Corruption system in relation to auto-flagging in open sea

This is not a post about if auto-flagging is good or not, or about preference between the two.
It is about the corruption system and the logic inconsistency of applying this system.
(for transparency, I would prefer the complete removal of this system, but what irks me more is the logic inconsistency)

The corruption system was presented as a tool that complies with the risk-vs-reward philosophy.

E.g. an attacker risks becoming corrupted if he kills a player that doesn't fight back and the defender risks losing much more loot if he doesn't fight back.
Both sides are risking in order to get rewarded.

In the open-sea, as Steven mentioned in the stream, the rewards will be grater and the risk needs to be higher.
Is the corruption system unable to handle that?
If the reward is more valuable, wouldn't that make the attacker more willing to become corrupted and the defender more willing to fight back to minimize his loses?

Why is now the corruption system presented as an obstacle to the risk-vs-reward philosophy for open-sea content?

In the open-sea now, with the auto-flagging, what is the risk for the attackers? E.g. if let's say 3 ships that are co-operating spot 1 ship, why wouldn't they attack? Where is the risk?
How are the bounty hunters affected by this change? Would they be able to hunt corrupted players in the open-sea?
Contrary to what Steven said, this change is actually going against the risk-vs-reward philosophy. If you outnumber the enemy, there is no risk in attacking.

You cannot treat the corruption system as a helpful tool for land content and as an obstacle for open-sea content.. those things cannot be true at the same time, just because the ground changes!

When you need to add exceptions to a system, in order to make the content fun, then maybe that system is not good enough.
If it is good enough, use it everywhere.. if it is not, remove it from everywhere!

The approach Intrepid is taking makes no sense.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Mag7spy

Dygz wrote: »

I have said this was most likely going to be the case just saying

. You can safely travel across the sea without mats.

Mag7spy

Warth wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

How does adding auto-flag Combatant, PvP-Only zones not make the game less PvX??

Lets look at the definition of PvX by Steven himself:

We like to really refer to ourselves as a PvX game, because in those systems of PvP, PvE, crafting they're all intertwined: They're interdependent on each other... Our system of development really requires some interdependence there between those things.

It doesnt mean that there is seperate PvP and PvE Content. It means that you will naturally encounter both.

You have open sea PvE content, in which you will naturally encounter PvP, which is exactly, what Stevens has defined as PvX from the beginning.

And what do you mean with PvP only zone? Its not, there is tons of PvE Content on the open sea. Just because you are freely attackable doesnt make it a PvP-only zone.

Agree with this, pve players are thinking the game is pvp suddenly because it has more pvp. All it needs to have is both Pve and pvp working together and the content between both being decent. Being able to flag or freely pk someone doesn't mean its a pvp game when it has clear pve elements as well.

How things play out needs to be tested and seen before you can fully judge one way or another. People are simply assuming the worst when it it only relates to sea content and most likely will not include underground but we will see.

Okeydoke

Voxtrium wrote: »

For me the balance IS will need to figure our is how to prevent mega alliances from dominating a server, it feels like this change provides more opportunity than before for a mega guild to dominate a server, however if they can appropriately balance the risk for a dominate alliance so that they can't gatekeep standard players from enjoying the content, then I think this is fine.

Ironically, I think the server most likely to have a dominating mega alliance is the community designated "unofficial" pve server. Woe to the random player looking for an authentic Ashes experience who unknowingly ends up on that communist hellhole of a server.

That said, I do agree in general mega alliances could be a problem for other servers. It's up to Intrepid to design systems to make it not possible. Scarcity and friction is a must, and I think Steven knows that based on things he's said.

Dygz

Who said it's the worst?
It's merely over the threshold for my playstyle.
Ashes now has zones that are auto-flagged Combatant, free-for-all PvP zones.
That's not the kind of MMORPG I want to play.

