Freeholds should be instanced

I think freeholds should be instanced because the way they talk about it makes it seem like it is very limited and ultimately game breaking.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mag7spy

Abarat wrote: »

@Mag7spy what do you think his objective on the forum is?

he seems to shy away from specific questions... like a vampire from sunlight

Get people to agree with him, and start pushing certain changes towards more PvE focused content. And say all these people agree with him. This also extends to focus on tab combat over action.

You can see in his post his points always revolve around people are forum agree with me, my friends agree with me, millions of people want this, etc.

Prob has fears of certain things, and wants other certain types of content to change but that is a hard read on what exactly. Also partly for his own ego, in the past he was most likely doing hard content so wants to hold onto he was "the best" even if that isn't relevant to current mmorpgs, and he doesn't play current mmorpgs in def.

Just my guess though basked on talking to him and the way he had more of a negative and aggressive view towards certain things with people and the game. Doesn't feel like he is discussing as much as rather actually trying to convince people towards his view point.

Abarat

have you noticed that he does not respond to specifics? Its odd.

no one who is interested in AoC should listen to @Noaani in my opinion. He has an agenda that is not what is best for the game.

Noaani

Abarat wrote: »

You seem certain it is not going to stop anyone

I literally didn't say this.

The reason I don't give specifics in relation to you and Mag is because of the twisting you do.

I say corruption isn't much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP, which is quite specific (as it, is is a deterrent to some in engaing in PvP, and is a deterrent to even more people for killing other players in PvP) and you twist that to me saying that corruption isn't going to stop anyone.

Why would I give you any specifics on any thing if that is what you are going to do with those specifics?

Abarat wrote: »

have you noticed that he does not respond to specifics? Its odd.

no one who is interested in AoC should listen to Noaani in my opinion. He has an agenda that is not what is best for the game.

Even if I had an agenda (I don't) you wouldn't be able to tell what it is based on the twisting of words that you do and seem to actually believe.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

You seem certain it is not going to stop anyone

I literally didn't say this.

The reason I don't give specifics in relation to you and Mag is because of the twisting you do.

I say corruption isn't much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP, which is quite specific (as it, is is a deterrent to some in engaing in PvP, and is a deterrent to even more people for killing other players in PvP) and you twist that to me saying that corruption isn't going to stop anyone.

Why would I give you any specifics on any thing if that is what you are going to do with those specifics?

Abarat wrote: »

have you noticed that he does not respond to specifics? Its odd.

no one who is interested in AoC should listen to Noaani in my opinion. He has an agenda that is not what is best for the game.

Even if I had an agenda (I don't) you wouldn't be able to tell what it is based on the twisting of words that you do and seem to actually believe.

You are the only one twisting anything, its funny you are trying to pint hat on other people in forums from your own actions.

Stop being a immature and take ownership of your own actions. Corruption will be a deterrent to pvp that includes all aspects like engaging in pvp.

My call out to you is you trying to say it won't be a deterrent. When you said it will be in some form I said that it is subjective and we need to look at the goal of the design which will be adjusted if it doesn't meet the requirement.

What does lying on a forum get you, and trying to label other people with your own actions. You simply just refuse to give straight answer and derail to avoid answering. nor do you use actual mmorpg experience in any of your arguments, and ignore the ones that do use it towards you.

Stop acting like a victim when you are the one derailing, slinging insults, and lying.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

My call out to you is you trying to say it won't be a deterrent.

Cool, I didn't say that. Lets go over this again.

I said it won't be much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

Not much of a deterrent means, by actual definition, that it will be some deterrent.

So, since I am saying, by definition, that it will be some deterrent, that means I am *not* saying - again by definition - that it won't be a deterrent. I am literally saying that it will be a deterrent to some people, you just don't seem to grasp that.

Then there is the engaging in PvP part. You can still engage in PvP without getting corruption. I said corription wouldn't be MUCH of a deterrent to people engaging in PvP.

Since manual flagging isn't a thing in Ashes, engaging someone in PvP is likely to be the default way to see if someone is up for PvP just for the sake of PvP. If they flag back, it's on. If they don't, it might not be.

