Ravicus wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2 Well thing of corruption as a system to structure the world rather than control people. It does not matter how you look at it, it is what it is. Putting lipstick on a pig still makes it a pig lol. Sure if you think systems don’t structure a game. I suppose the environmental team controls player behavior too, by having something for our toons to walk on. Well that is for sure. We can all agree that we all want a good game. I do believe that there are deterents that will help curb detremental beheavior. I just do not think this is the way for it. In my opinion I can see things going sour for pvp. If you want to look at analogies you can compare corruption to a flagging toggle but we can call it "flagging lite". It dangles a carrot in front of the pvp person saying you can attack this person, but incentivises against it. Full advantage to the green whom can make a decision to attack back or not, where full disadvantage goes to the person whom is wanting pvp. I thinki the analogy is: "Give them just enough rope to hang themselves with", which will temp the pvp person to attack, but will regret it. Much easier and better version in my book to just have a flagging system. Just my opinion. Will save everyone being pissed off. Make some of the high level gathering areas auto flag areas. This will make the carebears happy, and prevent the pvp people that play the game from trying it and quiting after they find out it sucks. Opt-in is a big no. Can you explain please? As soon as you make opt-in PvP the option, people naturally choose the path of least resistance for the greatest advantage. In this case, nobody turns on PvP flagging in open world, killing OW PvP as a result. You see it in WoW, and you see it in New World clear as day. I understand this. And in this case with you, corruption is not working as a deterent. You are already finding work arounds for it. You will deal with it and keep on doing what you do. What I am saying is if people feel the way I do, the will not. So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess.
Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2 Well thing of corruption as a system to structure the world rather than control people. It does not matter how you look at it, it is what it is. Putting lipstick on a pig still makes it a pig lol. Sure if you think systems don’t structure a game. I suppose the environmental team controls player behavior too, by having something for our toons to walk on. Well that is for sure. We can all agree that we all want a good game. I do believe that there are deterents that will help curb detremental beheavior. I just do not think this is the way for it. In my opinion I can see things going sour for pvp. If you want to look at analogies you can compare corruption to a flagging toggle but we can call it "flagging lite". It dangles a carrot in front of the pvp person saying you can attack this person, but incentivises against it. Full advantage to the green whom can make a decision to attack back or not, where full disadvantage goes to the person whom is wanting pvp. I thinki the analogy is: "Give them just enough rope to hang themselves with", which will temp the pvp person to attack, but will regret it. Much easier and better version in my book to just have a flagging system. Just my opinion. Will save everyone being pissed off. Make some of the high level gathering areas auto flag areas. This will make the carebears happy, and prevent the pvp people that play the game from trying it and quiting after they find out it sucks. Opt-in is a big no. Can you explain please? As soon as you make opt-in PvP the option, people naturally choose the path of least resistance for the greatest advantage. In this case, nobody turns on PvP flagging in open world, killing OW PvP as a result. You see it in WoW, and you see it in New World clear as day.
Ravicus wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2 Well thing of corruption as a system to structure the world rather than control people. It does not matter how you look at it, it is what it is. Putting lipstick on a pig still makes it a pig lol. Sure if you think systems don’t structure a game. I suppose the environmental team controls player behavior too, by having something for our toons to walk on. Well that is for sure. We can all agree that we all want a good game. I do believe that there are deterents that will help curb detremental beheavior. I just do not think this is the way for it. In my opinion I can see things going sour for pvp. If you want to look at analogies you can compare corruption to a flagging toggle but we can call it "flagging lite". It dangles a carrot in front of the pvp person saying you can attack this person, but incentivises against it. Full advantage to the green whom can make a decision to attack back or not, where full disadvantage goes to the person whom is wanting pvp. I thinki the analogy is: "Give them just enough rope to hang themselves with", which will temp the pvp person to attack, but will regret it. Much easier and better version in my book to just have a flagging system. Just my opinion. Will save everyone being pissed off. Make some of the high level gathering areas auto flag areas. This will make the carebears happy, and prevent the pvp people that play the game from trying it and quiting after they find out it sucks. Opt-in is a big no. Can you explain please?
Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2 Well thing of corruption as a system to structure the world rather than control people. It does not matter how you look at it, it is what it is. Putting lipstick on a pig still makes it a pig lol. Sure if you think systems don’t structure a game. I suppose the environmental team controls player behavior too, by having something for our toons to walk on. Well that is for sure. We can all agree that we all want a good game. I do believe that there are deterents that will help curb detremental beheavior. I just do not think this is the way for it. In my opinion I can see things going sour for pvp. If you want to look at analogies you can compare corruption to a flagging toggle but we can call it "flagging lite". It dangles a carrot in front of the pvp person saying you can attack this person, but incentivises against it. Full advantage to the green whom can make a decision to attack back or not, where full disadvantage goes to the person whom is wanting pvp. I thinki the analogy is: "Give them just enough rope to hang themselves with", which will temp the pvp person to attack, but will regret it. Much easier and better version in my book to just have a flagging system. Just my opinion. Will save everyone being pissed off. Make some of the high level gathering areas auto flag areas. This will make the carebears happy, and prevent the pvp people that play the game from trying it and quiting after they find out it sucks. Opt-in is a big no.
Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2 Well thing of corruption as a system to structure the world rather than control people. It does not matter how you look at it, it is what it is. Putting lipstick on a pig still makes it a pig lol. Sure if you think systems don’t structure a game. I suppose the environmental team controls player behavior too, by having something for our toons to walk on. Well that is for sure. We can all agree that we all want a good game. I do believe that there are deterents that will help curb detremental beheavior. I just do not think this is the way for it. In my opinion I can see things going sour for pvp. If you want to look at analogies you can compare corruption to a flagging toggle but we can call it "flagging lite". It dangles a carrot in front of the pvp person saying you can attack this person, but incentivises against it. Full advantage to the green whom can make a decision to attack back or not, where full disadvantage goes to the person whom is wanting pvp. I thinki the analogy is: "Give them just enough rope to hang themselves with", which will temp the pvp person to attack, but will regret it. Much easier and better version in my book to just have a flagging system. Just my opinion. Will save everyone being pissed off. Make some of the high level gathering areas auto flag areas. This will make the carebears happy, and prevent the pvp people that play the game from trying it and quiting after they find out it sucks.
Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2 Well thing of corruption as a system to structure the world rather than control people. It does not matter how you look at it, it is what it is. Putting lipstick on a pig still makes it a pig lol. Sure if you think systems don’t structure a game. I suppose the environmental team controls player behavior too, by having something for our toons to walk on.
Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2 Well thing of corruption as a system to structure the world rather than control people. It does not matter how you look at it, it is what it is. Putting lipstick on a pig still makes it a pig lol.
Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2 Well thing of corruption as a system to structure the world rather than control people.
Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2
Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key.
Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think).
Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you.
Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties.
Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party.
Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over
Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane.
Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all.
NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. That's kinda the point of the system. Only a select few should be PKing and even then only to a point. Steven wants PKing to be at a minimum and the current design would accomplish that. L2ers want a slightly laxer system because we know that L2 didn't have that much Red players, but we're also super biased. WoWers don't want pvp at all because they're used to being fucked by the enemy faction. The balancing is somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to WoW's side, purely so that casuals can have fun in the game. As others have already said, any opt-in-like system will just create WoW.
Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess.
Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. That's kinda the point of the system. Only a select few should be PKing and even then only to a point. Steven wants PKing to be at a minimum and the current design would accomplish that. L2ers want a slightly laxer system because we know that L2 didn't have that much Red players, but we're also super biased. WoWers don't want pvp at all because they're used to being fucked by the enemy faction. The balancing is somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to WoW's side, purely so that casuals can have fun in the game. As others have already said, any opt-in-like system will just create WoW. Again, I do not want an opt in flag system, but that is basically what we will have. I understand the WoW argument, never played L2. I understand that corruption is a core feature of game design also, but it is just wrong in its implementation IMO. You just validate my point that there will be little to no overworld pvp. Like I stated, you will have mostly greens running around gathering without any consequences, because corruption will be to severe. Basically a pvp toggle.
Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2 Well thing of corruption as a system to structure the world rather than control people. It does not matter how you look at it, it is what it is. Putting lipstick on a pig still makes it a pig lol. Sure if you think systems don’t structure a game. I suppose the environmental team controls player behavior too, by having something for our toons to walk on. Well that is for sure. We can all agree that we all want a good game. I do believe that there are deterents that will help curb detremental beheavior. I just do not think this is the way for it. In my opinion I can see things going sour for pvp. If you want to look at analogies you can compare corruption to a flagging toggle but we can call it "flagging lite". It dangles a carrot in front of the pvp person saying you can attack this person, but incentivises against it. Full advantage to the green whom can make a decision to attack back or not, where full disadvantage goes to the person whom is wanting pvp. I thinki the analogy is: "Give them just enough rope to hang themselves with", which will temp the pvp person to attack, but will regret it. Much easier and better version in my book to just have a flagging system. Just my opinion. Will save everyone being pissed off. Make some of the high level gathering areas auto flag areas. This will make the carebears happy, and prevent the pvp people that play the game from trying it and quiting after they find out it sucks. Opt-in is a big no. Can you explain please? As soon as you make opt-in PvP the option, people naturally choose the path of least resistance for the greatest advantage. In this case, nobody turns on PvP flagging in open world, killing OW PvP as a result. You see it in WoW, and you see it in New World clear as day. I understand this. And in this case with you, corruption is not working as a deterent. You are already finding work arounds for it. You will deal with it and keep on doing what you do. What I am saying is if people feel the way I do, the will not. So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. I'm simply pointing out the flaws that exploit the system in a way that hurts PvP instead of just deterring griefing NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. That's kinda the point of the system. Only a select few should be PKing and even then only to a point. Steven wants PKing to be at a minimum and the current design would accomplish that. L2ers want a slightly laxer system because we know that L2 didn't have that much Red players, but we're also super biased. WoWers don't want pvp at all because they're used to being fucked by the enemy faction. The balancing is somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to WoW's side, purely so that casuals can have fun in the game. As others have already said, any opt-in-like system will just create WoW. I'd say you're on the right track, but from what I can tell, Steven wants griefing to be minimized, not necessarily PKing. My stance is to tweak corruption to allow the first bit to get PKs in, but as a result you need to space your kills out so you don't ramp up into the death sentence zone of corruption. By doing this, you prevent camping, Repetitive, and under leveled PKing, while still allowing players to get their hits in on the ones using non-combatant status as a shield. Obviously it will need tested to find the sweet spot.