BaSkA_9x2

Voxtrium wrote: »

For me the balance IS will need to figure out is how to prevent mega alliances from dominating a server, it feels like this change provides more opportunity than before for a mega guild to dominate a server

That is a prime example of looking for solutions for problems that shouldn't exist in the first place. Even before the removal of corruption from the open sea, there was probably going to be enough motivation for alliances to try to control parts of the ocean. And even before the removal of corruption from the open sea, I wish Intrepid would do nothing about, because that's what a sandbox game is about: the developer only tries to intervene and balance something if they absolutely must.

Now something that was already likely to happen will surely happen in many servers, and now they'll need to find solutions to a problem that shouldn't have been introduced by them. Lemme break your legs and look for crutches for you.

Voxtrium

@BaSkA13 I think it is more akin to designing a car with safety features. As in this case IS has a design goal and they must create circumstances to allow that design goal to be fun. ie a car manufacture wants a fast car but they must choose between a safer feature for the car or one that allows it to be faster. The choice is in the design and neither is necessary. Some people care less about safety and more about speed and others safety over speed, most reside in the middle, desiring some level of safety while keeping speed.

Dygz

George_Black wrote: »

You didnt have your fill of attention yet? How much do you need these forums?

Still less than you, apparently.

akabear

Is my understanding correct that near shore, at a distance yet to be defined, a player will still be able to travel, fish etc in non-pvp zone.

Only if one travels further out, does one transition to a pvp zone.

Dygz

Your understanding is correct. (I mean... normal flagging zone. But, yes.)

akabear

Ah.. cool.. I hope then on days where I would like a relaxing pve time, I can still do some fishing in relative safety. (compared to out in the open water)

Xuri

I think its a great addition even for a pacifist style of player I've grown into.

Will I partake in forced PvP? No, prolly not. But if I have goods that need to be transported across the sea you bet your tail I'll be hiring Mercs to help transport it for me.

George_Black

Dygz wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

You didnt have your fill of attention yet? How much do you need these forums?

Still less than you, apparently.

you dont see me posting in games that I dont want to play. Anyways.

CROW3

Warth wrote: »

@CROW3 this change doesnt make it any else PVX. Why do you think it does?

It’s simply a PvP zone. There’s less system risk (no corruption) and less PvE reward. There’e more pvp risk from open players.

I just see this as a zone mimicking any other game’s open world pvp zone. Again - I love pvp - so I’m ultimately fine, but I think it erodes the commitment to PvX.

Dygz

True.

George_Black wrote: »

you dont see me posting in games that I dont want to play. Anyways.

I'm posting in the forums of a game with features I'm going to test. Anyways.

Warth

Dygz wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

Lets look at the definition of PvX by Steven himself:
"We like to really refer to ourselves as a PvX game, because in those systems of PvP, PvE, crafting they're all intertwined: They're interdependent on each other... Our system of development really requires some interdependence there between those things.

I'd say that's not true of auto-flag Combatant, PvP zones.
It's not interdependant - it's just a free-for-all PvP zone.

Warth wrote: »

You have open sea PvE content, in which you will naturally encounter PvP, which is exactly, what Stevens has defined as PvX from the beginning.

That would be true of any game with open world, free-for-all PvP combat that includes PvE.
Like Shadowbane and ArcheAge and EvE Online.
So, that is not any kind of unique concept that sets it apart from other PvP-centric MMORPGs.
Open Seas with default flag as Non-Combatant and Corruption...we would still naturally encounter PvP - same as on land.

Warth wrote: »

And what do you mean with PvP only zone? Its not, there is tons of PvE Content on the open sea. Just because you are freely attackable doesnt make it a PvP-only zone.

LOL. I fixed that right before you posted.

yes its interdependant, if there wasnt any PvE Content to do on the open ocean, then there wouldnt be anyone to kill for the pirates because (close to nobody) would even venture out to the sea if it was content-barren.

Im not sure why the possibility of getting killed suddenly invalidates all the PvE Content that exist within the game for you. Just feels like a strange notion to me. If the possibility of getting killed incites the loss of all interest to you, then Im not sure what to tell you except, the fact, that this certainly will be part of the game.

Warth

CROW3 wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

@CROW3 this change doesnt make it any else PVX. Why do you think it does?

It’s simply a PvP zone. There’s less system risk (no corruption) and less PvE reward. There’e more pvp risk from open players.

