Corruption/pvp

Chicago

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

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Guessing there is no chance on swallow your pride and saying you were wrong?

Why?

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.

Still holds true.

Sure, Steven now seems to want corruption to be an open world PvP deterrent. That is still covered by the above - you don't gain corruption at all by engaging in PvP, so it's not much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

However, since Steven has in the past said corruption isn't a deterrent to PvP and he now says it is a huge deterrent to open world PvP, then all I see this as is a refinement of game design.

Rocsek

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Guessing there is no chance on swallow your pride and saying you were wrong?

Why?

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.

Still holds true.

Sure, Steven now seems to want corruption to be an open world PvP deterrent. That is still covered by the above - you don't gain corruption at all by engaging in PvP, so it's not much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

However, since Steven has in the past said corruption isn't a deterrent to PvP and he now says it is a huge deterrent to open world PvP, then all I see this as is a refinement of game design.

SO I've talked to this a bit. Adding the fact you as an attacker can't see my health bar, and 1 attack could potentially kill me. Are those 2 (gaining corruption and not seeing my health bar) not enough to sway people from attacking, if they don't plan on going red? I mean I can see a small subset of people that just don't care. But the majority of players aren't going to want to take that chance because they don't want to deal with what corruption brings.

BlackBrony

rocsek wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Guessing there is no chance on swallow your pride and saying you were wrong?

Why?

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.

Still holds true.

Sure, Steven now seems to want corruption to be an open world PvP deterrent. That is still covered by the above - you don't gain corruption at all by engaging in PvP, so it's not much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

However, since Steven has in the past said corruption isn't a deterrent to PvP and he now says it is a huge deterrent to open world PvP, then all I see this as is a refinement of game design.

SO I've talked to this a bit. Adding the fact you as an attacker can't see my health bar, and 1 attack could potentially kill me. Are those 2 (gaining corruption and not seeing my health bar) not enough to sway people from attacking, if they don't plan on going red? I mean I can see a small subset of people that just don't care. But the majority of players aren't going to want to take that chance because they don't want to deal with what corruption brings.

Isnt this problem solved with a simple auto attack, a spell that does low to no damage? Or just de-ranking (if possible).
Are you suggesting that people will quest at 20% all the time to give corruption to players if they try to hit them?
That makes no sense.

EDIT: people thing the attackee is mob or something. that guy has no interest in being low hp with players around. If they die they lose XP and time, they couldn't care less about your corruption.

Noaani

rocsek wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Guessing there is no chance on swallow your pride and saying you were wrong?

Why?

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.

Still holds true.

Sure, Steven now seems to want corruption to be an open world PvP deterrent. That is still covered by the above - you don't gain corruption at all by engaging in PvP, so it's not much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

However, since Steven has in the past said corruption isn't a deterrent to PvP and he now says it is a huge deterrent to open world PvP, then all I see this as is a refinement of game design.

SO I've talked to this a bit. Adding the fact you as an attacker can't see my health bar, and 1 attack could potentially kill me. Are those 2 (gaining corruption and not seeing my health bar) not enough to sway people from attacking, if they don't plan on going red? I mean I can see a small subset of people that just don't care. But the majority of players aren't going to want to take that chance because they don't want to deal with what corruption brings.

They may sway a few people.

Take not that I didn't say it will never be a deterrent, I said it isn't much of a deterrent.

It is worth pointing out that since open world PvP is supposed to be over "something", if I don't know what level you are it means it is not likely to be over some personal grudge.

This means it is over a "spot" of some sort. If it is a spot with mobs, I'll be able to tell if I can kill you in one hit or not.

This means that this scenario can only ever be possible in a contested harvesting area with no mobs. That in itself should be very niche.

akabear

I guess the statement to end all statements...if the system does not achieve the sweet spot in community acceptable rates of pvp, then the system will be recalibrated, and iterated upon until it is believed to be so.. and will be monitored to continue to be so

Refer Steven below
https://youtu.be/GwpWmmIq2cg?t=1777

Rocsek

BlackBrony wrote: »

rocsek wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Guessing there is no chance on swallow your pride and saying you were wrong?

Why?

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.

Still holds true.

Sure, Steven now seems to want corruption to be an open world PvP deterrent. That is still covered by the above - you don't gain corruption at all by engaging in PvP, so it's not much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

However, since Steven has in the past said corruption isn't a deterrent to PvP and he now says it is a huge deterrent to open world PvP, then all I see this as is a refinement of game design.