Now, you may find some quote of me in the discussion with you afterwards where I said not a deterrent - but as we both know, I don't take discussion with you seriously, and that first post is my point in relation to that specific topic.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

My call out to you is you trying to say it won't be a deterrent.

Cool, I didn't say that. Lets go over this again.

I said it won't be much of a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

Not much of a deterrent means, by actual definition, that it will be some deterrent.

So, since I am saying, by definition, that it will be some deterrent, that means I am *not* saying - again by definition - that it won't be a deterrent. I am literally saying that it will be a deterrent to some people, you just don't seem to grasp that.

Then there is the engaging in PvP part. You can still engage in PvP without getting corruption. I said corription wouldn't be MUCH of a deterrent to people engaging in PvP.

Since manual flagging isn't a thing in Ashes, engaging someone in PvP is likely to be the default way to see if someone is up for PvP just for the sake of PvP. If they flag back, it's on. If they don't, it might not be.

Now, you may find some quote of me in the discussion with you afterwards where I said not a deterrent - but as we both know, I don't take discussion with you seriously, and that first post is my point in relation to that specific topic.

Feels like this is the circle again but that is fine, like i said before that is subjective on the level of deterrent it will end up being. I brought up examples in other games for this already and showed the pattern the more harsh the penalty the more pvp happens of all types.

Based on those games and my experience with pvp saying not much of a deterrent does not sound correct. Not much means that there should be a high chance you get attacked. To me in BDO there is not much of a deterrent because you have a buffer before you are flagged as red karma. But people are not running around pking everywhere every second (though things can vary based on the spot).

In a game like AoC where the penalty is instant we can again use BDO as an example when a player is about to become red. The main information I'd be looking for is does the player stop and leave or continue. I'd say about 80% (that is generous) the player ends up leaving if they can't get away around that to kill you.

Of course it doesn't mean it will work exactly like this in AoC but it showed a big indication on player mind set when it comes to having to deal with penalties. They have a high chance on not engaging or leaving when having to deal with them. When players have a buffer it still isn't normal for players to be pvping everywhere as they respect it and do not waste it as eagerly (knowing they have 0 loss while having this buffer)

Now further if we look at BDO on arsha you can see people are high to very highly aggressive in pvping while not having to deal with corruption or worrying about having a buffer when it comes to engaging in PvP.

So when you say "Not much of a deterrent" that feels highly subjective and based on my past experiences I'd say a safer bet would be saying an average amount of deterrent from engaging in pvp. To me that would still be high balling my experience tells me it be more of a high average deterrent for the normal player.

Again as i said before this is open development, they will want things to be a certain way and will be able to adjust the dials and how things work to get it to the point they want. As said by steven on the stream previously and their intent for corruption.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Based on those games and my experience with pvp saying not much of a deterrent does not sound correct. Not much means that there should be a high chance you get attacked.

It would mean there is a high chance of getting attacked if there is a reason for you to be attacked.

If you are harvesting a resource that is scarce, only enough for one person to harvest, then there is a high chance of getting attacked for that resource, even with corruption.

Mag7spy wrote: »

In a game like AoC where the penalty is instant we can again use BDO as an example when a player is about to become red. The main information I'd be looking for is does the player stop and leave or continue. I'd say about 80% (that is generous) the player ends up leaving if they can't get away around that to kill you.

Of course it doesn't mean it will work exactly like this in AoC but it showed a big indication on player mind set when it comes to having to deal with penalties. They have a high chance on not engaging or leaving when having to deal with them. When players have a buffer it still isn't normal for players to be pvping everywhere as they respect it and do not waste it as eagerly (knowing they have 0 loss while having this buffer)

These situations - people engaging in PvP to see if the other player is up for a fight and then that fight not happening for various reasons (the player walking away, the player not walking away but also not flagging and the attacker not wanting corruption), these are the things I was talking about when I said it may change the outcome of PvP.

All of these situations are still situations where PvP was engaged in, and so fall under the aspect of my comment where corruption wasn't a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

It is indeed open development, but unless Intrepid move the gaining of corruption from killing a player to engaging in PvP, I don't see any of the above changing. If you only get corruption from killing, players are still going to attack people in order to see if that player is willing to fight for what ever activity it is they are doing.

