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.
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.
Kaos & Lace Cartel
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
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.
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.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2023
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
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.
Kaos & Lace Cartel
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
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.
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
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.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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
.... 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.
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
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.
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.
[
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.
[
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.
[
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.
[
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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.
Comments
Why?
This;
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.
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
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.
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.
Refer Steven below
https://youtu.be/GwpWmmIq2cg?t=1777
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.
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Yes.
↓Good youtube channel to learn things about creating games.↓
Masahiro Sakurai on Creating Games:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1DvRY5PyHHt3KN9ghunuw
Because the 6th core pillar is that Ashes is not made for everyone.
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.
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.
LOL
You seem to have the character of a politician.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think we mostly agree.
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!!"
-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.
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.
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.
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.
No, I'm fairly sure everyone but you understands what I said in that first post of mine in this thread.
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.
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).
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.
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.