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

Warth

palabana wrote: »

What I'm worried about is whether Intrepid has thought of the things that happens outside of the Risk vs Reward pillar. How to keep the PvE crowd in the game with this change? So far what he has said is there will be other means of transportation but those requires a tremendous amount of work as we already know of from years ago. Caravan both land and naval being a battleground is fine and is what we were already expecting.

But this goes beyond getting onto the waters to access content in the open seas. With this change, no one can cross the sea to the other continent with the protection of the Corruption system.

Thats incorrect. Steven has stated that there will be alternative methods of crossing the ocean for players that do not want to partake.

Lastly, I would like to point out that while the open seas will be open-pvp zones, there are still alternate methods of traveling between the two continents, including flight paths between coastal nodes

These are separate from Metropolis Airships. We do not know what they entail, but it clearly states, that the have something in mind for people to travel to the other continent without being involved in the open sea pvp.

Plandemonium

I would only exclude fishing boats from this system. It seems to me that if a large vessel passing by sees a fishing boat, and is aware that it can shoot it down with one bullet and suffer no consequences, such small vessels will be treated as live firing targets for practice. Shooting them down will be overused. This will lead to fishing vessels not going out at all because it will not be profitable. The fish caught will not cover the cost of repairing the vessels after each trip.

JamesSunderland

What you call a "logic inconsistency" or an "Exception" i call a new system that adds variation and more possibilities, it's limited to a specific area that doesn't affect the other areas in the game nor the corruption system.

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?

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

Those 2 questions are quite disingenuous, they simple doesn't take in consideration the intent Steven has for the area, nor the sources of inspiration for the system, The corruption system comes from Lineage 2 Karma system, The Lawless Seas comes from Archeage those are 2 completely different systems that tackles the Concept of Risk vs Reward with different approachs:

No matter how you look at it the corruption system is more geared towards a protective moral code of conduct, where people are way less incentivised to kill each other as everyone's base state is green there is way more comfort and security(compared to lawless sea).

The Lawless Seas pushs the risks even further making everyone that is not literally your guild or friends a way more likely threat and makes you a way more likely threat for them.

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?
"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."

The risk for attackers? Being attacked by other Attackers!
What is stopping those 3 Co-Operating Ships from being attacked by 4 other co-perating ships and those from being attacked by 5 other co-perating ships?
There is always a bigger fish in the sea and there is always the possibility of ganging up on the bigger fish thats how alliances are made and destroyed.

Warth

heebi wrote: »

I would only exclude fishing boats from this system. It seems to me that if a large vessel passing by sees a fishing boat, and is aware that it can shoot it down with one bullet and suffer no consequences, such small vessels will be treated as live firing targets for practice. Shooting them down will be overused. This will lead to fishing vessels not going out at all because it will not be profitable. The fish caught will not cover the cost of repairing the vessels after each trip.

or, you bring 2 fishing vessels and 4 warships, then go to the fishing spot, start fishing and loading up the vessels then return to land with the profits.

If something is hard to do, then the profit should just be that much higher. Thats the whole premise of the risk vs. reward system. In your example, fishing vessels being immune, they would carry no risk and hence should get no reward.

Plandemonium

Warth wrote: »

heebi wrote: »

I would only exclude fishing boats from this system. It seems to me that if a large vessel passing by sees a fishing boat, and is aware that it can shoot it down with one bullet and suffer no consequences, such small vessels will be treated as live firing targets for practice. Shooting them down will be overused. This will lead to fishing vessels not going out at all because it will not be profitable. The fish caught will not cover the cost of repairing the vessels after each trip.

or, you bring 2 fishing vessels and 4 warships, then go to the fishing spot, start fishing and loading up the vessels then return to land with the profits.

If something is hard to do, then the profit should just be that much higher. Thats the whole premise of the risk vs. reward system. In your example, fishing vessels being immune, they would carry no risk and hence should get no reward.

4 warships to protect 2 fishing boats? Where's the logic here? There must be a crew on such ships, do you think that a few fish will bring profit for the crew of 6 ships?

Warth

heebi wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

heebi wrote: »

I would only exclude fishing boats from this system. It seems to me that if a large vessel passing by sees a fishing boat, and is aware that it can shoot it down with one bullet and suffer no consequences, such small vessels will be treated as live firing targets for practice. Shooting them down will be overused. This will lead to fishing vessels not going out at all because it will not be profitable. The fish caught will not cover the cost of repairing the vessels after each trip.

or, you bring 2 fishing vessels and 4 warships, then go to the fishing spot, start fishing and loading up the vessels then return to land with the profits.

