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

Abarat

Azherae wrote: »

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

Agreed. Not sure this is the first time we have gone through this.

Dygz

Abarat wrote: »

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?

In the Ashes design, you offer PvP by attacking another player. If the attacker does not fight back and you stop attacking, you don't gain Corruption.
You want to hit me once or twice to see if I'm in the mood for PvP combat? I have no problem with that.
It's like 5 seconds out of my gameplay time.
Merely attacking is not the issue.

Abarat wrote: »

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

No. Not really.
For instance, in Bless Online... I think there were no death penalties for dying from PvP. Or whatever there might have been was miniscule.
I might have been PKed once per week - and I would just stand still and let them kill me. Then I'd do, like a 45 second corpse run and continue doing whatever it was I was doing.
So, the issue is not whether another player hits me once or twice. The issue is how much of play time is wasted by an activity I'm not in the mood for.
In Bless Online. Attack me and kill me if you want. Has no meaningful impact on my gameplay.

Abarat wrote: »

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

I think we mostly agree.

Abarat wrote: »

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.

Ah... so...
That's why I said it depends on what you mean by "engage PvP"
"To engage PvP" is significantly different than "to engage in PvP".
"To engage something" typically means "to start something".
"To engage in something" typically is a more prolonged endeavor than just starting.

As in when Picard wants the Enterprise to initiate warp, he says "Engage!" meaning, "Begin!"
Or to initiate fencing, shouts, "Engage!" meaning, "Begin!"
So, "engage PvP" to me means "Begin PvP" with an attack or two.
"Engaging PvP" to me means "Initiating PvP" with an attack or two.
"Engaging in PvP" to me means continuing PvP for a prolonged amount of time (likely all the way to the death)

I interpreted what you wrote to mean, "You do not want anyone to be able to initiate PVP with you unless you want them to." (manual flag)

Thus, initiating PvP with an attack or two is like offering cake...etc.
"Engaging in" PvP - continuing to attack after the person refuses is like shoving cake down someone's throat after they've refused the offer.

This reminds me of when my Russian girlfriend came home one night and announced, "He made me so mad, I wanted to knock him up!!"
And I realized, "Oh! Knock out, knock up, knock on, knock off... those prepositions carry a lot of weight!!"

Abarat

it depends on the what the definition of is is.
-Bill Clinton

These definitions are not still a mystery to you, though, in the context of the game, are they?

They can engage.
They can disengage or they can kill you.
Everytime.

eventually, they will suffer, but it does not change your life in the shortterm.

Dygz

Abarat wrote: »

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?

In the Ashes design, you initiate/offer PvP by attacking the target with a hit or two.
If the target does not hit back, they are refusing the offer. Basically indicating they are not in the mood.
If you continue the attack to the point of the Green's death, you gain Corruption.
I'm pretty much OK with this as long is it is true across the entire map.

Abarat wrote: »

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?

You miss a lot.
I didn't say "If flagged for PvP, it is a dealbreaker."
I said large areas of permanent zones that auto-flag Purple, with no Corruption, is a dealbreaker.

Everywhere except in the Open Seas, you can punish non-consensual PvP with Corruption.
The Open Seas has auto-consent PvP.
Probably my top priority in any MMORPG is exploring the entire map. But, I'm not going to auto-consent to PvP.
Which means... the auto-consent PvP in the Open Seas is a dealbreaker for me.

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

\

Abarat wrote: »

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?

You miss a lot.
I didn't say "If flagged for PvP, it is a dealbreaker."
I said large areas of permanent zones that auto-flag Purple, with no Corruption, is a dealbreaker.

Yeah, sorry. did not mean to get that so wrong.

dygz said that if parts of the map that me might like to go on are auto flagged for pvp, it is a deal breaker.

That does seem very different. Again, I apologize.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

No, I'm fairly sure everyone but you understands what I said in that first post of mine in this thread.

Okeydoke

Mag7spy wrote: »

Its funny this was said on stream with anyone with common sense already understanding the system.

One minute Steven says corruption is a deterrent to griefing, the next it's a deterrent to pvp itself. I think anyone with common sense can look at the changes and statements that have been made over the last several months, really ever since the open sea change, and see that we're clearly trending in the direction of corruption being a deterrent to open world pvp. Almost every answer Steven has given to a question on corruption for months now has been the carebear preferred answer.

And then in that stream the other night he just comes out and says it, it's a deterrent to open world pvp. But we do still have multiple quotes on the wiki that it is a deterrent to griefing. And that was the status quo for years, pretty much the entire time I've been here. It was the primary reason I bought in.