Solvryn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. I am not the one constantly critisizing the game because you want to pick flowers and not eat cake. I disagree with the corruption as it is because it is flawed and I think it will ruin the game for many pvp players. Theoretically there are two sides in pvp, not good nor evil, but different sides. These sides are able to fight for nodes and resources, defending and attacking. Now the carebear can punish people for wanting to fight for nodes via corruption. Pvp should be based on who has the willpower to defend and attack. If you have the numbers to do so, and the skill to carry it through. If your side does not have the numbers to defend you then you probably need to rethink your strategy. But all that is out the window because flower pickers want to pick in peace. Throws a wrench in the whole thing. Griefing as stated above is still griefing and can be reported, without corruption. /rant over there are no penalties, including corruption, during pvp events. feel free to kill as many as you want during node wars, sieges, caravans, destroyed node areas, guild wars, etc. the corruption system is mostly to prevent certain abuses that can happen in a ow non event pvp and these penalties when you are corrupted can easily be overcome by being in a party. I understand those mechanics, but what about unclaimed nodes you are fighting for? You cant fight a carebear without severe penalties. What’a the point of fighting a carebear? Context good sir please and thank you. I guess the point was you really cannot fight the carebear, not that anyone would want to, but yet, they are here in a pvp game. I know most peope define pvp in different ways. I define it as player vs player. So if you are interecting with another human, and have hostility, its pvp. You might once or twice to try to get rid of him defending your farming area. But in the end, it will all be non flagged greens out there gathering, for the most part anyways. So yes, I guess the context should have been: Carebears win this fight as the corruption will deter most all efforts to deter gathering, there will be no contested areas (except for high seas, (*for now. Feature creap is a slow unrelenting step*)) Unless the node is at war with another node, then I think it will flag all citizens. (I think). Eh. PvP Corruption/ Karma/ Law mechanics are a good thing when they’re fleshed out well. You don’t want people quitting the game and you don’t want the systems abused. Achieving that is key. I guess we will see. I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. In all the years that games have attempted to control human behavior it has always been flawed. Hopefully this time it will work. I look forward to A2 Well thing of corruption as a system to structure the world rather than control people. It does not matter how you look at it, it is what it is. Putting lipstick on a pig still makes it a pig lol. Sure if you think systems don’t structure a game. I suppose the environmental team controls player behavior too, by having something for our toons to walk on. Well that is for sure. We can all agree that we all want a good game. I do believe that there are deterents that will help curb detremental beheavior. I just do not think this is the way for it. In my opinion I can see things going sour for pvp. If you want to look at analogies you can compare corruption to a flagging toggle but we can call it "flagging lite". It dangles a carrot in front of the pvp person saying you can attack this person, but incentivises against it. Full advantage to the green whom can make a decision to attack back or not, where full disadvantage goes to the person whom is wanting pvp. I thinki the analogy is: "Give them just enough rope to hang themselves with", which will temp the pvp person to attack, but will regret it. Much easier and better version in my book to just have a flagging system. Just my opinion. Will save everyone being pissed off. Make some of the high level gathering areas auto flag areas. This will make the carebears happy, and prevent the pvp people that play the game from trying it and quiting after they find out it sucks. Opt-in is a big no. Can you explain please? As soon as you make opt-in PvP the option, people naturally choose the path of least resistance for the greatest advantage. In this case, nobody turns on PvP flagging in open world, killing OW PvP as a result. You see it in WoW, and you see it in New World clear as day. I understand this. And in this case with you, corruption is not working as a deterent. You are already finding work arounds for it. You will deal with it and keep on doing what you do. What I am saying is if people feel the way I do, the will not. So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. I'm simply pointing out the flaws that exploit the system in a way that hurts PvP instead of just deterring griefing NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. That's kinda the point of the system. Only a select few should be PKing and even then only to a point. Steven wants PKing to be at a minimum and the current design would accomplish that. L2ers want a slightly laxer system because we know that L2 didn't have that much Red players, but we're also super biased. WoWers don't want pvp at all because they're used to being fucked by the enemy faction. The balancing is somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to WoW's side, purely so that casuals can have fun in the game. As others have already said, any opt-in-like system will just create WoW. I'd say you're on the right track, but from what I can tell, Steven wants griefing to be minimized, not necessarily PKing. My stance is to tweak corruption to allow the first bit to get PKs in, but as a result you need to space your kills out so you don't ramp up into the death sentence zone of corruption. By doing this, you prevent camping, Repetitive, and under leveled PKing, while still allowing players to get their hits in on the ones using non-combatant status as a shield. Obviously it will need tested to find the sweet spot. Aye griefing being contained is fine. PKing doesn't fit the bill for Stevens definition of griefing. Good thing Ashes if attracting a broader audience from a variety of different games to test this in A2 and give feedback. I think having feedback from just L2 and WoW players would make for a very shitty PvP scene in Ashes.
hleV wrote: » Say a gear piece drop can happen from a single PK, that's a deterrent that will kill most PKing outside of planned PKs with your alt or your naked mains. Or if greens ganking a red is easily abusable due to the red not really having a choice but to either die or suffer more corruption. Not having these huge repercussions from one PK will introduce more one-off, "heat of the moment" spontaneus PKs which I think Steven wants. Then, the sliders for stat dampening, XP dept, mat drop and time to work off the corruption can be adjusted until the PK count is to Steven's liking.
unknownsystemerror wrote: » Already a thing. While yes, it could be adjusted or changed at the Sandal Lord's whim, trying to say "I think Steven wants this." is not supported by a host of other quoted material over years of activity.