So when you say "Not much of a deterrent" that feels highly subjective and based on my past experiences I'd say a safer bet would be saying an average amount of deterrent from engaging in pvp.

Cool, so why have you kept repeating that I have said corruption isn't a deterrent at all?

That is the part I have taken issue with, and I have been very clear that I have taken issue with it.

If you want to discuss that it is subjective, thats great. That is discussion.

If you try to claim I said something that I did not say, however, that is not.

Mag7spy

It would mean there is a high chance of getting attacked if there is a reason for you to be attacked.

If you are harvesting a resource that is scarce, only enough for one person to harvest, then there is a high chance of getting attacked for that resource, even with corruption.

1.

First again corruption system needs to be taken into account what do you have to lose, what are the chances of you getting away and working off the corruption, etc. It does not mean suddenly you are going to be attacked but yes it will increase your value as a target. As for the value increase more information would need to be accessed before it before making any for sure statements.

2.

So are you basing pvp off more rare instances where someone finds a rare material / drop so we are moving away from normal instances. This does not do your point any favors as far as frequency of pvp.

These situations - people engaging in PvP to see if the other player is up for a fight and then that fight not happening for various reasons (the player walking away, the player not walking away but also not flagging and the attacker not wanting corruption), these are the things I was talking about when I said it may change the outcome of PvP.

All of these situations are still situations where PvP was engaged in, and so fall under the aspect of my comment where corruption wasn't a deterrent to engaging in PvP.

Well aware of these types of things, corruption attacking as a deterrent will make them less likely to happen. Design needs to be taken into account as well for their goals (things we are still learning of course). If your inventory is full, or you feel you don't have the right bags, etc will further impact your decision on attacking people. As well as how people are in the game normally, if the norm if someone attacking you trying to get you to flag and be purple is often ignored. It will further influence how often people will do that type of thing overall even more so if it is ineffective. As well as the guild system in place and how decing other guilds will work. The means to flag without needing to use corruption further reduces reason for players to use it making the deterrent stronger.

Cool, so why have you kept repeating that I have said corruption isn't a deterrent at all?

That is the part I have taken issue with, and I have been very clear that I have taken issue with it.

If you want to discuss that it is subjective, thats great. That is discussion.

If you try to claim I said something that I did not say, however, that is not.

You are very clearly trying to suggest something that isn't much of a deterrent means it will happen very frequency. Your wording here again on saying not much relates it very closely to saying it won't be a deterrent. On top of you arguing so aggressively against the idea it will be more than just a littler deterrent. It makes you look closed minded and not open to other possibilities when you are already working with a subjective statement. Even in the face of examples given to you.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

So are you basing pvp off more rare instances where someone finds a rare material

I said scarce.

According to Steven, scarcity is a key aspect of the games risk vs reward pillar.

As such, harvesting a scarce resource in Ashes could well be translated to "harvesting a resource".

Your wording here again on saying not much relates it very closely to saying it won't be a deterrent.

But it specifically isn't saying that it won't be a deterrent. They are factually different things. You coudl say they are close - but in the same way saying 100+100=101 is close.

It's wrong, but only by 1%. That's close, right?

If I said something as factually incorrect as this, I would expect you to jump all over it. It shouldn't be any wonder that I am refusing to engage with any comment that contains "you said corruption isn't a deterrent" or any variation of that.

You are welcome to disagree, but if you do, disagree with the thing I said, not with the thing I never said.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So are you basing pvp off more rare instances where someone finds a rare material

I said scarce.

According to Steven, scarcity is a key aspect of the games risk vs reward pillar.

As such, harvesting a scarce resource in Ashes could well be translated to "harvesting a resource".

Your wording here again on saying not much relates it very closely to saying it won't be a deterrent.

But it specifically isn't saying that it won't be a deterrent. They are factually different things. You coudl say they are close - but in the same way saying 100+100=101 is close.

It's wrong, but only by 1%. That's close, right?

If I said something as factually incorrect as this, I would expect you to jump all over it. It shouldn't be any wonder that I am refusing to engage with any comment that contains "you said corruption isn't a deterrent" or any variation of that.

