DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
I mean... a change was made that has derailed it from its original premise.
Steven is the one who stated that the change was made because there will be unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities there. I'm definitely going to want to explore those unique NPCs without being auto-flagged as a Combatant.
If I'm going to be auto-flagged as a Combatant while I'm exploring part of the map and there also is not Corruption acting as a punishment for people ganking me... that's a game I won't play.
Crow3 often says that there is auto-consent for PvP just by playing the game.
I don't agree that it's auto-consent because unwanted PvP combat is punished by Corruption.
But, I consider playing a game that includes being auto-flagged as a Combatant with no Corruption to be auto-consent.
I don't support auto-consent, so... that means I won't be playing the game.
You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes.
My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below.
Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.
If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good.
@Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad.
This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'.
The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?')
To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals.
So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game?
How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him).
If he doesn't like a small section of the world doing something he doesn't like, then why should he get to tell everyone else we're wrong for liking something he doesn't? And that ideally the game should change to cater to his desire for absolutely no free PvP area ever.
International waters are essentially one big Caravan system. You're there opting into the consensual PvP experience. If you don't want to opt into a caravan, you stay away from it. If you don't want to opt into the international waters, you stay away from them.
You wouldn't tell the devs that they need to remove the caravan system because if there are 5 caravans going from one node to the other, you've suddenly reduced the total amount of surface area where you can choose not to opt into consensual PvP.
As your position is entirely based on your own preferneces for a PvP experience.
See that's where you're wrong. I don't like PvP in general. But this is a good decision for the Game and its design philosophies, it's appeal to players that do, and the reduction of the amount of PvP on land for everyone else.
I'm looking at this from the point of view of what's better for the game as a whole, which in turn will affect how good it is for the players.
You seem to be approaching it from the point of view of what is best for you alone, and your or Dygz's preferences.
Maybe I should not have assumed what you playstyle is. However, I also do not simply look at it from my personal perspective. I am also looking at this from the point of view of whats better for the game as a whole and I do not come to the same conclusions as you. Others (including PvP players) think so as well.
Well, yeah, my preferences are going to determine whether or not I play a game. Of course.
You play FFXIV. Do you thrown the game away because there's PvP?
You've played WoW I believe, did you throw the game away because some areas were free PvP between Horde and Alliance?
Or do those games have enough other content where you don't care what that small subset of PvP does?
And yes I get that it's the auto-consent. But how is going into a watery wasteland that auto-consents to PvP, any different than consenting to PvP in any any other instance?
Despite some NPCs, there, there is nothing to do at sea. All of the exploration worthy content will be within the Node's ZOI. Which accounts for a large portion of the seas anyway.
That's what I'm saying, not that "auto-consent PvP is all good and you're bad for not liking it", it's that you're dismissing 80% of a world, for a 20% of content which in all likelihood you weren't even going to play.
You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes.
My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below.
Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.
If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good.
@Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad.
This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'.
The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?')
To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals.
So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game?
How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him).
If he doesn't like a small section of the world doing something he doesn't like, then why should he get to tell everyone else we're wrong for liking something he doesn't? And that ideally the game should change to cater to his desire for absolutely no free PvP area ever.
International waters are essentially one big Caravan system. You're there opting into the consensual PvP experience. If you don't want to opt into a caravan, you stay away from it. If you don't want to opt into the international waters, you stay away from them.
You wouldn't tell the devs that they need to remove the caravan system because if there are 5 caravans going from one node to the other, you've suddenly reduced the total amount of surface area where you can choose not to opt into consensual PvP.
As your position is entirely based on your own preferneces for a PvP experience.
See that's where you're wrong. I don't like PvP in general. But this is a good decision for the Game and its design philosophies, it's appeal to players that do, and the reduction of the amount of PvP on land for everyone else.
I'm looking at this from the point of view of what's better for the game as a whole, which in turn will affect how good it is for the players.
You seem to be approaching it from the point of view of what is best for you alone, and your or Dygz's preferences.
Maybe I should not have assumed what you playstyle is. However, I also do not simply look at it from my personal perspective. I am also looking at this from the point of view of whats better for the game as a whole and I do not come to the same conclusions as you. Others (including PvP players) think so as well.
The question is, how much of that conclusion is based on personal actual understanding of how all game mechanics work with each other.
Because the most used explanations is: it affects my exploration.
Wanna know what's in the ocean? Water.
All ocean exploration is ultimately just sailing to the next piece of land, where ideally there's a node, and therefore no auto-flagging.
And if you wanna dive for content in the middle of international waters, searching for treasure, then hey, guess what. Pirates are a thing.
@Asgerr
This thread was not about if this change was good or bad. There is another thread for that.
You are clearly trying to turn the conversation to what you feel comfortable discussing.
