You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
Because by the time you catch the ship (not player), if that ship ends up not answering your attack to put corruption onto your team, then maybe you would not want to destroy it. Then you would regret not going in a different direction to catch another visible ship on the horizon.
So a corruption system on the sea in a naval combat would not work.
You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
Because by the time you catch the ship (not player), if that ship ends up not answering your attack to put corruption onto your team, then maybe you would not want to destroy it. Then you would regret not going in a different direction to catch another visible ship on the horizon.
So a corruption system on the sea in a naval combat would not work.
The player took the risk of sailing out there knowing he could be killed by pirates and incur ship repair costs and all that goes with dieing. Not wanting to sink that ship is a choice, not risking turning red is a choice. Why is there no risk on the pirates side? why are they exempt?
You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
Because by the time you catch the ship (not player), if that ship ends up not answering your attack to put corruption onto your team, then maybe you would not want to destroy it. Then you would regret not going in a different direction to catch another visible ship on the horizon.
So a corruption system on the sea in a naval combat would not work.
The player took the risk of sailing out there knowing he could be killed by pirates and incur ship repair costs and all that goes with dieing. Not wanting to sink that ship is a choice, not risking turning red is a choice. Why is there no risk on the pirates side? why are they exempt?
Don't sail with a ship you cannot afford to lose.
"Not wanting to sink that ship is a choice" - yes, if you make the choice to keep the ship afloat at all costs, then you sail away as soon as you see another ship. Or if you have ships on both sides, you send players from your team on water mounts to scout and risk loosing them in PvP when they get close.
Or if you can try to negotiate yourself out of battle. Or try to win.
You have choices. The others have too. They may be afraid the ship they see is just a bait and send their own scouts to see if you have reinforcements out of their view.
You can also keep scouts ahead to let you change direction before you become visible to others.
You have choices.
The only choice you don't have is to go to toilet or feed your cat, dog and children while playing in the deep ocean or driving a caravan.
Choice is not the issue, its a matter of risk vs reward. The pirate does not even risk corruption.
The risk is other players see you and can attack you without corruption. And you will have to deal with repair / destruction cost that will limit how much you are actively do the content.
This being a different gearing system they could make it fully well that on death certain types of items you find in the ocean are partly dropped to be looted, and the other half destroyed not even allowing you to get anything if you end up dying.
If you were not concerned with risk you wouldn't raise up the idea people can't get corruption. This comes from you wanting there to be less risk for yourself with others generally not attacking do to the cost of corruption.
Like it is really simple, i get people don't want to be pvped but this is still a pvx game pvp is also part of it. Corruption is meant to reduce most Pvp around it so hence if it is meant to reduce PvP and you want corruption included. That means you are wanting people to PvP you less on the ocean. Like the conversation goes easier if it is opinion you want to be pvped less on the ocean and be more safe.
Just in case someone tries to say than there is more pvp on the ocean again. There is not if you are on ground and die 15 times on land compared to like 3-4 times on sea and need to break before getting you mats back to do that again for awhile. While on land you could run down mid and do 15 deaths again.That means there is more PvP on LAND.
Choice is not the issue, its a matter of risk vs reward. The pirate does not even risk corruption.
Pirates who have citizenship will have enemy nodes and they will fight each-other.
AoC's philosophy is to have resource scarcity.
When food is scarce, even piranhas turn on each other and eat their own kind.
Now if you ask why Steven does not put his developers to make it more PvE friendly, I cannot give one single good answer.
The game is about the economy players create and having two continents separated by a dangerous area feels more interesting than having a peaceful straight connection between them.
Better stay near the coast, where the water is not that deep and you will also help your node.
But if money is important... don't go alone.
Going alone into the ocean to fight sea monsters is not what Steven wants to offer.
Choice is not the issue, its a matter of risk vs reward. The pirate does not even risk corruption.
Pirates who have citizenship will have enemy nodes and they will fight each-other.
AoC's philosophy is to have resource scarcity.
When food is scarce, even piranhas turn on each other and eat their own kind.