SO I've talked to this a bit. Adding the fact you as an attacker can't see my health bar, and 1 attack could potentially kill me. Are those 2 (gaining corruption and not seeing my health bar) not enough to sway people from attacking, if they don't plan on going red? I mean I can see a small subset of people that just don't care. But the majority of players aren't going to want to take that chance because they don't want to deal with what corruption brings.

Isnt this problem solved with a simple auto attack, a spell that does low to no damage? Or just de-ranking (if possible).
Are you suggesting that people will quest at 20% all the time to give corruption to players if they try to hit them?
That makes no sense.

Not saying that. But say I'm out and have been farming mobs and just haven't healed up yet. Most players aren't just going to hit you once, especially if they are trying to gain an advantage on you if/when you try and fight back right? So the fact you can't see my health bar at anytime means there is a chance you do a bit to much damage and go red. That WILL deter lots of people from using this tactic, especially if it makes them go red by accident a few times.

Noaani

akabear wrote: »

I guess the statement to end all statements...if the system does not achieve the sweet spot in community acceptable rates of pvp, then the system will be recalibrated, and iterated upon until it is believed to be so.. and will be monitored to continue to be so

Indeed.

I'm sure you recall me talking about the levers the corruption system has built in to it a number of times - which can be manipulated so that the corruption system achieves what ever Intrepids goal with it is.

BlackBrony

rocsek wrote: »

BlackBrony wrote: »

rocsek wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Guessing there is no chance on swallow your pride and saying you were wrong?

Why?

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.

Still holds true.

Sure, Steven now seems to want corruption to be an open world PvP deterrent. That is still covered by the above - you don't gain corruption at all by engaging in PvP, so it's not much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

However, since Steven has in the past said corruption isn't a deterrent to PvP and he now says it is a huge deterrent to open world PvP, then all I see this as is a refinement of game design.

SO I've talked to this a bit. Adding the fact you as an attacker can't see my health bar, and 1 attack could potentially kill me. Are those 2 (gaining corruption and not seeing my health bar) not enough to sway people from attacking, if they don't plan on going red? I mean I can see a small subset of people that just don't care. But the majority of players aren't going to want to take that chance because they don't want to deal with what corruption brings.

Isnt this problem solved with a simple auto attack, a spell that does low to no damage? Or just de-ranking (if possible).
Are you suggesting that people will quest at 20% all the time to give corruption to players if they try to hit them?
That makes no sense.

Not saying that. But say I'm out and have been farming mobs and just haven't healed up yet. Most players aren't just going to hit you once, especially if they are trying to gain an advantage on you if/when you try and fight back right? So the fact you can't see my health bar at anytime means there is a chance you do a bit to much damage and go red. That WILL deter lots of people from using this tactic, especially if it makes them go red by accident a few times.

But that wouldn't be the behaviour. If you want to engage in PvP you hit them once and wait for the reaction. Are they hitting me back? No? Well it seems they don't want to PvP.
And then it's up to me. Time to kill is going to be long, so no one shotting, which means you have time to make your decision

Noaani

rocsek wrote: »

Most players aren't just going to hit you once

Keep in mind that what you are talking about here is what people do in other games, with different systems.

If Ashes does indeed end up having the kind of situation you are talking about here, then the normal thing for people to do may well be somewhat different than the normal thing people do in other games.

That said, information available to players about potential rivals is still somewhat in flux. There is potential for a health indicator, it is just unlikely that you will get an exact HP figure like you do in other games.

akabear

Noaani wrote: »

akabear wrote: »

I guess the statement to end all statements...if the system does not achieve the sweet spot in community acceptable rates of pvp, then the system will be recalibrated, and iterated upon until it is believed to be so.. and will be monitored to continue to be so

Indeed.

I'm sure you recall me talking about the levers the corruption system has built in to it a number of times - which can be manipulated so that the corruption system achieves what ever Intrepids goal with it is.

Yes, I do recall. And really then it comes back to if the Intrepid ideal meets the community ideal.. and how the outliners handle the difference. Which.. perhaps.. is back where we started with just a reminder of the assurance

Dizz1

Caww wrote: »

Dizz wrote: »

.... Don't build you happiness on someone else's pain ......

too many people will do this anyway and nothing will stop it

Yes, I fully aware that when I playing Lineage1 and WOW back then.