If something is hard to do, then the profit should just be that much higher. Thats the whole premise of the risk vs. reward system. In your example, fishing vessels being immune, they would carry no risk and hence should get no reward.

4 warships to protect 2 fishing boats? Where's the logic here? There must be a crew on such ships, do you think that a few fish will bring profit for the crew of 6 ships?

@heebi the same logic where you bring 3 raids to defend 1 raid doing the world boss attempt.
Is it optimal? Hell no, does it beat not getting the cake at all.

You bring as much force as necessary, but as little as possible.
Also, the Warship crew isnt stopped from fishing themselves which just fills up the fishing vessel faster and hence requires less time by everybody. Its not like ship crews are bound to the ship. They man the warships when necessary, they fish when it isnt.
This has been common practice in AA were you bound together in fishing raids.

and yes, i do think that the open sea should give enough value to warrant things like this. This is exactly what the whole open pvp zone should facilitate in the first place.

JustVine

Warth wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

BaSkA13 wrote: »

For the people who liked the removal of Corruption from the open sea I have a few questions

Q: If the corruption system works as intended, what are the reasons to have zones without it?

A: To Increase the Zone Risk alongside its rewards

Q: Can these reasons be distorted by big zers, alliances, etc. abusing them?

A: Possible, but mostly depends on what you define by "abuse" if by "Abuse" you mean total control over, i believe it to be extremely unlikely due to the sheer size of the open seas.

The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general, even before yesterday's announcement. From a game design perspective why make one of the best places to PK even better, as in less risk for PKers?

A: This one i would like to require you to elaborate on why "The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general", and would like to ask you how it is less risk for PKers if it will be flooded by other PKers.

Q: From a game design perspective, will that make the ocean content better or worse?

A: Certainly better as it created a variation and a new Tier of Risk vs Reward

If, for whatever reason, Intrepid backpedals on this decision and the open sea goes back to having corruption, will the number of potential sailing victims increase? Will the number of pirates decrease? Will there be less PvP in the ocean?

A: If Intrepid backpedals on both the extra risk and extra rewards of the open seas, the number of "sailing victims" will certainly decrease alongside the number of pirates and that would indeed result in less PvP in the ocean.

Agree with pretty much everything @JamesSunderland says. @BaSkA13

Id really like an answer to this part as well:

how it is less risk for PKers if it will be flooded by other PKers.

Do you think that PKers wont attack and fight each other? Where does that notion come from? The right to attack anybody automatically comes with the threat of being attacked by everybody.

I'm confused... Do you think PKers fighting other PKers wasn't going to happen in the ocean with the possibility of corruption on??? I do not. There are a ton of reasons why the oceans were already going to be a red paradise, reasons I'm quite looking forward to. All the same reasons for purple or red on red play are still going to be there, just without the thrill of having to calculate corruption and how to best wash it off.

It's less risk because you can kill any gatherer and not worry about gaining corruption. You don't even have to worry about what the level gap between you and the gatherer is. Before the change, at sea, this wasn't a huge risk but still a notable one that required strategy and planning because you had to worry about other pkers targeting you for being red if you bumped into them since you are now walking extra loot. But since it's such a sparse space with a lower likelihood of bounty hunters due to the barrier to entry and there are mobs to farm, there was always a strong likelihood that you could probably rinse off your corruption.

The current set up lowers that threat period to nil and basically let's you get to kill the gatherer for free without interrupting your activities. It'd be stupid not to kill a gatherer that's lower level than you if you see them at that point. It's just free loot. You don't have to worry about going red while fighting them and their friends either. But Pker on Pker interactions for control over the hunting grounds or treasure were always going to happen. That's just basic play in owPvP.

XiraelAcaron

We are all looking at this from our own personal view points.
I understand where the people liking this come from. This creates a higher likelyhood of PvP on the open sea. Higher likelyhood of a PvP encounter creates more fun and more risk for the PvP player. Your calculation goes like this I imagine: how strong is the target, can I take it without loosing. Is it worth what they are carrying to take the risk. You invest in your ship and reap the rewards if the encounter goes your way. To summarize, you are in your element, doing the content you like with more risk and more rewards.
Now look at it from the PvE players perspective. This system creates a higher likelyhood of a PvP encounter on the open sea, but instead of creating more fun and more risk/reward for the PvE player, it is no fun at all (of course all peope are different) only a nuisance and distraction from the fun they want to have (do the PvE content on the open sea they want to do). Their calculation begins before they even enter the open sea. Its not about their ship alone. Do I want to do the content bad a enough to go through this? How big is the likelyhood that I even reach my PvE target? Is it worth my time and nerves? Can I make enough back to justify the investement for the raid (or whatever the content is). To summarize, they are not in their element, what you consider fun is only a nuisance for them that they have to go through to get to the conent they like. So from their perspective the risk is much higher, because the likelyhood is good that they do not even reach the content they want to do while the PvP player always is doing the contect they like to do.