"The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players."

Looking at the flagging system, on paper at least, it's designed to encourage pvp, to encourage people to defend themselves, generally. We'll see if Steven has the guts to actually make it so though.

So I guess in Noaani's defense (and I didn't read all of yalls back and forth, so I might be missing a deeper point of your debate) but in his defense, I had never heard Steven say corruption was a deterrent to open world pvp itself. But by being a deterrent to griefing (if that is it's purpose), isn't it kind of de facto a deterrent to open world pvp in a way, just the bad form of it. The bad form being griefing. So maybe you're both right. Or maybe you're both wrong and the game just isn't for either one of you.

Noaani

Okeydoke wrote: »

So I guess in Noaani's defense

@Okeydoke

To be fair, my point wasn't that it was or was not a deterrent to PvP, it was that it wasn't *much* of a deterrent to *engaging* in PvP, but may have an impact on whether you continue the fight or not.

Mag has been attempting to skew that point so hard over the last few pages of this thread that I think it is easy for someone to not quite get that the above is what my point was (and is).

Mag7spy

Okeydoke wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Its funny this was said on stream with anyone with common sense already understanding the system.

One minute Steven says corruption is a deterrent to griefing, the next it's a deterrent to pvp itself. I think anyone with common sense can look at the changes and statements that have been made over the last several months, really ever since the open sea change, and see that we're clearly trending in the direction of corruption being a deterrent to open world pvp. Almost every answer Steven has given to a question on corruption for months now has been the carebear preferred answer.

And then in that stream the other night he just comes out and says it, it's a deterrent to open world pvp. But we do still have multiple quotes on the wiki that it is a deterrent to griefing. And that was the status quo for years, pretty much the entire time I've been here. It was the primary reason I bought in.

"The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players."

Looking at the flagging system, on paper at least, it's designed to encourage pvp, to encourage people to defend themselves, generally. We'll see if Steven has the guts to actually make it so though.

So I guess in Noaani's defense (and I didn't read all of yalls back and forth, so I might be missing a deeper point of your debate) but in his defense, I had never heard Steven say corruption was a deterrent to open world pvp itself. But by being a deterrent to griefing (if that is it's purpose), isn't it kind of de facto a deterrent to open world pvp in a way, just the bad form of it. The bad form being griefing. So maybe you're both right. Or maybe you're both wrong and the game just isn't for either one of you.

This is where you would miss the important part in the back and forth. It is meant as a deterrent against PK and griefing, (ignoring griefing for now) the road to Pking someone works the same way as flagging to attack someone it is the path both players take towards that goal.

So if both them are the same path something that is a deterrent will leak into both starting PvP and also pking someone. Do to the strong effect of corruption it isn't going to be a game for (the normal player) on wanting to gain corruption based on how bad it feels to get it and the immense risk it applies.

It is going to be a serious question if the person decides to PK someone, if by default they have decided to not Pk someone to not gain corruption and simply past people peacefully, the way the deterrent leaks effects both cases not just Pking.

Now if we are talking about a player that flags wanting to PvP but does not have an intent to actually pk, they are going to weigh in the worth of them doing so and the risk (which can be multiple factors). Deciding to flag finally they attack the person but they don't have an intention to pk them because they do not want to gain corruption. So that is going to have an effect on how they pvp the player, how often they are attacking them, and how long until they leave them alone (to different degrees)

Noaani doesn't understand the depth and risk corruption brings. He is also on record saying he doesn't think corruption will stop people from pvping at all now as well. Trying to say if someone is deterred from corruption AoC is not for them.

The thing is, CLEARLY anyone that would be deterred by corruption in Ashes isn't all that much of a PvP player. If they were, it wouldn't bother them - or at least wouldn't stop them.

People that would be bothered by corruption simply don't have what it takes to play Ashes anyway - meaning the occurances of this would be even less frequent.

If someone came to me and said "I want to play Ashes, but I am afraid of corruption", I would simply tell them "my dude, it's ok, Ashes isn't for everyone".

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani doesn't understand the depth and risk corruption brings. He is also on record saying he doesn't think corruption will stop people from pvping at all now as well. Trying to say if someone is deterred from corruption AoC is not for them.

The thing is, CLEARLY anyone that would be deterred by corruption in Ashes isn't all that much of a PvP player. If they were, it wouldn't bother them - or at least wouldn't stop them.

People that would be bothered by corruption simply don't have what it takes to play Ashes anyway - meaning the occurances of this would be even less frequent.