So, let me say this because you might have missed it.. As a PvPer, I like this change. Is it clear?
The discussion is not about that. It's a about the reasoning given by Steven for this change and more specifically, how the corruption system is now presented as not conforming with the risk-vs-reward philosophy.
The original premise was the corruption was active everywhere. There was a change. And some people think that this change is not good for this game. You have another opinion. That is well. We discuss it in this thread.
Some even tell about the consequences they draw from that. The tribalisim comes in when people get put in boxes and their opinions are disregarded because of that.
I mean... a change was made that has derailed it from its original premise.
From the premise of PvX? How?
Even "lore-wise". Who's gonna tell you you did bad by killing someone, and putting a bounty on you, if there's no government around.
This is much different than what some people wished for in Red-only Nodes. This is empty plots of water, which you'll traverse to head to another plot of water, where you are indeed protected by the Corruption system.
And to restate one of my points: your being on a ship in the middle of the ocean already requires you to be high enough level where the area will likely be the focus of high level PvPers with a focus on naval combat (perhaps they even spec'd their guilds towards that)
The original premise was the corruption was active everywhere. There was a change. And some people think that this change is not good for this game. You have another opinion. That is well. We discuss it in this thread.
Some even tell about the consequences they draw from that. The tribalisim comes in when people get put in boxes and their opinions are disregarded because of that.
You mean like dismissing an entire game over a the smallest fraction of its content?
The original premise was the corruption was active everywhere. There was a change. And some people think that this change is not good for this game. You have another opinion. That is well. We discuss it in this thread.
Some even tell about the consequences they draw from that. The tribalisim comes in when people get put in boxes and their opinions are disregarded because of that.
You mean like dismissing an entire game over a the smallest fraction of its content?
What does that have anything to do with it? We are talking about a conversation between people. The game does not have an opinion since it is not participating in this discussion. He did not disregard any opinions in this thread.
@Asgerr
This thread was not about if this change was good or bad. There is another thread for that.
You are clearly trying to turn the conversation to what you feel comfortable discussing.
So, let me say this because you might have missed it.. As a PvPer, I like this change. Is it clear?
The discussion is not about that. It's a about the reasoning given by Steven for this change and more specifically, how the corruption system is now presented as not conforming with the risk-vs-reward philosophy.
The reason is that they would otherwise need to extend the range of a coastal Node's area of influence across a much larger portion of the world than any other type of node.
With this change you limit that insane amount of resources and XP a larger surfaced node would gain by virtue of sitting on the coast.
The risk vs reward exists:
Risks:
You invest time, money possible Guild specs in a ship and it can be destroyed
When you die you lose materials (though fewer now)
If your ship is destroyed you then have to swim to the coast and can be attacked by mobs
Rewards:
You get to PvP to your heart's content
You gain the materials of the opponent as normal
You may even gain bigger treasures from the special NPCs which Steven mentioned.
So it's tribalism if one disagrees that a change should be made to the game that directly derails it from its original premise. Cool. Good to hear it.
Heh. If that’s how you read it, run with it. But that’s not what I wrote.
People will already be fragmente. People are already making plans of spending their entire game being artisans. That's not going to be same experience as those who play mainly PvE raiding, or who open world and instance PvP.
Artisans, raiders, and combatants have the ability to approach their respective interests under the PvX umbrella. The corruption system is the core governance of that umbrella, and also a key mechanism for holding it together. So, yes there are different interests, but a common rule set. The change in ocean content disrupts that common rule set.
So when does accepting that the smallest section of the total map is going to be autoflagging for PvP, become the toxic approach?
Toxic is your perspective not mine. I’m just arguing that this change impacts that PvX umbrella. Again, I enjoyed MO2 - I’m a fan of straight open-world
PvP sans corruption. And if that’s the direction Ashes wants to go, then so be it. But I don’t think you can have both, and a number of us know that.
@Asgerr
This thread was not about if this change was good or bad. There is another thread for that.
You are clearly trying to turn the conversation to what you feel comfortable discussing.
So, let me say this because you might have missed it.. As a PvPer, I like this change. Is it clear?
The discussion is not about that. It's a about the reasoning given by Steven for this change and more specifically, how the corruption system is now presented as not conforming with the risk-vs-reward philosophy.
The reason is that they would otherwise need to extend the range of a coastal Node's area of influence across a much larger portion of the world than any other type of node.
With this change you limit that insane amount of resources and XP a larger surfaced node would gain by virtue of sitting on the coast.
The risk vs reward exists:
Risks:
You invest time, money possible Guild specs in a ship and it can be destroyed
When you die you lose materials (though fewer now)
If your ship is destroyed you then have to swim to the coast and can be attacked by mobs
Rewards:
You get to PvP to your heart's content
You gain the materials of the opponent as normal
You may even gain bigger treasures from the special NPCs which Steven mentioned.