My longest record was I play the whole day like nearly 24 hours and the same group of people keep following and killing me every few minutes no matter where I went.

Corruption system is just a kind of compromise that only does the magic to normal people.

Corruption system makes every one participate killing me become red player for enough of time to let me and bounty hunters able to complete a series of actions such like me put the bounty quests at town and bounty hunters go to fields trying to hunt red players(no matter bounty hunters able to kill red players or not I don’t care, just give enough time to make the gameplay works) as a gameplay is enough to me.

I never expect any system can stop those people to do what they want while not ruining the game environment itself.

Depraved wrote: »

Basically, don't fk girls because you don't want them to fk you?

Yes.

Dygz

akabear wrote: »

I guess the statement to end all statements...if the system does not achieve the sweet spot in community acceptable rates of pvp, then the system will be recalibrated, and iterated upon until it is believed to be so.. and will be monitored to continue to be so

Refer Steven below
https://youtu.be/GwpWmmIq2cg?t=1777

I'm pretty sure that basically means recalibrated so it feels comfortable for the gamers who loved Lineage 2.
Because the 6th core pillar is that Ashes is not made for everyone.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Guessing there is no chance on swallow your pride and saying you were wrong?

Why?

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.

Still holds true.

Sure, Steven now seems to want corruption to be an open world PvP deterrent. That is still covered by the above - you don't gain corruption at all by engaging in PvP, so it's not much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

However, since Steven has in the past said corruption isn't a deterrent to PvP and he now says it is a huge deterrent to open world PvP, then all I see this as is a refinement of game design.

Called it you are too stubborn and will keep arguing something even if it is against what the devs just told you. Also you are assuming based on incomplete information and trying to have an absolute stand point. you aren't on the development team you aren't going to have the full picture. Though if you were understanidng the purpose and had experience in pvp you would understand the effect corruption would have and the reason why it is a deterrent to pvp (A deterrent doens't mean it doesn't happen lol).

This is why i said it is subjective and trying to have an absolute stand point on it being a lower deterrent makes no sense. What is the gaol they are going for, now based on that goal they can tweak things if it is too much or too little...

Your statement is not valid stop backing it, you are spreading misinformation at this point. You need to go based off what the devs are saying, they are the one designing the game. The strength of the deterrent will be adjusted on how they feel from testing.

Effectively you are completely wrong, and tried to make false assumptions on the forums and push that narrative, it looks really dumb to keep going with this bud. All you needed to do was acknowledge it is a subjective view point, and because it acts as a deterrent it is hard to judge the exact effect until people are playing. You could have gotten away with that atleast.

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

[
I'm fine with people engaging PvP - that's like offering cake at a birthday party. That's OK.
I'm not OK with people forcing me to experience PvP when I indicate I'm not in the mood for PvP - just as I would not be OK with people forcing me to eat cake when I'm not in the mood for cake.

they seem like the same thing to me, but I guess i just have not grasped the nuance yet. In what game can someone offer PVP, but not make another 'experience' it? duels?

You want opt in. which kinda means you dont want anyone to be able to attack you unless you want them to.

Just to be clear, we agree, we just use different words (or universes) to explain it.

Also, who in their right mind would not want cake at a birthday party?

Also, if engaging in pvp is like offering cake to someone at a party, what kind of person are you that that would cause you to NOT EVEN WANT TO PLAY the game? It is all very mysterious to me.

Abarat

Noaani wrote: »

Sure, Steven now seems to want corruption to be an open world PvP deterrent. .

(emphasis added)

LOL

You seem to have the character of a politician.

Azherae

Abarat wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

[
I'm fine with people engaging PvP - that's like offering cake at a birthday party. That's OK.
I'm not OK with people forcing me to experience PvP when I indicate I'm not in the mood for PvP - just as I would not be OK with people forcing me to eat cake when I'm not in the mood for cake.

they seem like the same thing to me, but I guess i just have not grasped the nuance yet. In what game can someone offer PVP, but not make another 'experience' it? duels?

You want opt in. which kinda means you dont want anyone to be able to attack you unless you want them to.

Just to be clear, we agree, we just use different words (or universes) to explain it.

No.

In BDO I was once attacked by a person to indicate their desire to fight. I don't know their reason. They stopped after the first attack and waited.

This is an 'engage'.

In this situation Dygz might say 'Oh I don't want to PvP right now' in local chat. I drew my weapon and tapped them instead.