If someone came to me and said "I want to play Ashes, but I am afraid of corruption", I would simply tell them "my dude, it's ok, Ashes isn't for everyone".

My dude, that post was pure bait - you have said in the past that corruption would stop you from PvP'ing, so in that post I said people that wouldn't PvP due to corruption are clearly PvP adverse players and thus Ashes is obviously not the game for you.

My thoughts on the matter of corruption in relation to being a deterrent are literally all contained within my first post in this thread.

I stand fully behind that post.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani doesn't understand the depth and risk corruption brings. He is also on record saying he doesn't think corruption will stop people from pvping at all now as well. Trying to say if someone is deterred from corruption AoC is not for them.

The thing is, CLEARLY anyone that would be deterred by corruption in Ashes isn't all that much of a PvP player. If they were, it wouldn't bother them - or at least wouldn't stop them.

People that would be bothered by corruption simply don't have what it takes to play Ashes anyway - meaning the occurances of this would be even less frequent.

If someone came to me and said "I want to play Ashes, but I am afraid of corruption", I would simply tell them "my dude, it's ok, Ashes isn't for everyone".

My dude, that post was pure bait - you have said in the past that corruption would stop you from PvP'ing, so in that post I said people that wouldn't PvP due to corruption are clearly PvP adverse players and thus Ashes is obviously not the game for you.

My thoughts on the matter of corruption in relation to being a deterrent are literally all contained within my first post in this thread.

I stand fully behind that post.

So you are trolling on the forums or are you standing by the statement? The statement lines up if you think corruption isn't a deterrent to pvp as you said in the last few days or so.

We can take the back peddle to you thinking corruption won't stop people from flagging, that also is false. Corruption will still be a deterrent and affect the pvp engagement.

This can easily be compared to other games

in relation to pvp engagement

Shadowbane - no penalty (Extremely high risk of being attacked by any players)
Black desert online - Buffer until negative penalty (low - high risk of being attacked by player)
AoC- instant negative penalty (in theory should be low - medium risk)

Shadowbane people are hunting you heavily or almost always attacking on sight having no penalty and a incentive to kill you. It creates a atmosphere of attack first ask questions later.

In black desert online do incentive being holding a grind spot and not wasting time it can vary based on where you are farming to people not attacking you to needing to defending your spot. Do to having a buffer people are more open to flag and fight within the limits of their karma before stopping. Though in zones where you are red instantly after one kill you can see a huge decrease in people that are willing to pk and try methods being duel for spot/ guild dec/ or communication. Showing the strong deterrent from being instantly red.

Though Ashes of creation isn't out yet it is pretty clear what their goal is and not having random fights everywhere and people going corrupt but being more focused around meaningful fights (not going to get ito all that)

But the pattern is pretty clear, the more draw backs and less buffer the more prone players are to attacking. If there are deterrents it stops as much random pvp from happening based on the strength and level of it. Do to the atmosphere AoC is creating and things being more group focused you will most likely fine it will lean even further away from as many random conflicts.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

So you are trolling on the forums or are you standing by the statement?

Yeah.

I mean, it's not like I can take debate or discussion with you seriously.

I may as well have some fun with it.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

I have taken you at your word a lot, and think you are a very honest person, but somehow this feels like exactly how i have come to understand how you feel. You do not want anyone to be able to engage PVP with you unless you choose to. Please dont make me scour for quotes, but I am nearly certain that is the case.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "engage PvP".
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.
And, if someone does force me to eat cake when I'm not in the mood for cake - I expect to be able to file an assault charge and have them criminally punished. And that punishment should be harsh enough that people very rarely force me to eat cake when I'm not in the mood to eat cake.

I'm not going to attend a party where the hosts state that if I want to dance in the room with the best music, and where we get to see the birthday person open their presents, is a room where you auto-consent to other attendees forcing you to eat birthday cake whenever they want you to eat birthday cake.
It's fine with me if other people want to have fun doing that. But, I'm gonn be hanging out somewhere else.

Honestly this is a pretty solid mindset. As a flip side, if there was "cake" promised but I couldn't eat cake around people who aren't also eating cake, and the party actively discouraged eating the cake, I wouldn't want to attend that party.

Neither of us are wrong, we just like different parties.

Okeydoke

Mag7spy wrote: »

This is where you would miss the important part in the back and forth. It is meant as a deterrent against PK and griefing

What is pking? Is that like killing someone for no reason? So not quite as bad as actively and continuously griefing someone, but kind of random, uncalled for killing?