You are welcome to disagree, but if you do, disagree with the thing I said, not with the thing I never said.

Scarcity would be a thing and it would be logical to think that is also not a normal circumstance player are going to commonly face in terms finding it, someone seeing them and pvping them over it. So that would be more of a rare event of pvp and again not common.

I've made it clear, i disagree with your use of it being not much of a deterrent based on your wording you are talking about extremely low values. If something is not much of a deterrent it means there is a very high likely chance people will do it.

Akin to being like you have a 5 % chance to enhance something and saying "You won't have much of a chance chance to get it." meaning the majority of the time people would be flagging to fight....

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

I've made it clear, i disagree with your use of it being not much of a deterrent based on your wording you are talking about extremely low values. If something is not much of a deterrent it means there is a very high likely chance people will do it.

Mag7spy wrote: »

You state corruption is not a deterrent against pvp multiple times.

No I didn't.

Mag7spy wrote: »

You didn't give him a proper answer as to why you think majority of players are fine going corrupted.

Because I didn't say that.

Mag7spy wrote: »

All you need to do is at the very least be open to the fact corruption will directly lower pvp

My original statement contains this within it by default. Corruption will alter the outcome of PvP because some people will opt to not finish the fight to avoid corruption - that is lowering total PvP amounts.

These are just some of the posts of you claiming I said a thing I didn't say, in just one thread. I only looked through three or four pages, and I am sure I didn't get all on those pages, but this should be enough to illustrate how common it is for you to be completely off base.

Once again, if you disagree with what I am saying, and if you have a good argument for why you disagree, why would you need to say that I said something I didn't say?

Essentially, your entire argument against what I said here amounts to "well, I agree with what you are saying in general, but those arent the words I would use to describe it".

Somehow, from that argument, you have claimed that I don't know the games I am talking about, that I need to experience more PvP, that I have some agenda against the game and I'm sure some other things as well.

All this when really, you would just use different words.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I've made it clear, i disagree with your use of it being not much of a deterrent based on your wording you are talking about extremely low values. If something is not much of a deterrent it means there is a very high likely chance people will do it.

Mag7spy wrote: »

You state corruption is not a deterrent against pvp multiple times.

No I didn't.

Mag7spy wrote: »

You didn't give him a proper answer as to why you think majority of players are fine going corrupted.

Because I didn't say that.

Mag7spy wrote: »

All you need to do is at the very least be open to the fact corruption will directly lower pvp

My original statement contains this within it by default. Corruption will alter the outcome of PvP because some people will opt to not finish the fight to avoid corruption - that is lowering total PvP amounts.

These are just some of the posts of you claiming I said a thing I didn't say, in just one thread. I only looked through three or four pages, and I am sure I didn't get all on those pages, but this should be enough to illustrate how common it is for you to be completely off base.

Once again, if you disagree with what I am saying, and if you have a good argument for why you disagree, why would you need to say that I said something I didn't say?

Essentially, your entire argument against what I said here amounts to "well, I agree with what you are saying in general, but those arent the words I would use to describe it".

Somehow, from that argument, you have claimed that I don't know the games I am talking about, that I need to experience more PvP, that I have some agenda against the game and I'm sure some other things as well.

All this when really, you would just use different words.

1. Suggesting there is not much a of deterrent means you are talking about a low value, that is up to you to word things different if your perspective is different / changed,
2. You still don't understand the correlation in pvp with corruption. If you are engaging in pvp there is a direct link to corruption. I've already given you examples based on experience where you have provided none. Regardless of corruption gain it plays a mental effect on players normally.
3. I've quoted this multiple times I'm going to screenshot this now so it is very clear sicne im tired of you ignoring your own qoute

This blends together with you saying it is not a deterrent and also suggesting it is not much allowing you to lean towards saying it is not a deterrent. Effectively trying to counter out people saying it is a deterrent.

Again you can talk about your original statement but you are making new statements, why are you lying about you not saying this what is the point?

I absolutely don't agree with you at all that it is "hardly a deterrent". Why this is important is because it has a huge impact on the overall experience of all players. This is why i used games and my experiences from them as examples...You can go from everyone flagging on sight, to every so often, or make it more of a rarity entirely based on the systems.