Seems balanced to me.
Again with the heavy assumptions on your part.
Sorry @NaughtyBrute for highjacking the thread.
Anyway, for PvE players the first and second reward are not interesting. They dont want to PvP and they harvest their own mats. You see where the imbalance lies here? But as I said before that is the same as on land. The addition is that they can now be griefed as well.
I might be wrong, but wasn't the Corruption system put in place to fight off griefing? The Risk vs Reward is still there: you have a risk of PvP, you get reward for enduring. Now Open Sea seems like an activity that is past the point of a PvE player getting griefed while he's leveling, no?
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You've played WoW I believe, did you throw the game away because some areas were free PvP between Horde and Alliance?
I started WoW on a PvE-Optional server because I like engaging in PvP sometimes by defending towns, but, I eventually rage-quit to play on PvE-Only servers - ganked too many times while waiting for the PvP-flag to cool-down.
For years I typically started with charcters on PvP-Optional servers in the MMORPGs I played, but always eventually moved to PvE-Only servers.
And yes I get that it's the auto-consent. But how is going into a watery wasteland that auto-consents to PvP, any different than consenting to PvP in any any other instance?
I don't understand this question.
You are asking what the difference is between auto-consent and manual consent?
With manual consent, I can explore the area without being flagged as a Combatant.
Despite some NPCs, there, there is nothing to do at sea. All of the exploration worthy content will be within the Node's ZOI. Which accounts for a large portion of the seas anyway.
I don't know that that would matter even if it were true.
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
But, Steven indicates there will be plenty of unique PvE opportunities for us to explore in the Open Seas.
That's what I'm saying, not that "auto-consent PvP is all good and you're bad for not liking it", it's that you're dismissing 80% of a world, for a 20% of content which in all likelihood you weren't even going to play.
I am primarily an explorer, so... you are incorrect.
If I'm playing the game. I'm going to be exploring and adventuring across the entire map. And 20% auto-flagged as a Combatant is waaaaaaaay too much time flagged as a Combatant for me. 10% is too much time.
@Asgerr
This thread was not about if this change was good or bad. There is another thread for that.
You are clearly trying to turn the conversation to what you feel comfortable discussing.
So, let me say this because you might have missed it.. As a PvPer, I like this change. Is it clear?
The discussion is not about that. It's a about the reasoning given by Steven for this change and more specifically, how the corruption system is now presented as not conforming with the risk-vs-reward philosophy.
The reason is that they would otherwise need to extend the range of a coastal Node's area of influence across a much larger portion of the world than any other type of node.
With this change you limit that insane amount of resources and XP a larger surfaced node would gain by virtue of sitting on the coast.
The risk vs reward exists:
Risks:
You invest time, money possible Guild specs in a ship and it can be destroyed
When you die you lose materials (though fewer now)
If your ship is destroyed you then have to swim to the coast and can be attacked by mobs
Rewards:
You get to PvP to your heart's content
You gain the materials of the opponent as normal
You may even gain bigger treasures from the special NPCs which Steven mentioned.
Seems balanced to me.
Again with the heavy assumptions on your part.
Sorry @NaughtyBrute for highjacking the thread.
Anyway, for PvE players the first and second reward are not interesting. They dont want to PvP and they harvest their own mats. You see where the imbalance lies here?
Please indicate which things are heavy assumptions and why I'm way wrong.
And I'm saying the game isn't for hardcore PvE players. It's for players who want the mix of PvP and PvE ergo PvX.
Territorial waters and for PvX, with a leaning towards PvE. International waters are PvX with a leaning towards PvP.
The game is still respecting its own risk vs reward philosophy. Just applying it differently to different areas. How is that breaking the original ideal?
I might be wrong, but wasn't the Corruption system put in place to fight off griefing? The Risk vs Reward is still there: you have a risk of PvP, you get reward for enduring. Now Open Sea seems like an activity that is past the point of a PvE player getting griefed while he's leveling, no?
Exactly. No random low level PvE player is going to be out to sea with a galleon all to his lonesome.
@Dygz Without using corruption can you make up a system that you would find enjoyable to participate in open world auto flagging PVP?
Examples being like
safe corridors provided by NPCs that allow safe passage between each landmass but only encompass a very small area so as to leave most of the ocean OW PVP.
Having any optimal or mandatory content be available within the safe area of a node effectively creating the sole reason to go to sea and thus the auto PVP area to gain gold and no other reason.
Either or these or a separate one that could appeal to you?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Dygz Without using corruption can you make up a system that you would find enjoyable to participate in open world auto flagging PVP?
Examples being like
safe corridors provided by NPCs that allow safe passage between each landmass but only encompass a very small area so as to leave most of the ocean OW PVP.