The person could say to Dygz "Well I want this spot so move on." in which case Dygz could go 'alright I'll move on' and then not experience PvP, having indicated that he is not in the mood for PvP.

This has nothing to do with flagging.

Abarat

Azherae wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

[
I'm fine with people engaging PvP - that's like offering cake at a birthday party. That's OK.
I'm not OK with people forcing me to experience PvP when I indicate I'm not in the mood for PvP - just as I would not be OK with people forcing me to eat cake when I'm not in the mood for cake.

they seem like the same thing to me, but I guess i just have not grasped the nuance yet. In what game can someone offer PVP, but not make another 'experience' it? duels?

You want opt in. which kinda means you dont want anyone to be able to attack you unless you want them to.

Just to be clear, we agree, we just use different words (or universes) to explain it.

No.

In BDO I was once attacked by a person to indicate their desire to fight. I don't know their reason. They stopped after the first attack and waited.

This is an 'engage'.

In this situation Dygz might say 'Oh I don't want to PvP right now' in local chat. I drew my weapon and tapped them instead.

The person could say to Dygz "Well I want this spot so move on." in which case Dygz could go 'alright I'll move on' and then not experience PvP, having indicated that he is not in the mood for PvP.

This has nothing to do with flagging.

so, dygz only wants to participate when he has told the other party that he is "in the mood"?

Please explain how that is different from flagging? It's ok if it is just bullying? but not pvp?

It really does kinda seem like the same thing, especially when you consider that Dygz has said if 'flagged' for pvp, it is a deal breaker?

it seems odd to me that people in this community defend this position.

Azherae

Abarat wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

[
I'm fine with people engaging PvP - that's like offering cake at a birthday party. That's OK.
I'm not OK with people forcing me to experience PvP when I indicate I'm not in the mood for PvP - just as I would not be OK with people forcing me to eat cake when I'm not in the mood for cake.

they seem like the same thing to me, but I guess i just have not grasped the nuance yet. In what game can someone offer PVP, but not make another 'experience' it? duels?

You want opt in. which kinda means you dont want anyone to be able to attack you unless you want them to.

Just to be clear, we agree, we just use different words (or universes) to explain it.

No.

In BDO I was once attacked by a person to indicate their desire to fight. I don't know their reason. They stopped after the first attack and waited.

This is an 'engage'.

In this situation Dygz might say 'Oh I don't want to PvP right now' in local chat. I drew my weapon and tapped them instead.

The person could say to Dygz "Well I want this spot so move on." in which case Dygz could go 'alright I'll move on' and then not experience PvP, having indicated that he is not in the mood for PvP.

This has nothing to do with flagging.

so, dygz only wants to participate when he has told the other party that he is "in the mood"?

Please explain how that is different from flagging? It's ok if it is just bullying? but not pvp?

It really does kinda seem like the same thing, especially when you consider that Dygz has said if 'flagged' for pvp, it is a deal breaker?

In the case where the person says "I am leaving so don't PvP me".

The Corruption that would be gained from killing them anyway is supposed to deter them from killing you.

It's hard to understand from your perspective perhaps because you view people who don't want to PvP sometimes as being unreasonably demanding about when and how other people should leave them alone?

In that situation in BDO I was gathering. By going out to gather I understand that someone may want to attack me in PvP. In a game where they could benefit from killing me by getting my loot, I would understand that they would probably attack me anyway and I would accept that this is the choice I made because I was gathering.

If instead I was talking to an NPC out in the open world to see if they had anything interesting to say and got attacked I might also say 'hey I'm just here to talk to this NPC I don't want to PvP I don't have anything of value'.

If you kill me anyway you get corrupted. I didn't choose to put myself in a situation where you have a likely reason to attack me, I chose to do something that theoretically doesn't have a situation where someone attacking me has a benefit worth attacking me for unless they just don't like me. The chances of a random person 'choosing to kill me while I talk to this NPC and don't fight back' are lower.

Then I go out onto the ocean to explore, experience the ocean, roleplay, whatever. I meet another player and that player just wants to chat about the wind currents or whatever. A third player comes in and attacks both. Can't get Corruption.

The third player is not the person who did the incorrect thing here. The second player and I did. We entered a zone to explore when the 'purpose of the zone' is to be a battleground'.