So you have legitimate contesting of content pvp, random, pointless pking, and then the worst of all, griefing. Is that about right.

So say I'm a guy that plays 30 hours a day. I'm not a griefer, not a random pker, but I do contest content much of the day. Yes, because we need a corruption system to control griefers and pks, and even though what I do all day is legitimate pvp, my actitivity will have limits put on it by the same system in place to control the griefers and pks. It could limit my legitimate open world pvp.

If it's required to go red to contest content that is. Ideally Steven will see to it that a critical mass of players, the every day green, all of us, who have valid and compelling reason to defend ourselves, generally do defend ourselves. Not always, but generally.

But am I getting it right, you're basically saying that because the corruption system has to limit griefers and pks, it will limit legitimate open world pvp to some extent as a result. I can see that. Particularly if Steven isn't willing to achieve a system that compels greens to defend themselves, when it can be reasonably inferred they should.

I don't think he will be willing to achieve that system. We'll see.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So you are trolling on the forums or are you standing by the statement?

Yeah.

I mean, it's not like I can take debate or discussion with you seriously.

I may as well have some fun with it.

So you are a troll on the forums confirmed ok glad to have that out of the way. Ya you manipulate information, lie, and take your assumptions as fact (that can be lying as well), lack experience in the topics you bring up, and troll.

Ya I'd agree it is difficult to take you seriously. You are just a rando on a forum talking about things you don't understand 50% of the time.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So you are trolling on the forums or are you standing by the statement?

Yeah.

I mean, it's not like I can take debate or discussion with you seriously.

I may as well have some fun with it.

So you are a troll on the forums confirmed

From your perspective, yes.

From the perspective of basically any other poster, no.

Solvryn

Okeydoke wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

This is where you would miss the important part in the back and forth. It is meant as a deterrent against PK and griefing

What is pking? Is that like killing someone for no reason? So not quite as bad as actively and continuously griefing someone, but kind of random, uncalled for killing?

So you have legitimate contesting of content pvp, random, pointless pking, and then the worst of all, griefing. Is that about right.

So say I'm a guy that plays 30 hours a day. I'm not a griefer, not a random pker, but I do contest content much of the day. Yes, because we need a corruption system to control griefers and pks, and even though what I do all day is legitimate pvp, my actitivity will have limits put on it by the same system in place to control the griefers and pks. It could limit my legitimate open world pvp.

If it's required to go red to contest content that is. Ideally Steven will see to it that a critical mass of players, the every day green, all of us, who have valid and compelling reason to defend ourselves, generally do defend ourselves. Not always, but generally.

But am I getting it right, you're basically saying that because the corruption system has to limit griefers and pks, it will limit legitimate open world pvp to some extent as a result. I can see that. Particularly if Steven isn't willing to achieve a system that compels greens to defend themselves, when it can be reasonably inferred they should.

I don't think he will be willing to achieve that system. We'll see.

PKing is just what PvP was before people bitched to have full loot removed.

Now it’s another buzzword for semantic headgame and personal politics.

Okeydoke

Solvryn wrote: »

PKing is just what PvP was before people bitched to have full loot removed.

Now it’s another buzzword for semantic headgame and personal politics.

Oh ok. I think my age is showing haha. Uh ok. Corruption does deter open world pvp. And it always did, it essentially has to. It's inevitable to some extent. The question is how much it's going to focus on eradicating red/corrupted pvp, at the expense of simultaneously reducing purple/combatant pvp.

But Noaani says that wasn't even what he was talking about. Ya know what, this is between yall lol. Frickin bout to have me memeing so hard because yall can't even agree on what you're arguing about. heh

Solvryn

Okeydoke wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

PKing is just what PvP was before people bitched to have full loot removed.

Now it’s another buzzword for semantic headgame and personal politics.

Oh ok. I think my age is showing haha. Uh ok. Corruption does deter open world pvp. And it always did, it essentially has to. It's inevitable to some extent. The question is how much it's going to focus on eradicating red/corrupted pvp, at the expense of simultaneously reducing purple/combatant pvp.

But Noaani says that wasn't even what he was talking about. Ya know what, this is between yall lol. Frickin bout to have me memeing so hard because yall can't even agree on what you're arguing about. heh

I’m not in that conversation.

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

I don't see how there can be any aggression at all.
I clearly stated that Steven is not a liar.

Stating things like "PvX is a car salesman term" sorta gives it away. That is not a positive connotation for anyone, I dont think.

You got a little passive aggression in ya. for sure.

Child Item