I don't want to be there. I don't ever want to experience being forced to eat cake when I'm not in the mood. If do experience, I damn well better be able to report that as an assault and have the culprit punished. But, also... I don't really want to be hanging out in a space where I'm watching other people being forced to eat cake when they aren't in the mood to eat cake. If there are people who love that - great! I'm not going to say there should not be spaces for people who think that is fun. They can have those spaces and be happy. It doesn't hurt me to know those spaces exist. I'm just not interested in being in a place where people think that behavior is OK - and where there is some possibility that I could be forced to do something I'm not in the mood for without "criminal" punishment/Corruption. PvPers be like, "Oh! You are afraid of being forced to eat cake when you don't want to. Just stay near us! If any one tries to make you eat cake, we will force THEM to eat cake. And then you can still enjoy the party!!" And, I'm all, "Uh... that's OK. I really don't want to be in any space where people are forcing other people to eat cake. You can have fun with that if you want, but... I'm gonna go hang out at a party where people can't do that."
Dizz wrote: » Chicago wrote: » How many of you will still be engaging in in world pvp/ ganking reguardless of corruption? I don't know other people but I was born in a generation and environment that promote and educate public 'Do not do others what you would not have them do to you.' no matter it's in real life or internet. Don't build you happiness on someone else's pain for short.
HumblePuffin wrote: » @Abarat while not always true it seems many use “corruption isn’t a good enough deterrent” when they really mean “anyone who can attack me without my permission is a problem”
Depraved wrote: » what if you are doing an easy quest or killing some easy mobs, then someone else starts killing all your mobs, forcing you to not kill mobs and wait there doing nothing or go to another area, would you get enraged too? just curious.
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » what if you are doing an easy quest or killing some easy mobs, then someone else starts killing all your mobs, forcing you to not kill mobs and wait there doing nothing or go to another area, would you get enraged too? just curious. I don't own mobs. And I prefer to play MMORPGs where we all share mobs, rather than MMORPGs where we compete over mobs. So, no, I don't become enraged over kill stealing because, for me, kill stealing is not really a thing. Especially now that WoW, after 10 years, has solved the Endgame conundrum for me - I'd be playing WoW, where there is no competition for mobs, way more than I would play Ashes.