Ravicus wrote: » Again, I do not want an opt in flag system, but that is basically what we will have. I understand the WoW argument, never played L2. I understand that corruption is a core feature of game design also, but it is just wrong in its implementation IMO. You just validate my point that there will be little to no overworld pvp. Like I stated, you will have mostly greens running around gathering without any consequences, because corruption will be to severe. Basically a pvp toggle.
NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, I do not want an opt in flag system, but that is basically what we will have. I understand the WoW argument, never played L2. I understand that corruption is a core feature of game design also, but it is just wrong in its implementation IMO. You just validate my point that there will be little to no overworld pvp. Like I stated, you will have mostly greens running around gathering without any consequences, because corruption will be to severe. Basically a pvp toggle. Majority of open world pvp will come from node and guild wars. Just as it was in L2. PKing is there to be that last-chance tool to use when you truly need it. Steven can say as much as he wants about what he considers griefing, but I know at what lvl the complains will start pouring in en masse. And that's when people start getting PKd. Not repeatedly killed on the same spot, but just PKed here and there. Also, as has been discussed previously, no one will know the intent behind repeatable kills. You might be farming a location and keep PKing the same annoying dude who's trying to farm the same spot. That dude will see this action as repeatable negative harassment. Steven, supposedly, doesn't see it as one. Which way will the GM powers swing then? Same will be true for location control, dungeon farm prevention, personal deep-rooted rivalry, etc etc. All of those will be repeated and majority of those will be seen by the victim as harassment. At which point Steven will either "make the system work as intended" and tune corruption penalties ever higher, or he'll lose a ton of people while trying to defend his standpoint on what "harassment" really means to him.
hleV wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » hleV wrote: » The 4th flag status is Bounty Hunter, and it's designed properly. Now temporarily apply bounty hunter rules (without extra advantages and rewards that dedicated BHs get) to the green that's attacking a red and we're golden. Sort of. I still feel like a green attacking shouldn't negate the corruption penalties a red player already has while bounty hunters do because they're in it for a bigger reward technically. But I'd be down to test it to see what feels better. I'm still very skeptical about the "no CC against greens" bit anyway BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment.
Dolyem wrote: » hleV wrote: » The 4th flag status is Bounty Hunter, and it's designed properly. Now temporarily apply bounty hunter rules (without extra advantages and rewards that dedicated BHs get) to the green that's attacking a red and we're golden. Sort of. I still feel like a green attacking shouldn't negate the corruption penalties a red player already has while bounty hunters do because they're in it for a bigger reward technically. But I'd be down to test it to see what feels better. I'm still very skeptical about the "no CC against greens" bit anyway
hleV wrote: » The 4th flag status is Bounty Hunter, and it's designed properly. Now temporarily apply bounty hunter rules (without extra advantages and rewards that dedicated BHs get) to the green that's attacking a red and we're golden.
Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way. I agree with what you say. My point is corruption is basically flagging unflagging, at least for the greens. So its one sided really. Sure you can kill the green, but you wont do it repeatedly. So you will have a bunch of greens not flagging doing the gathering. Only one side is punished. Does not sound fun to me. both sides are punished. the green could also fight back? with pvp toggle you wouldnt even have the option to attack the green while gathering, which is even worse for the reasons mentioned in my previous post Ya, I get it, but it will come to the point no one will attack the green anyway. That is the point. Its "flagging lite". Sure a couple hardcore self punishing types will kill a green once in awhile, until they wont anymore because its not worth it. Hence zones filled with greens gathering. thats why there is an incentive to kill gatherers, and its called the land management system. people wont be happy with outsiders destroying their node's resources. so they can either talk to them or kill them. Right, at what cost? Who suffers more in the end? if i get what you mean correctly, the player who goes red has the potential to lose more than the gatherer. so you want a pvp toggle where the person with pvp on doesnt suffer those penalties? the thing is, you will be the only person with the toggle on, because the gatherers wont turn it on so you might as well not even attack them in the first place in ow pvp (also some gatherers will be pvpers as well). so you dont want a system where pvers arent attacked, you want a system where pvpers dont suffer penalties? if someone kills a green, the green suffers penalties immediately and the red player suffers deferred penalties. if you cleanse your corruption, you wont suffer any penalty, so the key part is to know when you can go red and when you cant. with a toggle, you dont even have the option and pvpers will suffer more in the long run (no easy way to get rid of pve griefers, cant have a spot for yourself, land management screwed, etc). also, if you play in a group, corruption is a minimal problem. the worst thing that can happen is that you drop some gear and your party picks them up and returns them to you. "so you dont want a system where pvers arent attacked, you want a system where pvpers dont suffer penalties?" No, that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that is what will organically happen, although they can be attacked. Sure, the penalty for the green is instant, but is it severe? They just pick up and go along as normal. They stick their tongue out and say nany nany boo boo to you and keep on keepin on. Whereas you talk about removing corruption, its not nearly as easy. "Removing corruption The primary means to remove corruption is through death. Multiple deaths may be necessary to remove all corruption.[69][35] Dying removes a significant portion of a player's corruption score.[70] Gaining experience will also slowly reduce a player's corruption score.[71][22][69] Any experience that's gained by the player, whether it be through achievements in crafting, or in adventuring, or through other types of achievements: All of that experience goes towards your adventuring class experience gained; and then some experience can dual purpose towards professions as well. So if I reach an achievement in my crafting profession and that grants me additional experience within that profession to rank up, it will also grant the same amount of experience over in my adventuring level; and to that point, anytime you gain adventuring experience you tick away at the corruption.[71] – Steven Sharif A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future.[72][70] This is a design shift from a religious quest being used to directly reduce the corruption score.[73] Corruption duration is reduced in military nodes.[74]" Also you have to remember you cannot buy or sell, you cannot bank, or storage. You cannot trade with others. Sure, lots of peeps will be going red.... *rolls eyes* not a lot of people will be going red. corruption isnt a desirable state. what i mean is not having ow pvp in a game designed with ow pvp in mind will be worst for the pvpers in the long run. corruption penalties arent instant, as in you can avoid them if you dont die and if you are with your party, they dont matter that much. also, you can deal with pvers without having to kill them and go red, but if oyu make ow pvp a toggle, you cant even do that. I do not want a toggle either, but what I am saying is that there basically will be one, if not on paper. I understand your argument and mostly agree with it. What I am saying is that the point at least for you is situational. "if you don't die" "if you run in groups" lots of situational things yes, then maybe it can work for you. I also wonder about how long it will take to get rid of corruption as that will have a huge impact. Imagine if it takes a long while, and you cannot get gear? If you cannot bank, trade, buy or sell? If you lose your weapon on death and the green now has it and you have to wait out your corruption without being able to do anything? Stuff like this goes through my mind. If we can nail down these questions it will help in being able to make the corruption system more palletable or not. I do appreciate your comments.
Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way. I agree with what you say. My point is corruption is basically flagging unflagging, at least for the greens. So its one sided really. Sure you can kill the green, but you wont do it repeatedly. So you will have a bunch of greens not flagging doing the gathering. Only one side is punished. Does not sound fun to me. both sides are punished. the green could also fight back? with pvp toggle you wouldnt even have the option to attack the green while gathering, which is even worse for the reasons mentioned in my previous post Ya, I get it, but it will come to the point no one will attack the green anyway. That is the point. Its "flagging lite". Sure a couple hardcore self punishing types will kill a green once in awhile, until they wont anymore because its not worth it. Hence zones filled with greens gathering. thats why there is an incentive to kill gatherers, and its called the land management system. people wont be happy with outsiders destroying their node's resources. so they can either talk to them or kill them. Right, at what cost? Who suffers more in the end? if i get what you mean correctly, the player who goes red has the potential to lose more than the gatherer. so you want a pvp toggle where the person with pvp on doesnt suffer those penalties? the thing is, you will be the only person with the toggle on, because the gatherers wont turn it on so you might as well not even attack them in the first place in ow pvp (also some gatherers will be pvpers as well). so you dont want a system where pvers arent attacked, you want a system where pvpers dont suffer penalties? if someone kills a green, the green suffers penalties immediately and the red player suffers deferred penalties. if you cleanse your corruption, you wont suffer any penalty, so the key part is to know when you can go red and when you cant. with a toggle, you dont even have the option and pvpers will suffer more in the long run (no easy way to get rid of pve griefers, cant have a spot for yourself, land management screwed, etc). also, if you play in a group, corruption is a minimal problem. the worst thing that can happen is that you drop some gear and your party picks them up and returns them to you. "so you dont want a system where pvers arent attacked, you want a system where pvpers dont suffer penalties?" No, that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that is what will organically happen, although they can be attacked. Sure, the penalty for the green is instant, but is it severe? They just pick up and go along as normal. They stick their tongue out and say nany nany boo boo to you and keep on keepin on. Whereas you talk about removing corruption, its not nearly as easy. "Removing corruption The primary means to remove corruption is through death. Multiple deaths may be necessary to remove all corruption.[69][35] Dying removes a significant portion of a player's corruption score.[70] Gaining experience will also slowly reduce a player's corruption score.[71][22][69] Any experience that's gained by the player, whether it be through achievements in crafting, or in adventuring, or through other types of achievements: All of that experience goes towards your adventuring class experience gained; and then some experience can dual purpose towards professions as well. So if I reach an achievement in my crafting profession and that grants me additional experience within that profession to rank up, it will also grant the same amount of experience over in my adventuring level; and to that point, anytime you gain adventuring experience you tick away at the corruption.[71] – Steven Sharif A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future.[72][70] This is a design shift from a religious quest being used to directly reduce the corruption score.[73] Corruption duration is reduced in military nodes.[74]" Also you have to remember you cannot buy or sell, you cannot bank, or storage. You cannot trade with others. Sure, lots of peeps will be going red.... *rolls eyes* not a lot of people will be going red. corruption isnt a desirable state. what i mean is not having ow pvp in a game designed with ow pvp in mind will be worst for the pvpers in the long run. corruption penalties arent instant, as in you can avoid them if you dont die and if you are with your party, they dont matter that much. also, you can deal with pvers without having to kill them and go red, but if oyu make ow pvp a toggle, you cant even do that.
Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way. I agree with what you say. My point is corruption is basically flagging unflagging, at least for the greens. So its one sided really. Sure you can kill the green, but you wont do it repeatedly. So you will have a bunch of greens not flagging doing the gathering. Only one side is punished. Does not sound fun to me. both sides are punished. the green could also fight back? with pvp toggle you wouldnt even have the option to attack the green while gathering, which is even worse for the reasons mentioned in my previous post Ya, I get it, but it will come to the point no one will attack the green anyway. That is the point. Its "flagging lite". Sure a couple hardcore self punishing types will kill a green once in awhile, until they wont anymore because its not worth it. Hence zones filled with greens gathering. thats why there is an incentive to kill gatherers, and its called the land management system. people wont be happy with outsiders destroying their node's resources. so they can either talk to them or kill them. Right, at what cost? Who suffers more in the end? if i get what you mean correctly, the player who goes red has the potential to lose more than the gatherer. so you want a pvp toggle where the person with pvp on doesnt suffer those penalties? the thing is, you will be the only person with the toggle on, because the gatherers wont turn it on so you might as well not even attack them in the first place in ow pvp (also some gatherers will be pvpers as well). so you dont want a system where pvers arent attacked, you want a system where pvpers dont suffer penalties? if someone kills a green, the green suffers penalties immediately and the red player suffers deferred penalties. if you cleanse your corruption, you wont suffer any penalty, so the key part is to know when you can go red and when you cant. with a toggle, you dont even have the option and pvpers will suffer more in the long run (no easy way to get rid of pve griefers, cant have a spot for yourself, land management screwed, etc). also, if you play in a group, corruption is a minimal problem. the worst thing that can happen is that you drop some gear and your party picks them up and returns them to you. "so you dont want a system where pvers arent attacked, you want a system where pvpers dont suffer penalties?" No, that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that is what will organically happen, although they can be attacked. Sure, the penalty for the green is instant, but is it severe? They just pick up and go along as normal. They stick their tongue out and say nany nany boo boo to you and keep on keepin on. Whereas you talk about removing corruption, its not nearly as easy. "Removing corruption The primary means to remove corruption is through death. Multiple deaths may be necessary to remove all corruption.[69][35] Dying removes a significant portion of a player's corruption score.[70] Gaining experience will also slowly reduce a player's corruption score.[71][22][69] Any experience that's gained by the player, whether it be through achievements in crafting, or in adventuring, or through other types of achievements: All of that experience goes towards your adventuring class experience gained; and then some experience can dual purpose towards professions as well. So if I reach an achievement in my crafting profession and that grants me additional experience within that profession to rank up, it will also grant the same amount of experience over in my adventuring level; and to that point, anytime you gain adventuring experience you tick away at the corruption.[71] – Steven Sharif A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future.[72][70] This is a design shift from a religious quest being used to directly reduce the corruption score.[73] Corruption duration is reduced in military nodes.[74]" Also you have to remember you cannot buy or sell, you cannot bank, or storage. You cannot trade with others. Sure, lots of peeps will be going red.... *rolls eyes*
Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way. I agree with what you say. My point is corruption is basically flagging unflagging, at least for the greens. So its one sided really. Sure you can kill the green, but you wont do it repeatedly. So you will have a bunch of greens not flagging doing the gathering. Only one side is punished. Does not sound fun to me. both sides are punished. the green could also fight back? with pvp toggle you wouldnt even have the option to attack the green while gathering, which is even worse for the reasons mentioned in my previous post Ya, I get it, but it will come to the point no one will attack the green anyway. That is the point. Its "flagging lite". Sure a couple hardcore self punishing types will kill a green once in awhile, until they wont anymore because its not worth it. Hence zones filled with greens gathering. thats why there is an incentive to kill gatherers, and its called the land management system. people wont be happy with outsiders destroying their node's resources. so they can either talk to them or kill them. Right, at what cost? Who suffers more in the end? if i get what you mean correctly, the player who goes red has the potential to lose more than the gatherer. so you want a pvp toggle where the person with pvp on doesnt suffer those penalties? the thing is, you will be the only person with the toggle on, because the gatherers wont turn it on so you might as well not even attack them in the first place in ow pvp (also some gatherers will be pvpers as well). so you dont want a system where pvers arent attacked, you want a system where pvpers dont suffer penalties? if someone kills a green, the green suffers penalties immediately and the red player suffers deferred penalties. if you cleanse your corruption, you wont suffer any penalty, so the key part is to know when you can go red and when you cant. with a toggle, you dont even have the option and pvpers will suffer more in the long run (no easy way to get rid of pve griefers, cant have a spot for yourself, land management screwed, etc). also, if you play in a group, corruption is a minimal problem. the worst thing that can happen is that you drop some gear and your party picks them up and returns them to you.
Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way. I agree with what you say. My point is corruption is basically flagging unflagging, at least for the greens. So its one sided really. Sure you can kill the green, but you wont do it repeatedly. So you will have a bunch of greens not flagging doing the gathering. Only one side is punished. Does not sound fun to me. both sides are punished. the green could also fight back? with pvp toggle you wouldnt even have the option to attack the green while gathering, which is even worse for the reasons mentioned in my previous post Ya, I get it, but it will come to the point no one will attack the green anyway. That is the point. Its "flagging lite". Sure a couple hardcore self punishing types will kill a green once in awhile, until they wont anymore because its not worth it. Hence zones filled with greens gathering. thats why there is an incentive to kill gatherers, and its called the land management system. people wont be happy with outsiders destroying their node's resources. so they can either talk to them or kill them. Right, at what cost? Who suffers more in the end?
Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way. I agree with what you say. My point is corruption is basically flagging unflagging, at least for the greens. So its one sided really. Sure you can kill the green, but you wont do it repeatedly. So you will have a bunch of greens not flagging doing the gathering. Only one side is punished. Does not sound fun to me. both sides are punished. the green could also fight back? with pvp toggle you wouldnt even have the option to attack the green while gathering, which is even worse for the reasons mentioned in my previous post Ya, I get it, but it will come to the point no one will attack the green anyway. That is the point. Its "flagging lite". Sure a couple hardcore self punishing types will kill a green once in awhile, until they wont anymore because its not worth it. Hence zones filled with greens gathering. thats why there is an incentive to kill gatherers, and its called the land management system. people wont be happy with outsiders destroying their node's resources. so they can either talk to them or kill them.
Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way. I agree with what you say. My point is corruption is basically flagging unflagging, at least for the greens. So its one sided really. Sure you can kill the green, but you wont do it repeatedly. So you will have a bunch of greens not flagging doing the gathering. Only one side is punished. Does not sound fun to me. both sides are punished. the green could also fight back? with pvp toggle you wouldnt even have the option to attack the green while gathering, which is even worse for the reasons mentioned in my previous post Ya, I get it, but it will come to the point no one will attack the green anyway. That is the point. Its "flagging lite". Sure a couple hardcore self punishing types will kill a green once in awhile, until they wont anymore because its not worth it. Hence zones filled with greens gathering.
Depraved wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way. I agree with what you say. My point is corruption is basically flagging unflagging, at least for the greens. So its one sided really. Sure you can kill the green, but you wont do it repeatedly. So you will have a bunch of greens not flagging doing the gathering. Only one side is punished. Does not sound fun to me. both sides are punished. the green could also fight back? with pvp toggle you wouldnt even have the option to attack the green while gathering, which is even worse for the reasons mentioned in my previous post
Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way. I agree with what you say. My point is corruption is basically flagging unflagging, at least for the greens. So its one sided really. Sure you can kill the green, but you wont do it repeatedly. So you will have a bunch of greens not flagging doing the gathering. Only one side is punished. Does not sound fun to me.
Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way.
Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. That's kinda the point of the system. Only a select few should be PKing and even then only to a point. Steven wants PKing to be at a minimum and the current design would accomplish that. L2ers want a slightly laxer system because we know that L2 didn't have that much Red players, but we're also super biased. WoWers don't want pvp at all because they're used to being fucked by the enemy faction. The balancing is somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to WoW's side, purely so that casuals can have fun in the game. As others have already said, any opt-in-like system will just create WoW. Again, I do not want an opt in flag system, but that is basically what we will have. I understand the WoW argument, never played L2. I understand that corruption is a core feature of game design also, but it is just wrong in its implementation IMO. You just validate my point that there will be little to no overworld pvp. Like I stated, you will have mostly greens running around gathering without any consequences, because corruption will be to severe. Basically a pvp toggle. I agree, if corruption is too strict, it will inadvertently become an opt-in system
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. That's kinda the point of the system. Only a select few should be PKing and even then only to a point. Steven wants PKing to be at a minimum and the current design would accomplish that. L2ers want a slightly laxer system because we know that L2 didn't have that much Red players, but we're also super biased. WoWers don't want pvp at all because they're used to being fucked by the enemy faction. The balancing is somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to WoW's side, purely so that casuals can have fun in the game. As others have already said, any opt-in-like system will just create WoW. Again, I do not want an opt in flag system, but that is basically what we will have. I understand the WoW argument, never played L2. I understand that corruption is a core feature of game design also, but it is just wrong in its implementation IMO. You just validate my point that there will be little to no overworld pvp. Like I stated, you will have mostly greens running around gathering without any consequences, because corruption will be to severe. Basically a pvp toggle. I agree, if corruption is too strict, it will inadvertently become an opt-in system well its opt in, no one forces you to attack any1 xDD what i see in this thread is a lot of pvpers who want lesser penalties or punishments for pking. they keep thinking they will be doing the pking most of the time, when in reality, they will be the ones getting pked by groups and then will ask for the system to be harsher xDDDD.
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. That's kinda the point of the system. Only a select few should be PKing and even then only to a point. Steven wants PKing to be at a minimum and the current design would accomplish that. L2ers want a slightly laxer system because we know that L2 didn't have that much Red players, but we're also super biased. WoWers don't want pvp at all because they're used to being fucked by the enemy faction. The balancing is somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to WoW's side, purely so that casuals can have fun in the game. As others have already said, any opt-in-like system will just create WoW. Again, I do not want an opt in flag system, but that is basically what we will have. I understand the WoW argument, never played L2. I understand that corruption is a core feature of game design also, but it is just wrong in its implementation IMO. You just validate my point that there will be little to no overworld pvp. Like I stated, you will have mostly greens running around gathering without any consequences, because corruption will be to severe. Basically a pvp toggle. I agree, if corruption is too strict, it will inadvertently become an opt-in system well its opt in, no one forces you to attack any1 xDD what i see in this thread is a lot of pvpers who want lesser penalties or punishments for pking. they keep thinking they will be doing the pking most of the time, when in reality, they will be the ones getting pked by groups and then will ask for the system to be harsher xDDDD. An opt-in system protects players from PvP. So what I mean is if the penalties are too strict, nobody will engage in OWPvP, just like in an Opt-in PvP game. The goal is to set it in a sweet spot. Strict enough to deter grieifng, lenient enough to still allow PKs that arent defined as griefing.