Having any optimal or mandatory content be available within the safe area of a node effectively creating the sole reason to go to sea and thus the auto PVP area to gain gold and no other reason.
Either or these or a separate one that could appeal to you?
There is none I can think of.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
All ocean exploration is ultimately just sailing to the next piece of land, where ideally there's a node, and therefore no auto-flagging.
That's not what Steven said.
Also, since we have mounts that grant water-breathing, we can expect quite a bit of stuff to explore along the ocean floor.
how the corruption system is now presented as not conforming with the risk-vs-reward philosophy.
To your point, I think the corruption system (as documented and discussed to date) could be applied to open sea warfare, while increasing the PvE rewards, and also increasing the risk.
For instance, attacking and disabling a ship wouldn’t incur corruption, but destroying that ship could (depending on the number of souls aboard). Now you’re talking about having better trained players to sail well, defend their own ship, and be highly-targeted in their aggression to others.
It could be - concern that a ship’s flagged state is hard to determine when the souls aboard that ship have a mix of flag states. Fine, but that’s pretty discrete math with some simple rules players could learn.
For example, you want to sail a 20-person schooner to do some treasure hunting. Your crew has the following flagging:
- All 20 are green = boat is green
- At least one crew is purple = boat is purple
- At least one crew is red = boat is red
Now ships (as a player controlled object) have their own flag, ask ships interacting with ships have the same flagging rules as players interacting with players. If a ship is blown apart, and the players aboard that ship are thrown into the sea, the flag of the attacking ship is compared to the flagging of each of the players in the water, using the same flagging rules.
Gonna quote you this way because it's faster than editing the whole thing:
I don't understand this question.
You are asking what the difference is between auto-consent and manual consent?
With manual consent, I can explore the area without being flagged as a Combatant.
Basically my question is: if you know an area is free PvP, going there is akin to consenting to PvP. Like if you're going into the enclosure of a starving lion, it's consenting to the idea that you might get eaten by it.
You can absolutely explore it, but there are risks there. Much like in the rest of the world. The difference there is: you lose fewer materials, and have normal death penalties, and the enemy doesn't go corrupt
Which would then force a ton of other players to buy ships to even chase them out to sea for their bounties. It'd be a whole mess. Not to count the ways in which you'd need to code the materials dropped to float or sink and having players swim to them etc
I don't know that that would matter even if it were true.
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
But, Steven indicates there will be plenty of unique PvE opportunities for us to explore in the Open Seas.
And why are territorial waters not considered open seas? I fail to see where the enclosure is.
I am primarily an explorer, so... you are incorrect.
If I'm playing the game. I'm going to be exploring and adventuring across the entire map. And 20% auto-flagged as a Combatant is waaaaaaaay too much time flagged as a Combatant for me. 10% is too much time.
How do you deal with single player games then? Even in those where you can explore you are at risk of being attacked by mobs. Even in MMOs, exploring anywhere means you may have to fight. The difference here is you're fighting a person rather than a sea monster.
@CROW3
I am sure if they wanted to make corruption work in open sea, they would find a way, but I still believe that non-protected PvP in open sea is a good decision.
@CROW3
I am sure if they wanted to make corruption work in open sea, they would find a way, but I still believe that non-protected PvP in open sea is a good decision.
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.
I agree part of what you said, this is like they don't want do dps meter because they think it can have negative effect but combat log is good(you maybe not agree with me, but it's just like automatic weapon and semi-automatic weapon to me and show damage numbers is revolver to me).
But open sea is a zone everyone will take the higher risk when you enter so the risk is everyone can be the victim/prey no one is an real ally, like you can be betrayed by your teammate. And the reward is greater to me is that you can have the third dog who take everything.
So to me, I part agree with you, I consider that open sea is a middle ground for hardcore pvp players, so I can deal with it.(I mean some times when your words came out from your mouth,they already not yours, so I always try to find a good explain and a middle ground to understand thing if it's not bad.)
I just wonder that if two players fighting at the edge of open sea, one of them run out from open sea and another player attack the flee one before he cross the line of open sea and the attack hit the flee one right after he cross the line of open sea, will the attacker be flagged as combatant and the flee one as green?
@CROW3
I am sure if they wanted to make corruption work in open sea, they would find a way, but I still believe that non-protected PvP in open sea is a good decision.
Why only at sea and not on land?
As I said earlier, I would prefer if the corruption system is completely removed, or at least have other areas of non-protected PvP, like world bosses, high-level dungeons, etc. But, this was not their design philosophy.. until now at least
However, my initial point is not related to this decision.. it is related to the reasoning behind it, since the corruption system was presented now as a hinderance for the risk vs reward philosophy, while before it was presented as compliant.