Now if you ask why Steven does not put his developers to make it more PvE friendly, I cannot give one single good answer.
The game is about the economy players create and having two continents separated by a dangerous area feels more interesting than having a peaceful straight connection between them.
Better stay near the coast, where the water is not that deep and you will also help your node.
But if money is important... don't go alone.
Going alone into the ocean to fight sea monsters is not what Steven wants to offer.
As far as the first part goes, that is true of all nodes.
and for the rest of there is no need to make more pve friendly, that's what I'm trying to get across. The corruption system does not stop anyone from pvping anywhere in the world. It only adds a bit of risk for killing players that don't fight back, and killing them is no fun anyway. (but you can still do it)
I think @Dygz is taking PKing to mean killing greens (punishable by corruption).
So yeah caravan PvP is not punishable by corruption.
The reason? I guess it's "just business" right, rather than the killing of innocents.
RING DING DING DING !!!!!
Everyone who is a Caravan-Escort knows what s/he signed up for, right ? Everyone knows of the Danger. Everyone knows Bandits or whoever else can attack the Caravan.
So everyone involved will not be seen as an innocent Flower-Gatherer who just try's to make a bit of Coin to feed his Family. (lol)
It’s not PKing because Caravan Defense/Attack is Purple/Combatant.
Half-Normal Death penalties.
Which incentivizes PvP combat.
My point was/is that... if the caravan people do not fight back... this makes it just "manslaughter" again.
Yeah we know the caravan is most likely going to fight back but what if they wouldn't?
Or what if there are not even guards at all and just the driver?
Will the attackers even get corrupted if they kill him and take all the loot?
Cuz if this doesn't happen then there is a very immersion and lore breaking contradiction going on here.
Which is really all I was about. ^_^
Choice is not the issue, its a matter of risk vs reward. The pirate does not even risk corruption.
Pirates who have citizenship will have enemy nodes and they will fight each-other.
AoC's philosophy is to have resource scarcity.
When food is scarce, even piranhas turn on each other and eat their own kind.
Now if you ask why Steven does not put his developers to make it more PvE friendly, I cannot give one single good answer.
The game is about the economy players create and having two continents separated by a dangerous area feels more interesting than having a peaceful straight connection between them.
Better stay near the coast, where the water is not that deep and you will also help your node.
But if money is important... don't go alone.
Going alone into the ocean to fight sea monsters is not what Steven wants to offer.
As far as the first part goes, that is true of all nodes.
and for the rest of there is no need to make more pve friendly, that's what I'm trying to get across. The corruption system does not stop anyone from pvping anywhere in the world. It only adds a bit of risk for killing players that don't fight back, and killing them is no fun anyway. (but you can still do it)
"a bit of risk" is fun.
So what do you want?
Let's say the corruption will be neither too light nor heavy but somewhere in between, at an acceptable level by most players.
You think that those players will feel uncomfortable to enter into the deep ocean?
Or you are worried that the pirates (which are normal players who must also level up their node playing on land) will not have "a bit of risk" while they are in the ocean?
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
Because Steven loves the "Risk" of PvP combat, so he created a large area of the map where gamers can PvP without being concerned about Corruption at all.
He also wants large areas of the map that are not always free-for-all PvP combat, so, there is Corruption to tone down the frequency of PvP combat - and where players can focus more on objective-based PvP combat.
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
My point was/is that... if the caravan people do not fight back... this makes it just "manslaughter" again.
Yeah we know the caravan is most likely going to fight back but what if they wouldn't?
Or what if there are not even guards at all and just the driver?
I wasn't really talking about the drivers of the Caravan. Rather, I was talking more about the players in the vicinity of a Caravan who choose to Defend.
Will the attackers even get corrupted if they kill him and take all the loot?
Cuz if this doesn't happen then there is a very immersion and lore breaking contradiction going on here.
Which is really all I was about. ^_^
Nope.
Corruption from PvP is mostly gameplay; not lore.
Immersion and lore for Caravan PvP is mostly handled by the Bandit/Defender Achievements system.
Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
Because Steven loves the "Risk" of PvP combat, so he created a large area of the map where gamers can PvP without being concerned about Corruption at all.
He also wants large areas of the map that are not always free-for-all PvP combat, so, there is Corruption to tone down the frequency of PvP combat - and where players can focus more on objective-based PvP combat.
Thank you, I think you are the first person to just answer my question, and not accuse me of trying to change a core tenant of the game. haha
Thank you, I think you are the first person to just answer my question, and not accuse me of trying to change a core tenant of the game. haha
To be fair, i also didn't accuse You of that. I for myself am truly just curious how it could lore-wise be explained in the World of Verra, that some Forms of "Fighting/Killing" create Corruption - while others do not.
So much can be explained with the "Essence". And maybe the Soul itself.
Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
Because Steven loves the "Risk" of PvP combat, so he created a large area of the map where gamers can PvP without being concerned about Corruption at all.
He also wants large areas of the map that are not always free-for-all PvP combat, so, there is Corruption to tone down the frequency of PvP combat - and where players can focus more on objective-based PvP combat.
Thank you, I think you are the first person to just answer my question, and not accuse me of trying to change a core tenant of the game. haha
Let me try to explain myself better. The way I see it, we are going to have 3/4 of the world with little to no pvp, due to the corruption system, which is going to be much less exciting. Then we are going to have 1/4 of the world (the sea), were everyone who wants to pvp will go. Making that area a much bigger pain in the ass to do anything else in the area. I think we would be better off with no corruption system than a partial one. Then the pvp is spread out more evenly, and no one area is swamped with pvper's.
I think It needs to be all or nothing as far as the corruption system is concerned, this partial stuff is a bad idea. IMO
Their will be plenty of PvP on land, just not open world killing without a purpose. Their will be Caravan PvP, Node War PvP, Castle PvP, Guild Wars PvP. I assure you guilds will be waring each other all the time, especially if they get good rewards for winning.
The Sea I believe will hold the best rewards, but as Steven has said countless time, the highest risk, for the highest rewards. Bring friends!
TwitchTV Streamer: The Hidden Dagger Inn Saturday's 5:00 PM Cst And
Wednesday's at 7:00 PM Cst
You can pvp anywhere...Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
I don't think I have any data on anyone who 'prefers not to randomly attack people', or thinks of themselves as 'honor PK' (or any similar term) who also cares about there being No corruption on the Seas.
Perhaps someone who does hold that view can clarify (I don't like no-Corruption seas, but don't consider myself 'honor PK' either).
Most of my negative experiences with other PvP players across all games are of 'people who need to feel dominant more than they need to actually fight'.
So the Open Seas offers those players (that specific type) a space where they can, even when losing, still feel dominant or superior to people who disprefer the experience, while suffering no penalties when they wish to actively assert that dominance against any mismatched target.
There are some benefits to having a space like that, in the world, in a PvP-heavy game.
You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
I don't think I have any data on anyone who 'prefers not to randomly attack people', or thinks of themselves as 'honor PK' (or any similar term) who also cares about there being No corruption on the Seas.
Perhaps someone who does hold that view can clarify (I don't like no-Corruption seas, but don't consider myself 'honor PK' either).
Most of my negative experiences with other PvP players across all games are of 'people who need to feel dominant more than they need to actually fight'.
So the Open Seas offers those players (that specific type) a space where they can, even when losing, still feel dominant or superior to people who disprefer the experience, while suffering no penalties when they wish to actively assert that dominance against any mismatched target.
There are some benefits to having a space like that, in the world, in a PvP-heavy game.
It also opens up all kinds of player organization interactions. If the rewards are good then groups will compete for them. Large organizations will lay claim to certain areas and you have to make a deal with them, evade them or take them on. It adds an entirely different large scale pvp dynamic to the game aside from the seiges.
Also, its exciting and stressful to have areas of the game that are not at all safe.
Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
Because Steven loves the "Risk" of PvP combat, so he created a large area of the map where gamers can PvP without being concerned about Corruption at all.
He also wants large areas of the map that are not always free-for-all PvP combat, so, there is Corruption to tone down the frequency of PvP combat - and where players can focus more on objective-based PvP combat.