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. That's kinda the point of the system. Only a select few should be PKing and even then only to a point. Steven wants PKing to be at a minimum and the current design would accomplish that. L2ers want a slightly laxer system because we know that L2 didn't have that much Red players, but we're also super biased. WoWers don't want pvp at all because they're used to being fucked by the enemy faction. The balancing is somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to WoW's side, purely so that casuals can have fun in the game. As others have already said, any opt-in-like system will just create WoW. Again, I do not want an opt in flag system, but that is basically what we will have. I understand the WoW argument, never played L2. I understand that corruption is a core feature of game design also, but it is just wrong in its implementation IMO. You just validate my point that there will be little to no overworld pvp. Like I stated, you will have mostly greens running around gathering without any consequences, because corruption will be to severe. Basically a pvp toggle. I agree, if corruption is too strict, it will inadvertently become an opt-in system well its opt in, no one forces you to attack any1 xDD what i see in this thread is a lot of pvpers who want lesser penalties or punishments for pking. they keep thinking they will be doing the pking most of the time, when in reality, they will be the ones getting pked by groups and then will ask for the system to be harsher xDDDD. An opt-in system protects players from PvP. So what I mean is if the penalties are too strict, nobody will engage in OWPvP, just like in an Opt-in PvP game. The goal is to set it in a sweet spot. Strict enough to deter grieifng, lenient enough to still allow PKs that arent defined as griefing. yeah, I got it and I agree. but being corrupted is an undesirable state. if I have to pick between harsh penalties and somethign in the middle, I'd go with harsh since it will prevent lots of abuses.
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. That's kinda the point of the system. Only a select few should be PKing and even then only to a point. Steven wants PKing to be at a minimum and the current design would accomplish that. L2ers want a slightly laxer system because we know that L2 didn't have that much Red players, but we're also super biased. WoWers don't want pvp at all because they're used to being fucked by the enemy faction. The balancing is somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to WoW's side, purely so that casuals can have fun in the game. As others have already said, any opt-in-like system will just create WoW. Again, I do not want an opt in flag system, but that is basically what we will have. I understand the WoW argument, never played L2. I understand that corruption is a core feature of game design also, but it is just wrong in its implementation IMO. You just validate my point that there will be little to no overworld pvp. Like I stated, you will have mostly greens running around gathering without any consequences, because corruption will be to severe. Basically a pvp toggle. I agree, if corruption is too strict, it will inadvertently become an opt-in system well its opt in, no one forces you to attack any1 xDD what i see in this thread is a lot of pvpers who want lesser penalties or punishments for pking. they keep thinking they will be doing the pking most of the time, when in reality, they will be the ones getting pked by groups and then will ask for the system to be harsher xDDDD. An opt-in system protects players from PvP. So what I mean is if the penalties are too strict, nobody will engage in OWPvP, just like in an Opt-in PvP game. The goal is to set it in a sweet spot. Strict enough to deter grieifng, lenient enough to still allow PKs that arent defined as griefing. yeah, I got it and I agree. but being corrupted is an undesirable state. if I have to pick between harsh penalties and somethign in the middle, I'd go with harsh since it will prevent lots of abuses. Harsh as long as it doesn't interfere with OWPvP. Which is why a few corruption kills should more or less be a warning, not a death sentence, and punishing anything beyond that with much harsher consequences
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » So if there are more people like you then it will be fine I guess. That's kinda the point of the system. Only a select few should be PKing and even then only to a point. Steven wants PKing to be at a minimum and the current design would accomplish that. L2ers want a slightly laxer system because we know that L2 didn't have that much Red players, but we're also super biased. WoWers don't want pvp at all because they're used to being fucked by the enemy faction. The balancing is somewhere in the middle, a bit closer to WoW's side, purely so that casuals can have fun in the game. As others have already said, any opt-in-like system will just create WoW. Again, I do not want an opt in flag system, but that is basically what we will have. I understand the WoW argument, never played L2. I understand that corruption is a core feature of game design also, but it is just wrong in its implementation IMO. You just validate my point that there will be little to no overworld pvp. Like I stated, you will have mostly greens running around gathering without any consequences, because corruption will be to severe. Basically a pvp toggle. I agree, if corruption is too strict, it will inadvertently become an opt-in system well its opt in, no one forces you to attack any1 xDD what i see in this thread is a lot of pvpers who want lesser penalties or punishments for pking. they keep thinking they will be doing the pking most of the time, when in reality, they will be the ones getting pked by groups and then will ask for the system to be harsher xDDDD. An opt-in system protects players from PvP. So what I mean is if the penalties are too strict, nobody will engage in OWPvP, just like in an Opt-in PvP game. The goal is to set it in a sweet spot. Strict enough to deter grieifng, lenient enough to still allow PKs that arent defined as griefing. yeah, I got it and I agree. but being corrupted is an undesirable state. if I have to pick between harsh penalties and somethign in the middle, I'd go with harsh since it will prevent lots of abuses. Harsh as long as it doesn't interfere with OWPvP. Which is why a few corruption kills should more or less be a warning, not a death sentence, and punishing anything beyond that with much harsher consequences corruption isnt a desirable state to be in, thats why you cant make it too lenient or it wont be a state where you dont want to be at...and it doesnt interfere with ow pvp. it might interfere with SOLO ow pvp though, but the game is built around playing with a group, not soloing even though you can solo. also, corruption penalties aren't immediate, they are deferred. you might not get penalized at all if you avoid death, or if you have a friend kill and revive you. You can also die and not drop anything, or drop things that arent very valuable. the worse thing that can happen to you is that you drop your hard-earned gear, but you might die a lot and never drop it, or not die at all, or have a friend pick it up and give it back to you, or use cheap gear to pk or an alt...the other person who died to you loses immediately and there isn't any way for them to circumvent that. the pker is able to circumvent penalties. the system also helps with new waves of players coming to the game in the future, especially against solo players who are going around ganking weaker players, even if those players are at the same level.
Depraved wrote: » id say repetitive ganking isnt griefing xd