This is true for the whole world with an OpenPvP system, but the PvE players that stuck with AoC until now have grudgingly accepted this because of the corruption system. But with this change, the likelyhhood drastically increases on the open sea and because it removes inhibitions griefing is now part of the equation again as well.

Veeshan

Dygz wrote: »

Where are the safe areas?

towns, freehold, housing

Veeshan

George_Black wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Stop attacking the design and claiming that AoC is misleading regarding PvX, based on your biast understanding of pvx and what pve should be in an mmo.

The design is fine. It's great for players who like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
It's just not a game I will play.

nobody makes games for you. Stop saying I as if it matters to anybody if you leave.

they got 6.1k comment where half of them are probaly complaints about pvp

Hinotori

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

We are all looking at this from our own personal view points.
I understand where the people liking this come from. This creates a higher likelyhood of PvP on the open sea. Higher likelyhood of a PvP encounter creates more fun and more risk for the PvP player. Your calculation goes like this I imagine: how strong is the target, can I take it without loosing. Is it worth what they are carrying to take the risk. You invest in your ship and reap the rewards if the encounter goes your way. To summarize, you are in your element, doing the content you like with more risk and more rewards.
Now look at it from the PvE players perspective. This system creates a higher likelyhood of a PvP encounter on the open sea, but instead of creating more fun and more risk/reward for the PvE player, it is no fun at all (of course all peope are different) only a nuisance and distraction from the fun they want to have (do the PvE content on the open sea they want to do). Their calculation begins before they even enter the open sea. Its not about their ship alone. Do I want to do the content bad a enough to go through this? How big is the likelyhood that I even reach my PvE target? Is it worth my time and nerves? Can I make enough back to justify the investement for the raid (or whatever the content is). To summarize, they are not in their element, what you consider fun is only a nuisance for them that they have to go through to get to the conent they like. So from their perspective the risk is much higher, because the likelyhood is good that they do not even reach the content they want to do while the PvP player always is doing the contect they like to do.

This is true for the whole world with an OpenPvP system, but the PvE players that stuck with AoC until now have grudgingly accepted this because of the corruption system. But with this change, the likelyhhood drastically increases on the open sea and because it removes inhibitions griefing is now part of the equation again as well.

Ashes has never pretended to be a PVE game.

PVE care bears were never going to have a good time if they couldn't deal with the fact that they could be attacked.

And absolutely nothing has changed, they could get attacked at sea before, and they still can now.

Those clinging to the "BUT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM!" Mentality need to get over being risk averse. Life isn't risk free and neither is AOC. Grow a spine and (quite literally) dive into the deepend and just have fun.

IMO the less risk averse people there are whining in chat the better.

Percimes

I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal. If gatherers want to harvest sea water they can do so with a bucket from the shore on a sandy beach.

Joke aside, just considering the size of the oceans, crossing them will probably be as risky as anywhere else in the world, maybe less so from players in fact, and more from deep sea monsters.

Dygz

Veeshan wrote: »

towns, freehold, housing

Towns are not safe areas.
Freeholds and housing can be destroyed.

Aeskill

Dygz wrote: »

Veeshan wrote: »

towns, freehold, housing

Towns are not safe areas.
Freeholds and housing can be destroyed.

From the wiki:

Safe zones
Players cannot PvP while inside (the footprint of)[180] a freehold (except following a successful node siege).[181][182]
Players are not able to be attacked or robbed while occupying their player stall inside the limits of a node.[183]

Player stalls
Players are not able to be attacked or robbed while occupying a player stall.[183]
Player stalls may not be renewed during a siege declaration.[183]

Dygz

Can't be robbed in any case.
Freeholds, Housing, Player Stalls... those aren't really zones, but...OK.

Warth

@XiraelAcaron

This is true for the whole world with an OpenPvP system, but the PvE players that stuck with AoC until now have grudgingly accepted this because of the corruption system. But with this change, the likelyhhood drastically increases on the open sea and because it removes inhibitions griefing is now part of the equation again as well.

Thats what i meant when i said, that people only heard what they wanted to hear.
You really think PvErs (that do not want to fight back) will do any type of contested open world content? Raidbosses, Worldbosses, Dungeon Bosses or whatever?