Thank you, I think you are the first person to just answer my question, and not accuse me of trying to change a core tenant of the game. haha
You make statements which show you will not enjoy this game.
Like " you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone."
Running away is fun.
Hunting others is fun too.
The most interesting is when things go so close that the outcome can be any of it.
The most boring is when the one you attack just hits you back once and stays looking into your face.
So you are not accused but recognized as somebody who pretends to ask questions and actually wants a different game.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 30
I think Krakhun is asking questions and trying to understand the vision of the game design.
It's easier for those of us who have been in the Forums for years to jump to a quick opinion regarding whether Krakhun is in the Target Audience.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 30
How about an under-real area (not all, just one ) too with full pvp ?
I think Krakhun is asking questions and trying to understand the vision of the game design.
It's easier for those of us who have been in the Forums for years to jump to a quick opinion regarding whether Krakhun is in the Target Audience.
I hope he will find his place in the game and maybe get some way to explore the sea too in teams with some fast ships, water mounts and camouflage/stealth.
You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
I don't think I have any data on anyone who 'prefers not to randomly attack people', or thinks of themselves as 'honor PK' (or any similar term) who also cares about there being No corruption on the Seas.
Perhaps someone who does hold that view can clarify (I don't like no-Corruption seas, but don't consider myself 'honor PK' either).
Most of my negative experiences with other PvP players across all games are of 'people who need to feel dominant more than they need to actually fight'.
So the Open Seas offers those players (that specific type) a space where they can, even when losing, still feel dominant or superior to people who disprefer the experience, while suffering no penalties when they wish to actively assert that dominance against any mismatched target.
There are some benefits to having a space like that, in the world, in a PvP-heavy game.
Maybe I could qualify for ARPK. I dislike attacking random neutrals. I need the game to give me more reasons, like seeing that player flagging up against an ally or being part of an opposing faction (metro nation) or reducing resource respawn rate by greed or economic warfare. That is what I understand as meaningful PvP.
Also I do not like having to search an external list to check if some rare guild names are guild enemies or friends. I would prefer to be able to mark in-game characters or their guilds.
The green state of AoC does not indicate anything for me. I don't see them as peaceful even if they do not answer my attack in that encounter.
So the absence of the 3-state flagging in the ocean feels ok for me. It's presence on the land is just an additional game mechanic to take into account, like deciding "ok, this time is not worth fighting but next time in a different context we will". I cannot see the corrupted players as evil PKers or their victims as innocent players, but players who used the game mechanics they are very aware of.
The corruption system in the ocean would bother me if ships take 10 minutes to reach another ship and in the end to be lost time because the other ship doesn't flag up for combat. And I am against manual PvP on-off flags too because scouts needs to be killed, even if that eliminates explorers.
I don't think I have any data on anyone who 'prefers not to randomly attack people', or thinks of themselves as 'honor PK' (or any similar term) who also cares about there being No corruption on the Seas.
Perhaps someone who does hold that view can clarify (I don't like no-Corruption seas, but don't consider myself 'honor PK' either).
Perhaps I'm misreading that description, but I think I'm that person. I don't PK for random reasons and I highly dislike the current open seas.
I'd much rather prefer if pvp on the seas was dictated by the same mechanics as the ground pvp is. Make wars more involved and abundant. Make BHs more abundant through balancing other systems. Maybe add a proper pirate faction (probably joinable on some island in the sea) and make BHs see their ships on the map, while pirates themselves have a corruption-like effect but w/o corruption (though this would only apply to ships and not people on summons).
Comments
We're going to be testing the hell out of it during Alpha-2. I'm sure they'll tweak it if it turns out to be disappointing.
Things that are nailed on:
- PvX
- Nodes
- High Fantasy
- No Pay To Win
Everything else is subject to testing!
You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?
Because by the time you catch the ship (not player), if that ship ends up not answering your attack to put corruption onto your team, then maybe you would not want to destroy it. Then you would regret not going in a different direction to catch another visible ship on the horizon.