But still, none of this means that we'd want absolute flagging as the only solution. I want that if I 'go near a pirate guild's fleet' and they consider me to be coming to get their treasure, they can attack me and become corrupted. I don't want them to 'not be able to attack me'. I want them to need to warn me or talk to me first so we can have an interaction where both sides are doing their risk assessment at the time.

I'm bothering to make this long post because you said you don't understand the nuance and I'm genuinely hoping that you actually want to understand it. Even if you don't agree with it.

Abarat

Azherae wrote: »

In the case where the person says "I am leaving so don't PvP me".

The Corruption that would be gained from killing them anyway is supposed to deter them from killing you.

It's hard to understand from your perspective perhaps because you view people who don't want to PvP sometimes as being unreasonably demanding about when and how other people should leave them alone?

In that situation in BDO I was gathering. By going out to gather I understand that someone may want to attack me in PvP. In a game where they could benefit from killing me by getting my loot, I would understand that they would probably attack me anyway and I would accept that this is the choice I made because I was gathering.

If instead I was talking to an NPC out in the open world to see if they had anything interesting to say and got attacked I might also say 'hey I'm just here to talk to this NPC I don't want to PvP I don't have anything of value'.

If you kill me anyway you get corrupted. I didn't choose to put myself in a situation where you have a likely reason to attack me, I chose to do something that theoretically doesn't have a situation where someone attacking me has a benefit worth attacking me for unless they just don't like me. The chances of a random person 'choosing to kill me while I talk to this NPC and don't fight back' are lower.

Then I go out onto the ocean to explore, experience the ocean, roleplay, whatever. I meet another player and that player just wants to chat about the wind currents or whatever. A third player comes in and attacks both. Can't get Corruption.

The third player is not the person who did the incorrect thing here. The second player and I did. We entered a zone to explore when the 'purpose of the zone' is to be a battleground'.

But still, none of this means that we'd want absolute flagging as the only solution. I want that if I 'go near a pirate guild's fleet' and they consider me to be coming to get their treasure, they can attack me and become corrupted. I don't want them to 'not be able to attack me'. I want them to need to warn me or talk to me first so we can have an interaction where both sides are doing their risk assessment at the time.

I'm bothering to make this long post because you said you don't understand the nuance and I'm genuinely hoping that you actually want to understand it. Even if you don't agree with it.

by "I don't understand the nuance" i meant Dygz was not being entirely honest.

You have a lot of energy, though. I like you.

Azherae

Abarat wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

In the case where the person says "I am leaving so don't PvP me".

The Corruption that would be gained from killing them anyway is supposed to deter them from killing you.

It's hard to understand from your perspective perhaps because you view people who don't want to PvP sometimes as being unreasonably demanding about when and how other people should leave them alone?

In that situation in BDO I was gathering. By going out to gather I understand that someone may want to attack me in PvP. In a game where they could benefit from killing me by getting my loot, I would understand that they would probably attack me anyway and I would accept that this is the choice I made because I was gathering.

If instead I was talking to an NPC out in the open world to see if they had anything interesting to say and got attacked I might also say 'hey I'm just here to talk to this NPC I don't want to PvP I don't have anything of value'.

If you kill me anyway you get corrupted. I didn't choose to put myself in a situation where you have a likely reason to attack me, I chose to do something that theoretically doesn't have a situation where someone attacking me has a benefit worth attacking me for unless they just don't like me. The chances of a random person 'choosing to kill me while I talk to this NPC and don't fight back' are lower.

Then I go out onto the ocean to explore, experience the ocean, roleplay, whatever. I meet another player and that player just wants to chat about the wind currents or whatever. A third player comes in and attacks both. Can't get Corruption.

The third player is not the person who did the incorrect thing here. The second player and I did. We entered a zone to explore when the 'purpose of the zone' is to be a battleground'.

But still, none of this means that we'd want absolute flagging as the only solution. I want that if I 'go near a pirate guild's fleet' and they consider me to be coming to get their treasure, they can attack me and become corrupted. I don't want them to 'not be able to attack me'. I want them to need to warn me or talk to me first so we can have an interaction where both sides are doing their risk assessment at the time.

I'm bothering to make this long post because you said you don't understand the nuance and I'm genuinely hoping that you actually want to understand it. Even if you don't agree with it.

by "I don't understand the nuance" i meant Dygz was not being entirely honest.

You have a lot of energy, though. I like you.

What you've just communicated to me is that I should not spend it on you.

I doubt you care, but IF you care, please say or do something to communicate something else. Grati.

Child Item