I would much prefer if they said that they decided to have non-protected PvP zones, instead of hiding behind this weird inconsistent logic (at least from my perspective)
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If you know an area is free PvP, going there is akin to consenting to PvP. Like if you're going into the enclosure of a starving lion, it's consenting to the idea that you might get eaten by it.
Really this is the only part I understand, but....
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
Even in TableTop RPGs I avoid combat as much as possible, either through Stealth or Charisma skills.
I think once in the 40 years I've played D&D there was an instance of PvP. And that group fell apart shortly thereafter.
I play RPGs for the exploration, the socialization, the character acting opportunities and the storytelling.
And sometimes cooperative combat. Best when synergizing abilities with others in the party - against a PvE threat.
The moments I do enjoy PvP combat are when I'm defending a town. And the moments when I'm in the mood for that is relatively rare. For the vast majority of the time, I do not enjoy being flagged as a Combatant.
So...for your example... I think...not only would I not go into the enclosure where I expect a lion might be,
I probably wouldn't be within 10 miles of that location. I'm not going to be anywhere near a place where I think a lion is going to have the impression that I think it's OK for me to be eaten. I think for your lion example to be analogous someone would have had to dump deer fat all over me just before I walk into the enclosure.
Well, now that I think more about it...
If I have a job where I'm supposed to go explore a lion cave and possibly tranquilize a lion...maaaybee that's OK. But, if they tell me I have to do that while I'm drenched in deer fat...I'm going to quit that job.
The difference of me being auto-flagged as a Combatant and there being no Corruption is a deal-breaker for me. Those conditions will put a game on my Do Not Play list.
You can absolutely explore it, but there are risks there. Much like in the rest of the world. The difference there is: you lose fewer materials, and have normal death penalties, and the enemy doesn't go corrupt
Which would then force a ton of other players to buy ships to even chase them out to sea for their bounties. It'd be a whole mess. Not to count the ways in which you'd need to code the materials dropped to float or sink and having players swim to them etc
In real life, I would not explore it.
I have walked the streets of DC, Manhattan, Compton, Inglewood...in the middle of the night and never been mugged yet in 40 years. Because I trust that the consequeces for me being attacked act as a sufficient deterrent similar to Corruption. In real life, those criminal laws are even more of a deterrent than Corruption.
But, I'm not going to be anywhere near an area flagged as a Crip where there's likely to be a bunch of Bloods.
If I'm somewhere where I'm going to be auto-flagged as a Crip, I'm probably going to move to some state where I can't be considered a Crip...and stay as far away from that situation as possible.
How do you deal with single player games then? Even in those where you can explore you are at risk of being attacked by mobs. Even in MMOs, exploring anywhere means you may have to fight. The difference here is you're fighting a person rather than a sea monster.
Single-player games don't have PvP combat.
And, yeah, the difference is that I'm fightng an actual Human mind rather than AI.
I am non-competitive. I play RPGs for the cooperative play; not the competitive play.
Even when I'm participating in objective-based PvP combat, I am 99% focused on completing the objectives; not the combat.
@CROW3
I am sure if they wanted to make corruption work in open sea, they would find a way, but I still believe that non-protected PvP in open sea is a good decision.
Why only at sea and not on land?
As I said earlier, I would prefer if the corruption system is completely removed, or at least have other areas of non-protected PvP, like world bosses, high-level dungeons, etc. But, this was not their design philosophy.. until now at least
However, my initial point is not related to this decision.. it is related on the reasoning behind it, since the corruption system was presented now as a hinderance for the risk vs reward philosophy, while before it was presented an compliant.
I would much prefer if they said that they decided to have non-protected PvP zones, instead of hiding behind this weird inconsistent logic (at least from my perspective)
Guild wars? Siege? City wars? Maybe?
Maybe it just reflect reality that law is hard to reach over lands to open sea?(sorry my english is bad hope you understand what I'm saying)
@CROW3
I am sure if they wanted to make corruption work in open sea, they would find a way, but I still believe that non-protected PvP in open sea is a good decision.
Why only at sea and not on land?
Variety, flavor, it makes sense that an ungoverned area wouldn't have law. Why shouldn't it be done? It makes for a far more interesting world when you sitting on a "safe" piece of land looking out into the ocean knowing you are looking at a far more dangerous world than what you're currently residing in. And it's your choice to enter that dangerous world, or stay in the one with safeguards.
Variety, flavor, it makes sense that an ungoverned area wouldn't have law. Why shouldn't it be done? It makes for a far more interesting world when you sitting on a "safe" piece of land looking out into the ocean knowing you are looking at a far more dangerous world than what you're currently residing in. And it's your choice to enter that dangerous world, or stay in the one with safeguards.
Totally. We’ve talked about this for years, so you know my opinions about roaming a dangerous world.
