Azherae wrote: » PherPhur wrote: » Also, you know who this is right? Its ChipsAhoy, i changed my name so I didnt have to be a cookie no more. If IM saying this about corruption then you know it aint nothing about opt in PvP or wanting to shift the game to PvE lol. Model match only 84% huh... Could you make a post about RMT for me so I can run it again?
PherPhur wrote: » Also, you know who this is right? Its ChipsAhoy, i changed my name so I didnt have to be a cookie no more. If IM saying this about corruption then you know it aint nothing about opt in PvP or wanting to shift the game to PvE lol.
Depraved wrote: » PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging Steven already told us the reasons why this will very possibly be the case. He said mechanisms in game were created to serve a function. He said if they did not serve their intended function that they would be tweaked or reworked until they did. He also said that corruptions intended purpose was to massively curb griefing. Corruptions and non visble healthbars do nothing to keep people from keeping other peoples health constantly low and griefing in this regard. It's also very fitting, fair and solves a serious problem that adds no enjoyment to the game but to griefers. It's to deter griefers yes, while also not preventing PvP. Corruption can't be too strict nor too lenient. Simply damaging to gain corruption is too strict. Make note of the comment of mine right above this. If you attack a green twice then you intend to get corruption. And if you dont then you're just griefing. Its not too strict, it serves exactly the intended function. It does nothing to prevent Steven from getting that 2% of corrupted players he wants, it just curbs full on griefing. There will be plenty of players like me who intend to get corruption and not grief. Killing a green a few times isnt griefing, intentionally camping a specific player for an hour+, that could be considered griefing. With your logic, we may as well have opt-in PvP which is a horrible idea I didnt say killing a green a few times was griefing.. how'd you come to that conclusion? I said hitting a green twice means you intend on gaining corruption, and if you dont, then youre griefing. Maybe anyways, if youre just attacking someone to keep their health low you're griefing. Also, you know who this is right? Its ChipsAhoy, i changed my name so I didnt have to be a cookie no more. If IM saying this about corruption then you know it aint nothing about opt in PvP or wanting to shift the game to PvE lol. how is attacking someone twice griefing? maybe im trying to see if they fight back and now they arent at full health, or maybe they use a powerful heal to get back to full and then fight. some people do that. or, maybe i just want to keep you low enough so that a mob kills you, and that also isnt griefing, thats just me beating you when we compete for a spot. you have the option to attack me back, not kill mobs until i get bored or leave. if i followed you around the whole map making sure you dont do anything, then that could be considered griefing.
PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging Steven already told us the reasons why this will very possibly be the case. He said mechanisms in game were created to serve a function. He said if they did not serve their intended function that they would be tweaked or reworked until they did. He also said that corruptions intended purpose was to massively curb griefing. Corruptions and non visble healthbars do nothing to keep people from keeping other peoples health constantly low and griefing in this regard. It's also very fitting, fair and solves a serious problem that adds no enjoyment to the game but to griefers. It's to deter griefers yes, while also not preventing PvP. Corruption can't be too strict nor too lenient. Simply damaging to gain corruption is too strict. Make note of the comment of mine right above this. If you attack a green twice then you intend to get corruption. And if you dont then you're just griefing. Its not too strict, it serves exactly the intended function. It does nothing to prevent Steven from getting that 2% of corrupted players he wants, it just curbs full on griefing. There will be plenty of players like me who intend to get corruption and not grief. Killing a green a few times isnt griefing, intentionally camping a specific player for an hour+, that could be considered griefing. With your logic, we may as well have opt-in PvP which is a horrible idea I didnt say killing a green a few times was griefing.. how'd you come to that conclusion? I said hitting a green twice means you intend on gaining corruption, and if you dont, then youre griefing. Maybe anyways, if youre just attacking someone to keep their health low you're griefing. Also, you know who this is right? Its ChipsAhoy, i changed my name so I didnt have to be a cookie no more. If IM saying this about corruption then you know it aint nothing about opt in PvP or wanting to shift the game to PvE lol.
Dolyem wrote: » PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging Steven already told us the reasons why this will very possibly be the case. He said mechanisms in game were created to serve a function. He said if they did not serve their intended function that they would be tweaked or reworked until they did. He also said that corruptions intended purpose was to massively curb griefing. Corruptions and non visble healthbars do nothing to keep people from keeping other peoples health constantly low and griefing in this regard. It's also very fitting, fair and solves a serious problem that adds no enjoyment to the game but to griefers. It's to deter griefers yes, while also not preventing PvP. Corruption can't be too strict nor too lenient. Simply damaging to gain corruption is too strict. Make note of the comment of mine right above this. If you attack a green twice then you intend to get corruption. And if you dont then you're just griefing. Its not too strict, it serves exactly the intended function. It does nothing to prevent Steven from getting that 2% of corrupted players he wants, it just curbs full on griefing. There will be plenty of players like me who intend to get corruption and not grief. Killing a green a few times isnt griefing, intentionally camping a specific player for an hour+, that could be considered griefing. With your logic, we may as well have opt-in PvP which is a horrible idea
PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging Steven already told us the reasons why this will very possibly be the case. He said mechanisms in game were created to serve a function. He said if they did not serve their intended function that they would be tweaked or reworked until they did. He also said that corruptions intended purpose was to massively curb griefing. Corruptions and non visble healthbars do nothing to keep people from keeping other peoples health constantly low and griefing in this regard. It's also very fitting, fair and solves a serious problem that adds no enjoyment to the game but to griefers. It's to deter griefers yes, while also not preventing PvP. Corruption can't be too strict nor too lenient. Simply damaging to gain corruption is too strict. Make note of the comment of mine right above this. If you attack a green twice then you intend to get corruption. And if you dont then you're just griefing. Its not too strict, it serves exactly the intended function. It does nothing to prevent Steven from getting that 2% of corrupted players he wants, it just curbs full on griefing. There will be plenty of players like me who intend to get corruption and not grief.
