Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive. Ok cool. Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design. And this is where those coming from PvP environments would disagree. Not that it's a necessary part of MMORPG design, but that it is a fundamental part of wpvp. This is one of the ways wpvp differentiates itself from arena/duel PvP. Where factors like opportunity, preparedness, reading of situations etc comes into play. Not saying any type of PvP, or any view is better or worse here. Just saying, that's the PoV. I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs. I agree with your concept that two players who have been having a sweet ninja-battle over the course of two hours trying to get the jump on each other shouldn't have to worry about corruption. I agree that the current corruption design does not do a particularly good job of dealing with the thing you are concerned about, but in the end, the problem is basically that 'getting wPvP into an entirely factionless MMORPG with no affiliation tracking' is hard to do without enabling griefers. So Intrepid's current path is 'the one that doesn't enable griefers', and so, forces fair fights more often, even when the two people in question don't 'need to have a fair fight'. For anything else, there's the Open Seas. Ah magic. We're def getting somewhere. On this point: "I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs." We agree this is an MMO with wpvp though, yeah? (I think this is one of those areas that you agree with just don't like, right? If so fair enough). So personal taste aside a sec.. we agree that things like "getting the jump", opportunity, preparedness etc are fundamental parts of wpvp. And that Ashes is a game with wpvp. And we also agree about the purpose of corruption (deter non-consensual PvP). And we agree that it doesn't do a great job specifically in the scenario we outlined, between two consensual PvPers (who are familiar with and enjoy an always-on PvP environment). So.. where is the issue with adding such a pre-flag option? It's the exact same system, just making it easier for the PvPers to blow each other up. Actually, it's a thing you pointed out yourself. By pre-flagging for PvP, you open yourself up to extremely unfavorable odds, in a game that is explicitly not meant to be balanced around 1v1. If I must choose between 'you can pre-flag and be rewarded or compensated for these unfavorable odds' and 'no one can pre-flag', I choose the second. Pre-flagging does not incentivize negotiation, it turns people into 'targets without penalty'. Which is the same problem I have with the Open Seas in this game. I don't like being on either side of that equation. Even MOBAs fundamentally protect people from that specific craziness.
blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive. Ok cool. Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design. And this is where those coming from PvP environments would disagree. Not that it's a necessary part of MMORPG design, but that it is a fundamental part of wpvp. This is one of the ways wpvp differentiates itself from arena/duel PvP. Where factors like opportunity, preparedness, reading of situations etc comes into play. Not saying any type of PvP, or any view is better or worse here. Just saying, that's the PoV. I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs. I agree with your concept that two players who have been having a sweet ninja-battle over the course of two hours trying to get the jump on each other shouldn't have to worry about corruption. I agree that the current corruption design does not do a particularly good job of dealing with the thing you are concerned about, but in the end, the problem is basically that 'getting wPvP into an entirely factionless MMORPG with no affiliation tracking' is hard to do without enabling griefers. So Intrepid's current path is 'the one that doesn't enable griefers', and so, forces fair fights more often, even when the two people in question don't 'need to have a fair fight'. For anything else, there's the Open Seas. Ah magic. We're def getting somewhere. On this point: "I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs." We agree this is an MMO with wpvp though, yeah? (I think this is one of those areas that you agree with just don't like, right? If so fair enough). So personal taste aside a sec.. we agree that things like "getting the jump", opportunity, preparedness etc are fundamental parts of wpvp. And that Ashes is a game with wpvp. And we also agree about the purpose of corruption (deter non-consensual PvP). And we agree that it doesn't do a great job specifically in the scenario we outlined, between two consensual PvPers (who are familiar with and enjoy an always-on PvP environment). So.. where is the issue with adding such a pre-flag option? It's the exact same system, just making it easier for the PvPers to blow each other up.
Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive. Ok cool. Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design. And this is where those coming from PvP environments would disagree. Not that it's a necessary part of MMORPG design, but that it is a fundamental part of wpvp. This is one of the ways wpvp differentiates itself from arena/duel PvP. Where factors like opportunity, preparedness, reading of situations etc comes into play. Not saying any type of PvP, or any view is better or worse here. Just saying, that's the PoV. I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs. I agree with your concept that two players who have been having a sweet ninja-battle over the course of two hours trying to get the jump on each other shouldn't have to worry about corruption. I agree that the current corruption design does not do a particularly good job of dealing with the thing you are concerned about, but in the end, the problem is basically that 'getting wPvP into an entirely factionless MMORPG with no affiliation tracking' is hard to do without enabling griefers. So Intrepid's current path is 'the one that doesn't enable griefers', and so, forces fair fights more often, even when the two people in question don't 'need to have a fair fight'. For anything else, there's the Open Seas.
blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive. Ok cool. Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design. And this is where those coming from PvP environments would disagree. Not that it's a necessary part of MMORPG design, but that it is a fundamental part of wpvp. This is one of the ways wpvp differentiates itself from arena/duel PvP. Where factors like opportunity, preparedness, reading of situations etc comes into play. Not saying any type of PvP, or any view is better or worse here. Just saying, that's the PoV.
Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive.
Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design.
blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive. Ok cool. Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design. And this is where those coming from PvP environments would disagree. Not that it's a necessary part of MMORPG design, but that it is a fundamental part of wpvp. This is one of the ways wpvp differentiates itself from arena/duel PvP. Where factors like opportunity, preparedness, reading of situations etc comes into play. Not saying any type of PvP, or any view is better or worse here. Just saying, that's the PoV. I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs. I agree with your concept that two players who have been having a sweet ninja-battle over the course of two hours trying to get the jump on each other shouldn't have to worry about corruption. I agree that the current corruption design does not do a particularly good job of dealing with the thing you are concerned about, but in the end, the problem is basically that 'getting wPvP into an entirely factionless MMORPG with no affiliation tracking' is hard to do without enabling griefers. So Intrepid's current path is 'the one that doesn't enable griefers', and so, forces fair fights more often, even when the two people in question don't 'need to have a fair fight'. For anything else, there's the Open Seas. Ah magic. We're def getting somewhere. On this point: "I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs." We agree this is an MMO with wpvp though, yeah? (I think this is one of those areas that you agree with just don't like, right? If so fair enough). So personal taste aside a sec.. we agree that things like "getting the jump", opportunity, preparedness etc are fundamental parts of wpvp. And that Ashes is a game with wpvp. And we also agree about the purpose of corruption (deter non-consensual PvP). And we agree that it doesn't do a great job specifically in the scenario we outlined, between two consensual PvPers (who are familiar with and enjoy an always-on PvP environment). So.. where is the issue with adding such a pre-flag option? It's the exact same system, just making it easier for the PvPers to blow each other up. Actually, it's a thing you pointed out yourself. By pre-flagging for PvP, you open yourself up to extremely unfavorable odds, in a game that is explicitly not meant to be balanced around 1v1. If I must choose between 'you can pre-flag and be rewarded or compensated for these unfavorable odds' and 'no one can pre-flag', I choose the second. Pre-flagging does not incentivize negotiation, it turns people into 'targets without penalty'. Which is the same problem I have with the Open Seas in this game. I don't like being on either side of that equation. Even MOBAs fundamentally protect people from that specific craziness. But why would it affect someone who chooses not to flag in any way? Aside from perhaps reducing non-consensual PvP even further because it's now a lot clearer who is into PvP and who isn't.
Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive. Ok cool. Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design. And this is where those coming from PvP environments would disagree. Not that it's a necessary part of MMORPG design, but that it is a fundamental part of wpvp. This is one of the ways wpvp differentiates itself from arena/duel PvP. Where factors like opportunity, preparedness, reading of situations etc comes into play. Not saying any type of PvP, or any view is better or worse here. Just saying, that's the PoV. I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs. I agree with your concept that two players who have been having a sweet ninja-battle over the course of two hours trying to get the jump on each other shouldn't have to worry about corruption. I agree that the current corruption design does not do a particularly good job of dealing with the thing you are concerned about, but in the end, the problem is basically that 'getting wPvP into an entirely factionless MMORPG with no affiliation tracking' is hard to do without enabling griefers. So Intrepid's current path is 'the one that doesn't enable griefers', and so, forces fair fights more often, even when the two people in question don't 'need to have a fair fight'. For anything else, there's the Open Seas. Ah magic. We're def getting somewhere. On this point: "I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs." We agree this is an MMO with wpvp though, yeah? (I think this is one of those areas that you agree with just don't like, right? If so fair enough). So personal taste aside a sec.. we agree that things like "getting the jump", opportunity, preparedness etc are fundamental parts of wpvp. And that Ashes is a game with wpvp. And we also agree about the purpose of corruption (deter non-consensual PvP). And we agree that it doesn't do a great job specifically in the scenario we outlined, between two consensual PvPers (who are familiar with and enjoy an always-on PvP environment). So.. where is the issue with adding such a pre-flag option? It's the exact same system, just making it easier for the PvPers to blow each other up. Actually, it's a thing you pointed out yourself. By pre-flagging for PvP, you open yourself up to extremely unfavorable odds, in a game that is explicitly not meant to be balanced around 1v1. If I must choose between 'you can pre-flag and be rewarded or compensated for these unfavorable odds' and 'no one can pre-flag', I choose the second. Pre-flagging does not incentivize negotiation, it turns people into 'targets without penalty'. Which is the same problem I have with the Open Seas in this game. I don't like being on either side of that equation. Even MOBAs fundamentally protect people from that specific craziness. But why would it affect someone who chooses not to flag in any way? Aside from perhaps reducing non-consensual PvP even further because it's now a lot clearer who is into PvP and who isn't. I just don't agree that it's likely to do that, or that it actually indicates that. It's not the people who never flag, that it affects. And I don't really have any opinion on those people. But I'm not one of them. I flag for PvP basically any time anyone taps me I think it isn't going to become a 3v1. But I would still never have any reason to pre-flag. Because I've played lots of these games and know that the 'honor PvP' group is by far the minority.
blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there. Of course it is. Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent.
Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised.
Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk.
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there. Of course it is. Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent. ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured. i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks.
blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there. Of course it is. Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent. ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured. i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks. I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right? So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me. Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again. But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say. By now you are a non-combatant again, right? If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption.
Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there. Of course it is. Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent. ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured. i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks. I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right? So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me. Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again. But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say. By now you are a non-combatant again, right? If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption. you didn't get what I said. we both clearly want to pvp, but I'm not going to attack you because you know you if you attack back gonna lose, so you will only attack after you find a favorable timing, lets say I have a few mobs on me or maybe you know I'm already low on health and mana. and I'm not going to kill you, even though I know you are waiting for an opportunity to kill me because id go red and I don't want to. my only options are to just sit there and wait until you leave, or keep farming and risk putting myself in a bad position and die to you or the mob. we both clearly want to pvp but we wont because of corruption, we are just there waiting for the other person to make a mistake. so corruption is disincentivizing consensual pvp, not non consensual pvp.
Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there. Of course it is. Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent. ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured. i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks. I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right? So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me. Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again. But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say. By now you are a non-combatant again, right? If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption. you didn't get what I said. we both clearly want to pvp, but I'm not going to attack you because you know you if you attack back gonna lose, so you will only attack after you find a favorable timing, lets say I have a few mobs on me or maybe you know I'm already low on health and mana. and I'm not going to kill you, even though I know you are waiting for an opportunity to kill me because id go red and I don't want to. my only options are to just sit there and wait until you leave, or keep farming and risk putting myself in a bad position and die to you or the mob. we both clearly want to pvp but we wont because of corruption, we are just there waiting for the other person to make a mistake. so corruption is disincentivizing consensual pvp, not non consensual pvp. I'm pretty sure you two agree here. I also agree with the definition of the problem but not the proposed solution, it's just adding more weird fiat, except it's roundabout and masked as 'freedom' which is the worst kind for me.
blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there. Of course it is. Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent. ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured. i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks. I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right? So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me. Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again. But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say. By now you are a non-combatant again, right? If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption. you didn't get what I said. we both clearly want to pvp, but I'm not going to attack you because you know you if you attack back gonna lose, so you will only attack after you find a favorable timing, lets say I have a few mobs on me or maybe you know I'm already low on health and mana. and I'm not going to kill you, even though I know you are waiting for an opportunity to kill me because id go red and I don't want to. my only options are to just sit there and wait until you leave, or keep farming and risk putting myself in a bad position and die to you or the mob. we both clearly want to pvp but we wont because of corruption, we are just there waiting for the other person to make a mistake. so corruption is disincentivizing consensual pvp, not non consensual pvp. Yeah I'm not clear on this. Surely if I attack you while you have mobs on you (and you remain non-combatant).. then I receive corruption. Whereas if I attack you when you're ready, and you fight back, then neither of us receive corruption?
Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there. Of course it is. Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent. ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured. i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks. I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right? So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me. Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again. But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say. By now you are a non-combatant again, right? If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption. you didn't get what I said. we both clearly want to pvp, but I'm not going to attack you because you know you if you attack back gonna lose, so you will only attack after you find a favorable timing, lets say I have a few mobs on me or maybe you know I'm already low on health and mana. and I'm not going to kill you, even though I know you are waiting for an opportunity to kill me because id go red and I don't want to. my only options are to just sit there and wait until you leave, or keep farming and risk putting myself in a bad position and die to you or the mob. we both clearly want to pvp but we wont because of corruption, we are just there waiting for the other person to make a mistake. so corruption is disincentivizing consensual pvp, not non consensual pvp. Yeah I'm not clear on this. Surely if I attack you while you have mobs on you (and you remain non-combatant).. then I receive corruption. Whereas if I attack you when you're ready, and you fight back, then neither of us receive corruption? that's separate from consensual or non consensual pvp. we both want to pvp, that makes it consensual, doesn't it? but for strategic reasons no one attacks first or straight up treis to kill the other person before they attack back. maybe I wam going to hit you when you attack me and I have mobs on me, but I die before finishing my spell or it gets interrupted by a mob then you kill me. clearly consensual pvp yet you received corruption. my point is, corruption isn't there to deter non consensual pvp, although sometimes it does.
my point is, corruption isn't there to deter non consensual pvp, although sometimes it does.
You're saying corruption isn't intended to deter consensual PvP, but sometimes it does, accidentally. Yeah?
Depraved wrote: » yes. we both want to kill each other (aka consensual pvp) but because of corruption, we don't. You're saying corruption isn't intended to deter consensual PvP, but sometimes it does, accidentally. Yeah? no =_= corruption wasn't meant to deter NON consensual pvp, but it sometimes does. lets say in wow or aion or a faction based game, you can kill anyone from the other faction with no consequences, even if they didn't want to pvp (maybe they are pve players). in aoc, there will be consequences for doing the same...so sometimes you are disincentivized from doing so. the purpose of corruption is far greater than this though, but a lot of the time, people who don't want to pvp benefit from it. also, lots of the time, people who want to pvp are held back by it (or delayed), which doesn't happen in a faction based game. you see each other, you both want to pvp, you try to kill each other right away.
blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » yes. we both want to kill each other (aka consensual pvp) but because of corruption, we don't. You're saying corruption isn't intended to deter consensual PvP, but sometimes it does, accidentally. Yeah? no =_= corruption wasn't meant to deter NON consensual pvp, but it sometimes does. lets say in wow or aion or a faction based game, you can kill anyone from the other faction with no consequences, even if they didn't want to pvp (maybe they are pve players). in aoc, there will be consequences for doing the same...so sometimes you are disincentivized from doing so. the purpose of corruption is far greater than this though, but a lot of the time, people who don't want to pvp benefit from it. also, lots of the time, people who want to pvp are held back by it (or delayed), which doesn't happen in a faction based game. you see each other, you both want to pvp, you try to kill each other right away. Corruption is obviously intended to manage the situation of having PvP-minded people and PvE-minded people (very broadly defined!) on the same "PvX" server. IE: to stop the PvPers chasing off the PvE population ($$$).
So the point is to penalise PvP when it's clearly non-consensual. It's not prevented completely, no, that would be too boring (aka PvE servers). But it is deterred.
Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Depraved wrote: » yes. we both want to kill each other (aka consensual pvp) but because of corruption, we don't. You're saying corruption isn't intended to deter consensual PvP, but sometimes it does, accidentally. Yeah? no =_= corruption wasn't meant to deter NON consensual pvp, but it sometimes does. lets say in wow or aion or a faction based game, you can kill anyone from the other faction with no consequences, even if they didn't want to pvp (maybe they are pve players). in aoc, there will be consequences for doing the same...so sometimes you are disincentivized from doing so. the purpose of corruption is far greater than this though, but a lot of the time, people who don't want to pvp benefit from it. also, lots of the time, people who want to pvp are held back by it (or delayed), which doesn't happen in a faction based game. you see each other, you both want to pvp, you try to kill each other right away. Corruption is obviously intended to manage the situation of having PvP-minded people and PvE-minded people (very broadly defined!) on the same "PvX" server. IE: to stop the PvPers chasing off the PvE population ($$$). I disagree. for example, corruption works to protect a low level pvper (lvl 20) from a high level pvper(level 50). its not necessary to protect pve players. why are they special? why do they need protection, especially on a non pve game?