I can apply all the RP reasons why open ocean is a free pvp zone to any land mass in Verra that does have corruption in place. I’m just baffled as to the why, and the implications.
Comments
Steven is the one who stated that the change was made because there will be unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities there. I'm definitely going to want to explore those unique NPCs without being auto-flagged as a Combatant.
If I'm going to be auto-flagged as a Combatant while I'm exploring part of the map and there also is not Corruption acting as a punishment for people ganking me... that's a game I won't play.
Crow3 often says that there is auto-consent for PvP just by playing the game.
I don't agree that it's auto-consent because unwanted PvP combat is punished by Corruption.
But, I consider playing a game that includes being auto-flagged as a Combatant with no Corruption to be auto-consent.
I don't support auto-consent, so... that means I won't be playing the game.
Maybe I should not have assumed what you playstyle is. However, I also do not simply look at it from my personal perspective. I am also looking at this from the point of view of whats better for the game as a whole and I do not come to the same conclusions as you. Others (including PvP players) think so as well.
You play FFXIV. Do you thrown the game away because there's PvP?
You've played WoW I believe, did you throw the game away because some areas were free PvP between Horde and Alliance?
Or do those games have enough other content where you don't care what that small subset of PvP does?
And yes I get that it's the auto-consent. But how is going into a watery wasteland that auto-consents to PvP, any different than consenting to PvP in any any other instance?
Despite some NPCs, there, there is nothing to do at sea. All of the exploration worthy content will be within the Node's ZOI. Which accounts for a large portion of the seas anyway.
That's what I'm saying, not that "auto-consent PvP is all good and you're bad for not liking it", it's that you're dismissing 80% of a world, for a 20% of content which in all likelihood you weren't even going to play.
The question is, how much of that conclusion is based on personal actual understanding of how all game mechanics work with each other.
Because the most used explanations is: it affects my exploration.
Wanna know what's in the ocean? Water.
All ocean exploration is ultimately just sailing to the next piece of land, where ideally there's a node, and therefore no auto-flagging.
And if you wanna dive for content in the middle of international waters, searching for treasure, then hey, guess what. Pirates are a thing.
This thread was not about if this change was good or bad. There is another thread for that.
You are clearly trying to turn the conversation to what you feel comfortable discussing.
So, let me say this because you might have missed it.. As a PvPer, I like this change. Is it clear?
The discussion is not about that. It's a about the reasoning given by Steven for this change and more specifically, how the corruption system is now presented as not conforming with the risk-vs-reward philosophy.
Some even tell about the consequences they draw from that. The tribalisim comes in when people get put in boxes and their opinions are disregarded because of that.
From the premise of PvX? How?
Even "lore-wise". Who's gonna tell you you did bad by killing someone, and putting a bounty on you, if there's no government around.
This is much different than what some people wished for in Red-only Nodes. This is empty plots of water, which you'll traverse to head to another plot of water, where you are indeed protected by the Corruption system.
And to restate one of my points: your being on a ship in the middle of the ocean already requires you to be high enough level where the area will likely be the focus of high level PvPers with a focus on naval combat (perhaps they even spec'd their guilds towards that)
You mean like dismissing an entire game over a the smallest fraction of its content?
What does that have anything to do with it? We are talking about a conversation between people. The game does not have an opinion since it is not participating in this discussion. He did not disregard any opinions in this thread.
The reason is that they would otherwise need to extend the range of a coastal Node's area of influence across a much larger portion of the world than any other type of node.
With this change you limit that insane amount of resources and XP a larger surfaced node would gain by virtue of sitting on the coast.
The risk vs reward exists:
Risks:
You invest time, money possible Guild specs in a ship and it can be destroyed
When you die you lose materials (though fewer now)
If your ship is destroyed you then have to swim to the coast and can be attacked by mobs
Rewards:
You get to PvP to your heart's content
You gain the materials of the opponent as normal
You may even gain bigger treasures from the special NPCs which Steven mentioned.
Seems balanced to me.
Heh. If that’s how you read it, run with it. But that’s not what I wrote.
Artisans, raiders, and combatants have the ability to approach their respective interests under the PvX umbrella. The corruption system is the core governance of that umbrella, and also a key mechanism for holding it together. So, yes there are different interests, but a common rule set. The change in ocean content disrupts that common rule set.
Toxic is your perspective not mine. I’m just arguing that this change impacts that PvX umbrella. Again, I enjoyed MO2 - I’m a fan of straight open-world
PvP sans corruption. And if that’s the direction Ashes wants to go, then so be it. But I don’t think you can have both, and a number of us know that.
Again with the heavy assumptions on your part.
Sorry @NaughtyBrute for highjacking the thread.