I just see this as a zone mimicking any other game’s open world pvp zone. Again - I love pvp - so I’m ultimately fine, but I think it erodes the commitment to PvX.

@CROW3 there isnt any less PvE Reward though. The Reward you get from completing various PvE objectives in the open sea is exactly the same as before. Its just more risky as you have said.
You will didnt elaborate how it erodes the commitment to PvX.

PvE and PvP is intertwined. You cant just do PvE without the threat of being interrupted by PvP.
You wont do much PvP if there wasnt any (PVE) reason for people to travel into the open ocean in the first place.

George_Black

Dygz wrote: »

True.

George_Black wrote: »

you dont see me posting in games that I dont want to play. Anyways.

I'm posting in the forums of a game with features I'm going to test. Anyways.

One guy with opposite views to the design philosophy wont make a difference.

akabear

Dygz wrote: »

True.

George_Black wrote: »

you dont see me posting in games that I dont want to play. Anyways.

I'm posting in the forums of a game with features I'm going to test. Anyways.

Dygz, I feel for you and other players that are more pve bias than the masses.

Coming from L2 where it was full loot drop on death in pve or pvp in the early after beta, I was very much risk adverse. I could not run an afk shop to buy and sell and make money. So making money was always a choice between do I pve today or do I stay in town to make money..

But in all honesty, whilst I died a few times and lost gear and mats here and there, as the game matured past beta and the player culture established, dying became rarer and rarer and L2 really was a hardcore pve game with very, very occasional encounters.

But as the game matured, so did the difficulty of doing pve solo or in PUGs, so players started joining guilds.
Guilds then determined your status in the world. The L2 pve guilds were largely left alone but had to sometimes play with an understanding that by not participating in pvp meant that on some occasions they may need to concede what they can do at times if a pvp guild was present. but most time not.. the pvp clans really only wanted the challenge of pvp clans.. AoC will have the issue of drops from players but with no fast travel that benefit will soon be stifled.

Dygz

Warth wrote: »

yes its interdependant, if there wasnt any PvE Content to do on the open ocean, then there wouldnt be anyone to kill for the pirates because (close to nobody) would even venture out to the sea if it was content-barren.

Free-for-all PvP combat is not interdependant on PvE.

Warth wrote: »

Im not sure why the possibility of getting killed suddenly invalidates all the PvE Content that exist within the game for you. Just feels like a strange notion to me. If the possibility of getting killed incites the loss of all interest to you, then Im not sure what to tell you except, the fact, that this certainly will be part of the game.

Clearly, you don't see...because there is already the possibility of getting killed with the normal Corruption-flagging PvP.
Really has nothing to do with the possibility of getting killed and everything to do with Corruption no longer acting to minimize instances of unwanted PvP combat. No one said that it "invalidates all the PvE content".
What it does is disenfranchises players who do not enjoy free-for-all PvP combat.
In addition to all the other forms of objective-based, opt-in PvP combat available in the game - Ashes now has a designated auto-flag, free-for-all PvP zone - with unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities.
That's the same thing as a PvP-centric game. Especially in a game with no safe zones.
Same difference as EvE Online and ArcheAge.

It's OK for it to certainly be a part of the game.
It's also OK for me to not play it.

XiraelAcaron

Xuri wrote: »

I think its a great addition even for a pacifist style of player I've grown into.

Will I partake in forced PvP? No, prolly not. But if I have goods that need to be transported across the sea you bet your tail I'll be hiring Mercs to help transport it for me.

Warth wrote: »

...
PvE and PvP is intertwined. You cant just do PvE without the threat of being interrupted by PvP.
You wont do much PvP if there wasnt any (PVE) reason for people to travel into the open ocean in the first place.

That you have to contend with PvP when you do PvE is not and was never the issue (at least for me). That was always part of the design of AoC. Moving goods across the open sea for example was always going to be a risk, since caravans and I assume merchant ships as well were always open for PvP (like caravans on land).
The problem is the other stuff that is now possible as well (i.e. griefing in its variaous form) because the griefers have no longer anything thats holding them back.

Child Item