Which has a huge impact on the casual players, it is not small point to talk about corruption like this and why it is important to get it right as people read this.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

I absolutely don't agree

Two points (and only two points).

One, I have told you I will not reply to posts when you use a screenshot instead of the quote feature.

Two, we have gone over that. You say you are tired of me ignoring that - but we discussed it already.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I absolutely don't agree

Two points (and only two points).

One, I have told you I will not reply to posts when you use a screenshot instead of the quote feature.

Two, we have gone over that. You say you are tired of me ignoring that - but we discussed it already.

When you are caught red handed multiple times and you back away. As I said before I'm direct, I'm not going to keep playing games with you. If you want to spread misinformation it is going to be screenshotted at this point since you want to keep ignoring the quote.

I know for sure you read it that time though

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

since you want to keep ignoring the quote.

I addressed the quote, in a post that was a reply to you.

Unfortunately, since you posted a screenshot of it instead of a quote, I can't just click on the link to take me straight to the thread in order to make it easier to find the post where I addressed it in reply to you.

That is why you use quotes. They facilitate discussion. Screenshots do not. You posting that as a screenshot rather than a quote tells me you do not want discussion around it - so you will not have it.

It is perhaps worth noting that you replied to my post where I addressed the above post, I'm not sure why you are claiming I am ignoring it.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

since you want to keep ignoring the quote.

I addressed the quote, in a post that was a reply to you.

Unfortunately, since you posted a screenshot of it instead of a quote, I can't just click on the link to take me straight to the thread in order to make it easier to find the post where I addressed it in reply to you.

That is why you use quotes. They facilitate discussion. Screenshots do not. You posting that as a screenshot rather than a quote tells me you do not want discussion around it - so you will not have it.

It is perhaps worth noting that you replied to my post where I addressed the above post, I'm not sure why you are claiming I am ignoring it.

Naa bud that is you running from discussion in face of being unable to accept your own words. Own up to your statements, you are making a longer discussion about it than it needs to be.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Naa bud that is you running from discussion in face of being unable to accept your own words. Own up to your statements, you are making a longer discussion about it than it needs to be.

Again, I addressed it previously.

What is your problem here? why are you so obsessed over me? Not going to lie, I'm wondering if I need to inform the police with how obsessed you seem. It's kind of creepy.

I gave you a chance at being mroe reasonable, you seem to have passed that up. As such, I'm done with you.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Naa bud that is you running from discussion in face of being unable to accept your own words. Own up to your statements, you are making a longer discussion about it than it needs to be.

Again, I addressed it previously.

What is your problem here? why are you so obsessed over me? Not going to lie, I'm wondering if I need to inform the police with how obsessed you seem. It's kind of creepy.

I gave you a chance at being mroe reasonable, you seem to have passed that up. As such, I'm done with you.

You have not addressed anything clearly you muddy your entire conversations half the time.

You have quite the sense of entitlement there, your narcissist traits are showing. No one is forcing you to respond to me. You are not special, if you make bad takes on a forum people will comment on them, even more so when you spread misinformation.

I'm confident you won't use experience in mmorpgs to explain anything though at the end of the day where other people will.

Dralay

I actually generally agree, my worry is that freeholds are going to look like an eye-sore cluster fuck to the rest of the world, and could potentially tank performance. I would put money on it that when you walk into a heavily freehold populated area you fps are going to drop like a rock. I don't think Intrepid has some secret formula past this that every other development company has overlooked. All this would be solved if they just added housing island that can be tp'ed to.

Nerror

I don't want the freeholds to be instanced. There are several things with the current plans I disagree with, but not that they are part of the non-instanced world.

I want there to be more available freeholds, so not only 5-10% of the player base can ever own a non-instanced home in Verra. I want smaller freehold options than the big 1.5 acre ones. I want acquisition to be much less gold dependent. I think it's a really bad idea to have direct sales to other players for many reasons I have laid out in other posts, including RMT. We are not here to play the real estate market, we are here to re-settle Verra and kick the Ancients out.

So there are many things wrong with the current planned implementation, but them not being instanced is not one of them.

Child Item