So a corruption system on the sea in a naval combat would not work.
The player took the risk of sailing out there knowing he could be killed by pirates and incur ship repair costs and all that goes with dieing. Not wanting to sink that ship is a choice, not risking turning red is a choice. Why is there no risk on the pirates side? why are they exempt?
"Not wanting to sink that ship is a choice" - yes, if you make the choice to keep the ship afloat at all costs, then you sail away as soon as you see another ship. Or if you have ships on both sides, you send players from your team on water mounts to scout and risk loosing them in PvP when they get close.
Or if you can try to negotiate yourself out of battle. Or try to win.
You have choices. The others have too. They may be afraid the ship they see is just a bait and send their own scouts to see if you have reinforcements out of their view.
You can also keep scouts ahead to let you change direction before you become visible to others.
You have choices.
The only choice you don't have is to go to toilet or feed your cat, dog and children while playing in the deep ocean or driving a caravan.
The risk is other players see you and can attack you without corruption. And you will have to deal with repair / destruction cost that will limit how much you are actively do the content.
This being a different gearing system they could make it fully well that on death certain types of items you find in the ocean are partly dropped to be looted, and the other half destroyed not even allowing you to get anything if you end up dying.
If you were not concerned with risk you wouldn't raise up the idea people can't get corruption. This comes from you wanting there to be less risk for yourself with others generally not attacking do to the cost of corruption.
Like it is really simple, i get people don't want to be pvped but this is still a pvx game pvp is also part of it. Corruption is meant to reduce most Pvp around it so hence if it is meant to reduce PvP and you want corruption included. That means you are wanting people to PvP you less on the ocean. Like the conversation goes easier if it is opinion you want to be pvped less on the ocean and be more safe.
Just in case someone tries to say than there is more pvp on the ocean again. There is not if you are on ground and die 15 times on land compared to like 3-4 times on sea and need to break before getting you mats back to do that again for awhile. While on land you could run down mid and do 15 deaths again. That means there is more PvP on LAND.
AoC's philosophy is to have resource scarcity.
When food is scarce, even piranhas turn on each other and eat their own kind.
Now if you ask why Steven does not put his developers to make it more PvE friendly, I cannot give one single good answer.
The game is about the economy players create and having two continents separated by a dangerous area feels more interesting than having a peaceful straight connection between them.
Better stay near the coast, where the water is not that deep and you will also help your node.
But if money is important... don't go alone.
Going alone into the ocean to fight sea monsters is not what Steven wants to offer.
As far as the first part goes, that is true of all nodes.
and for the rest of there is no need to make more pve friendly, that's what I'm trying to get across. The corruption system does not stop anyone from pvping anywhere in the world. It only adds a bit of risk for killing players that don't fight back, and killing them is no fun anyway. (but you can still do it)
RING DING DING DING !!!!!
Everyone who is a Caravan-Escort knows what s/he signed up for, right ? Everyone knows of the Danger. Everyone knows Bandits or whoever else can attack the Caravan.
So everyone involved will not be seen as an innocent Flower-Gatherer who just try's to make a bit of Coin to feed his Family. (lol)
Of Course, this counts for the Attackers as well.
My point was/is that... if the caravan people do not fight back... this makes it just "manslaughter" again.
Yeah we know the caravan is most likely going to fight back but what if they wouldn't?
Or what if there are not even guards at all and just the driver?
Will the attackers even get corrupted if they kill him and take all the loot?
Cuz if this doesn't happen then there is a very immersion and lore breaking contradiction going on here.
Which is really all I was about. ^_^
"a bit of risk" is fun.
So what do you want?
Let's say the corruption will be neither too light nor heavy but somewhere in between, at an acceptable level by most players.
You think that those players will feel uncomfortable to enter into the deep ocean?
Or you are worried that the pirates (which are normal players who must also level up their node playing on land) will not have "a bit of risk" while they are in the ocean?
He also wants large areas of the map that are not always free-for-all PvP combat, so, there is Corruption to tone down the frequency of PvP combat - and where players can focus more on objective-based PvP combat.