Anyway, for PvE players the first and second reward are not interesting. They dont want to PvP and they harvest their own mats. You see where the imbalance lies here? But as I said before that is the same as on land. The addition is that they can now be griefed as well.
I don't know what the PvP is like in that game.
I started WoW on a PvE-Optional server because I like engaging in PvP sometimes by defending towns, but, I eventually rage-quit to play on PvE-Only servers - ganked too many times while waiting for the PvP-flag to cool-down.
For years I typically started with charcters on PvP-Optional servers in the MMORPGs I played, but always eventually moved to PvE-Only servers.
The games I play either have PvE-Only servers or I can explore the entire world with complete immunity to PvP if I choose (like NW).
I don't understand this question.
You are asking what the difference is between auto-consent and manual consent?
With manual consent, I can explore the area without being flagged as a Combatant.
I don't know that that would matter even if it were true.
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
But, Steven indicates there will be plenty of unique PvE opportunities for us to explore in the Open Seas.
I am primarily an explorer, so... you are incorrect.
If I'm playing the game. I'm going to be exploring and adventuring across the entire map. And 20% auto-flagged as a Combatant is waaaaaaaay too much time flagged as a Combatant for me. 10% is too much time.
Please indicate which things are heavy assumptions and why I'm way wrong.
And I'm saying the game isn't for hardcore PvE players. It's for players who want the mix of PvP and PvE ergo PvX.
Territorial waters and for PvX, with a leaning towards PvE. International waters are PvX with a leaning towards PvP.
The game is still respecting its own risk vs reward philosophy. Just applying it differently to different areas. How is that breaking the original ideal?
Exactly. No random low level PvE player is going to be out to sea with a galleon all to his lonesome.
Examples being like
safe corridors provided by NPCs that allow safe passage between each landmass but only encompass a very small area so as to leave most of the ocean OW PVP.
Having any optimal or mandatory content be available within the safe area of a node effectively creating the sole reason to go to sea and thus the auto PVP area to gain gold and no other reason.
Either or these or a separate one that could appeal to you?
Also, since we have mounts that grant water-breathing, we can expect quite a bit of stuff to explore along the ocean floor.
Yep. And with auto-consent PvP and no Corruption, I will never encounter those pirates because I won't be playing that game. Same as with ArcheAge.
To your point, I think the corruption system (as documented and discussed to date) could be applied to open sea warfare, while increasing the PvE rewards, and also increasing the risk.
For instance, attacking and disabling a ship wouldn’t incur corruption, but destroying that ship could (depending on the number of souls aboard). Now you’re talking about having better trained players to sail well, defend their own ship, and be highly-targeted in their aggression to others.
It could be - concern that a ship’s flagged state is hard to determine when the souls aboard that ship have a mix of flag states. Fine, but that’s pretty discrete math with some simple rules players could learn.
For example, you want to sail a 20-person schooner to do some treasure hunting. Your crew has the following flagging:
- All 20 are green = boat is green
- At least one crew is purple = boat is purple
- At least one crew is red = boat is red
Now ships (as a player controlled object) have their own flag, ask ships interacting with ships have the same flagging rules as players interacting with players. If a ship is blown apart, and the players aboard that ship are thrown into the sea, the flag of the attacking ship is compared to the flagging of each of the players in the water, using the same flagging rules.
Gonna quote you this way because it's faster than editing the whole thing:
I don't understand this question.
You are asking what the difference is between auto-consent and manual consent?
With manual consent, I can explore the area without being flagged as a Combatant.
Basically my question is: if you know an area is free PvP, going there is akin to consenting to PvP. Like if you're going into the enclosure of a starving lion, it's consenting to the idea that you might get eaten by it.
You can absolutely explore it, but there are risks there. Much like in the rest of the world. The difference there is: you lose fewer materials, and have normal death penalties, and the enemy doesn't go corrupt
Which would then force a ton of other players to buy ships to even chase them out to sea for their bounties. It'd be a whole mess. Not to count the ways in which you'd need to code the materials dropped to float or sink and having players swim to them etc
I don't know that that would matter even if it were true.
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
But, Steven indicates there will be plenty of unique PvE opportunities for us to explore in the Open Seas.
And why are territorial waters not considered open seas? I fail to see where the enclosure is.
I am primarily an explorer, so... you are incorrect.
If I'm playing the game. I'm going to be exploring and adventuring across the entire map. And 20% auto-flagged as a Combatant is waaaaaaaay too much time flagged as a Combatant for me. 10% is too much time.
How do you deal with single player games then? Even in those where you can explore you are at risk of being attacked by mobs. Even in MMOs, exploring anywhere means you may have to fight. The difference here is you're fighting a person rather than a sea monster.
I am sure if they wanted to make corruption work in open sea, they would find a way, but I still believe that non-protected PvP in open sea is a good decision.