Maybe its time for reality to crash the party, but the corruption system wont do jackshit in protecting people in their venture to do PvE Content. PvPers that want to keep you away from these hunting ground/boss fights/materials wont need to incur any corruption to prevent you from doing these things either.

They can just flag up and keep stunning you, keep knocking you to the last health bar threshold (20-33%?). Keep interrupting you when you try to mine an ore or skin a monster. Neither of which will incur corruption.

Contesting this critical resources was always part of the game and corruption was never meant to stop people from contesting them. In the ocean, it just became a little less roundabout.

P.S. this is coming from the perspective of someone who is primarily a pve-player / Artisan.
That has been both my focus in Eve, in Archeage and pretty much every other game that allowed me to be focusing on those things.
Im just not blind enough to think, that i will be able to do my preferred content without either dabbling in PvP myself when necessary or for that matter join a community with pvp interested players to have a quit-pro-quo.

Corruption has always been meant to stop griefing (inhibiting the fun of others without benefit of your own), not contesting vital resources and its necessary, because you will automatically have a strong mixture of players, that will end up in the weaker ones being griefed.

All that change tells me, is that they want to place a strong emphasis on contesting for the content they plan to place in the open sea.

Dygz

Natasha wrote: »

Ashes has never pretended to be a PVE game.

PVE care bears were never going to have a good time if they couldn't deal with the fact that they could be attacked.

And absolutely nothing has changed, they could get attacked at sea before, and they still can now.

Those clinging to the "BUT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM!" Mentality need to get over being risk averse. Life isn't risk free and neither is AOC. Grow a spine and (quite literally) dive into the deepend and just have fun.

IMO the less risk averse people there are whining in chat the better.

Ashes pretended to be a PvX game with Corruption and now has a 24/7, auto-flag Combatant, free-for-all PvP Zone with unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities.

Steven, himself, stated that this is an important change.
"Another important change that has occurred is now an automatic flagged location. We have a flagging system that protects and the Open Seas are international waters where you need to be careful."
---Steven

I am certainly over being risk averse.

Hinotori

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes pretended to be a PvX game with Corruption and now has a 24/7, auto-flag Combatant, free-for-all PvP Zone with unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities.

Steven, himself, stated that this is an important change.
"Another important change that has occurred is now an automatic flagged location. We have a flagging system that protects and the Open Seas are international waters where you need to be careful."
---Steven

I am certainly over being risk averse.

So what's changed? You could be attacked before at sea and you can be now. (Also pretty sure land has unique npcs and treasures you can't find in the ocean.)

If you're out in the world anyone can attack you. Doesn't matter if it's on land, in the ocean outside your friends freehold or in a cave somewhere.

The entire world is already a 24/7 free for all PVP zone.

Yes corruption exists on land but it won't stop a single person killing you if they think you look tasty and have the slightest chance of carrying some nice mats and if you did before you were delusional.

Corruption is there to stop excessive griefing, it won't stop the random "bump into" encounter which is what happens at sea anyway.

It just gets rid of the pesky build up of corruption if you happen to be two 40 man ships blasting eachother to pieces. Could you imagine the corruption grind on that?

Dygz

The entire world is not a free-for-all PvP zone.
What changed is there is no Corruption to act as a deterrent for unwanted PvP combat.

Steven literally says that on land, "We have a flagging system that protects..."
Corruption does not prevent the random "bump into" PvP encounter - it deters PKing people who are not interested in PvP combat by punishing the PKers with 4x the normal death penalty.
That is the somewhat acceptable compromise for me playing an MMORPG with no PvE-Only server.
The other change is that everyone in the Open Seas is a Combatant rather than a Non-Combatant by default.
I'm not going to play a game where I auto-flag to Combatant just because I want to explore an area.

I would not be playing Ashes if the entire world started everyone as a Combatant.
And I would not be playing Ashes if the entire world had no Corruption.
I don't play games where I have to play on a server that has zones that are 24/7, auto-flag Combatant, free-for-all PvP combat.
Ashes didn't have that before. It has that now. That's the change.

Hinotori

Dygz wrote: »

The entire world is not a free-for-all PvP zone.

You say the entire world isn't a 24/7 free for all pvp zone. And thats true, I have to fix my statement there. Outside of node housing, instanced content, freeholds and stalls PVP is always on 24/7 for all participants of the world. If you exist in the world outside those few specific areas you can freely be engaged by anyone in PVP at any time, it doesn't matter if you don't want the pvp. its happening anyway.

Child Item