Nope.
Corruption from PvP is mostly gameplay; not lore.
Immersion and lore for Caravan PvP is mostly handled by the Bandit/Defender Achievements system.
Thank you, I think you are the first person to just answer my question, and not accuse me of trying to change a core tenant of the game. haha
To be fair, i also didn't accuse You of that. I for myself am truly just curious how it could lore-wise be explained in the World of Verra, that some Forms of "Fighting/Killing" create Corruption - while others do not.
So much can be explained with the "Essence". And maybe the Soul itself.
Nice init. It does happen from time to time
Their will be plenty of PvP on land, just not open world killing without a purpose. Their will be Caravan PvP, Node War PvP, Castle PvP, Guild Wars PvP. I assure you guilds will be waring each other all the time, especially if they get good rewards for winning.
The Sea I believe will hold the best rewards, but as Steven has said countless time, the highest risk, for the highest rewards. Bring friends!
Wednesday's at 7:00 PM Cst
https://www.youtube.com/@TheHiddenDaggerInn/featured
Yes.
I don't think I have any data on anyone who 'prefers not to randomly attack people', or thinks of themselves as 'honor PK' (or any similar term) who also cares about there being No corruption on the Seas.
Perhaps someone who does hold that view can clarify (I don't like no-Corruption seas, but don't consider myself 'honor PK' either).
Most of my negative experiences with other PvP players across all games are of 'people who need to feel dominant more than they need to actually fight'.
So the Open Seas offers those players (that specific type) a space where they can, even when losing, still feel dominant or superior to people who disprefer the experience, while suffering no penalties when they wish to actively assert that dominance against any mismatched target.
There are some benefits to having a space like that, in the world, in a PvP-heavy game.
It also opens up all kinds of player organization interactions. If the rewards are good then groups will compete for them. Large organizations will lay claim to certain areas and you have to make a deal with them, evade them or take them on. It adds an entirely different large scale pvp dynamic to the game aside from the seiges.
Also, its exciting and stressful to have areas of the game that are not at all safe.
You make statements which show you will not enjoy this game.
Like " you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone."
Running away is fun.
Hunting others is fun too.
The most interesting is when things go so close that the outcome can be any of it.
The most boring is when the one you attack just hits you back once and stays looking into your face.
So you are not accused but recognized as somebody who pretends to ask questions and actually wants a different game.
It's easier for those of us who have been in the Forums for years to jump to a quick opinion regarding whether Krakhun is in the Target Audience.
I hope he will find his place in the game and maybe get some way to explore the sea too in teams with some fast ships, water mounts and camouflage/stealth.
Maybe I could qualify for ARPK. I dislike attacking random neutrals. I need the game to give me more reasons, like seeing that player flagging up against an ally or being part of an opposing faction (metro nation) or reducing resource respawn rate by greed or economic warfare. That is what I understand as meaningful PvP.
Also I do not like having to search an external list to check if some rare guild names are guild enemies or friends. I would prefer to be able to mark in-game characters or their guilds.
The green state of AoC does not indicate anything for me. I don't see them as peaceful even if they do not answer my attack in that encounter.
So the absence of the 3-state flagging in the ocean feels ok for me. It's presence on the land is just an additional game mechanic to take into account, like deciding "ok, this time is not worth fighting but next time in a different context we will". I cannot see the corrupted players as evil PKers or their victims as innocent players, but players who used the game mechanics they are very aware of.
The corruption system in the ocean would bother me if ships take 10 minutes to reach another ship and in the end to be lost time because the other ship doesn't flag up for combat. And I am against manual PvP on-off flags too because scouts needs to be killed, even if that eliminates explorers.
I'd much rather prefer if pvp on the seas was dictated by the same mechanics as the ground pvp is. Make wars more involved and abundant. Make BHs more abundant through balancing other systems. Maybe add a proper pirate faction (probably joinable on some island in the sea) and make BHs see their ships on the map, while pirates themselves have a corruption-like effect but w/o corruption (though this would only apply to ships and not people on summons).
Stuff like that, but not simple ffa pvp.