Why only at sea and not on land?
I agree part of what you said, this is like they don't want do dps meter because they think it can have negative effect but combat log is good(you maybe not agree with me, but it's just like automatic weapon and semi-automatic weapon to me and show damage numbers is revolver to me).
But open sea is a zone everyone will take the higher risk when you enter so the risk is everyone can be the victim/prey no one is an real ally, like you can be betrayed by your teammate. And the reward is greater to me is that you can have the third dog who take everything.
So to me, I part agree with you, I consider that open sea is a middle ground for hardcore pvp players, so I can deal with it.(I mean some times when your words came out from your mouth,they already not yours, so I always try to find a good explain and a middle ground to understand thing if it's not bad.)
I just wonder that if two players fighting at the edge of open sea, one of them run out from open sea and another player attack the flee one before he cross the line of open sea and the attack hit the flee one right after he cross the line of open sea, will the attacker be flagged as combatant and the flee one as green?
↓Good youtube channel to learn things about creating games.↓
Masahiro Sakurai on Creating Games:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1DvRY5PyHHt3KN9ghunuw
As I said earlier, I would prefer if the corruption system is completely removed, or at least have other areas of non-protected PvP, like world bosses, high-level dungeons, etc. But, this was not their design philosophy.. until now at least
However, my initial point is not related to this decision.. it is related to the reasoning behind it, since the corruption system was presented now as a hinderance for the risk vs reward philosophy, while before it was presented as compliant.
I would much prefer if they said that they decided to have non-protected PvP zones, instead of hiding behind this weird inconsistent logic (at least from my perspective)
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
Even in TableTop RPGs I avoid combat as much as possible, either through Stealth or Charisma skills.
I think once in the 40 years I've played D&D there was an instance of PvP. And that group fell apart shortly thereafter.
I play RPGs for the exploration, the socialization, the character acting opportunities and the storytelling.
And sometimes cooperative combat. Best when synergizing abilities with others in the party - against a PvE threat.
The moments I do enjoy PvP combat are when I'm defending a town. And the moments when I'm in the mood for that is relatively rare. For the vast majority of the time, I do not enjoy being flagged as a Combatant.
So...for your example... I think...not only would I not go into the enclosure where I expect a lion might be,
I probably wouldn't be within 10 miles of that location. I'm not going to be anywhere near a place where I think a lion is going to have the impression that I think it's OK for me to be eaten. I think for your lion example to be analogous someone would have had to dump deer fat all over me just before I walk into the enclosure.
Well, now that I think more about it...
If I have a job where I'm supposed to go explore a lion cave and possibly tranquilize a lion...maaaybee that's OK. But, if they tell me I have to do that while I'm drenched in deer fat...I'm going to quit that job.
The difference of me being auto-flagged as a Combatant and there being no Corruption is a deal-breaker for me. Those conditions will put a game on my Do Not Play list.
In real life, I would not explore it.
I have walked the streets of DC, Manhattan, Compton, Inglewood...in the middle of the night and never been mugged yet in 40 years. Because I trust that the consequeces for me being attacked act as a sufficient deterrent similar to Corruption. In real life, those criminal laws are even more of a deterrent than Corruption.
But, I'm not going to be anywhere near an area flagged as a Crip where there's likely to be a bunch of Bloods.
If I'm somewhere where I'm going to be auto-flagged as a Crip, I'm probably going to move to some state where I can't be considered a Crip...and stay as far away from that situation as possible.
I think I don't know what you mean by territorial waters.
What are those? I dunno what "enclosure" has to do with what as been said in previous posts.
Single-player games don't have PvP combat.
And, yeah, the difference is that I'm fightng an actual Human mind rather than AI.
I am non-competitive. I play RPGs for the cooperative play; not the competitive play.
Even when I'm participating in objective-based PvP combat, I am 99% focused on completing the objectives; not the combat.
Guild wars? Siege? City wars? Maybe?
Maybe it just reflect reality that law is hard to reach over lands to open sea?(sorry my english is bad hope you understand what I'm saying)
↓Good youtube channel to learn things about creating games.↓
Masahiro Sakurai on Creating Games:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1DvRY5PyHHt3KN9ghunuw
Variety, flavor, it makes sense that an ungoverned area wouldn't have law. Why shouldn't it be done? It makes for a far more interesting world when you sitting on a "safe" piece of land looking out into the ocean knowing you are looking at a far more dangerous world than what you're currently residing in. And it's your choice to enter that dangerous world, or stay in the one with safeguards.
Totally. We’ve talked about this for years, so you know my opinions about roaming a dangerous world.
I can apply all the RP reasons why open ocean is a free pvp zone to any land mass in Verra that does have corruption in place. I’m just baffled as to the why, and the implications.