Dolyem wrote: » PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging Steven already told us the reasons why this will very possibly be the case. He said mechanisms in game were created to serve a function. He said if they did not serve their intended function that they would be tweaked or reworked until they did. He also said that corruptions intended purpose was to massively curb griefing. Corruptions and non visble healthbars do nothing to keep people from keeping other peoples health constantly low and griefing in this regard. It's also very fitting, fair and solves a serious problem that adds no enjoyment to the game but to griefers. It's to deter griefers yes, while also not preventing PvP. Corruption can't be too strict nor too lenient. Simply damaging to gain corruption is too strict.
PherPhur wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging Steven already told us the reasons why this will very possibly be the case. He said mechanisms in game were created to serve a function. He said if they did not serve their intended function that they would be tweaked or reworked until they did. He also said that corruptions intended purpose was to massively curb griefing. Corruptions and non visble healthbars do nothing to keep people from keeping other peoples health constantly low and griefing in this regard. It's also very fitting, fair and solves a serious problem that adds no enjoyment to the game but to griefers.
Dolyem wrote: » You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging
CROW3 wrote: » No. Hitting a green twice is going to be the Ashes invitation to pvp where you opt-in by throwing down. If the green just wants to be left alone, and you kill them you gain corruption. Just hitting them isn’t a corruptible offense.
Dygz wrote: » I mean... that's just a quibble over whether the magic number to understand the target intends to remain a Non-Combatant is 2 or 3 (or 4). The point of the statement is keeping the target's health low with no intention of killing the target.
Depraved wrote: » killing a green isnt griefing....
George_Black wrote: » Here I was thinking this is some new person. After all this time you still bang about the PK chips?
NiKr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I mean... that's just a quibble over whether the magic number to understand the target intends to remain a Non-Combatant is 2 or 3 (or 4). The point of the statement is keeping the target's health low with no intention of killing the target. How many licks hits does it take to get to the center of a pver
NiKr wrote: » How many licks hits does it take to get to the center of a pver
Noaani wrote: » George_Black wrote: » What emotional? What are you saying. My dude, I've told you a few times that most of your posts are coming across as over emotional. We've also talked a few times about how players look at games differently now than they did 20 years ago. 20 years ago, people were just thrilled with the ability to play an MMO. Even mediocre games were loved by people due to how new it was. Some things from back then will still work today, but some things simply wont. One of the ways people look at games differently now is that they play to win, rather than 20 years ago when people were playing for the joy of it. As such, things that could have been abused back then but weren't absolutely will be abused now. While I'm not saying this is the case here, what I am saying is that the argument of "it worked in a game 20 years ago" doesnt mean shit.
George_Black wrote: » What emotional? What are you saying.
Dygz wrote: » I would say that killing a Green once is not griefing. Non-consensual PKing is punished with Corruption. Griefing is intended to be minimized due to Corruption penalties ramping up as Corruption Score builds up. To a point where it's better for the griefer to take a break from griefing.
Depraved wrote: » i think its the opposite. corruption is great for normal pvpers and sucks for people who wanna camp low levels for no reason (maybe cuz they are too bad and cant pvp at their own level hahaha).
George_Black wrote: » Shared xp and loot doesnt shut down open world pvp, now does it? You want to have entire groups go red for a silly reason like that? Nobody will be able to flag anyone with your suggestion. The abuse would be like this: Group shows up in zone, flags one guy. Guy runs into mobs, dies, group goes red. Group has to get out of there. 0 contest for the zone. The dead guy is rezed by his friend. Keep farming unopposed. I dont care about your AA experience, plain and simply because your reasoning is one of overexagerration. You are not credible anymore. Your solution would create big problems, plus it leans on the side of restricting pvp even more. Plus.... it worked fine in L2. Done. The broken nameplate doesnt help attackers bring the hp of the victim tp 95%. The attacker risks going red in this system. Your solution gives all the power to the victim. Which will be abused. IS is thinking things through. You cant see one step further than your position/desire, nor do you see the ties to the rest of the game design. Stop the victimhood mentality.
PherPhur wrote: » It sucks for anyone getting it I'm sure. But I think it sucks especially bad for normal PvPers cause I know for me personally I think the way I WPvP adds something interesting in the world. I think a large chunk of PvEers dont like PvP cause theyve got gankd by high levels, body camped, taken while fighting a mob, ect. Too many times. I think they would find it interesting if none of that was an issue.
PherPhur wrote: » If it was just people being semi respectable. You know.. if someone messages me after I kill them in WPvP and is like "can you not dude, im not having a good day", I'd leave him alone(I would anyways cause I dont camp people) and probably even help him out with something if he seemed like he was really struggling.
PherPhur wrote: » I think PvX could exists without corruption if some people just put a cap on it ya know, acted with just a little class. But alas, all we have now is bickering back and forth between PvPers and PvEers. A seemingly never ending battle.
