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

George_Black

"The game for ME..."
" I WONT be playing..."
"I DONT enjoy..."
"I AM a casual carebear PvE manual flag..."

Stop putting yourself at the center of this. This whole thing reaches insanity. Why would you test a game for which you said all of the above? As for the PK system it doesnt need testing. It worked in L2. Stop this madness.

Dygz

Um. I am at the center of why I won't be playing.
Pretty sure everyone else will still be playing, regardless of whether I play.

Liniker

loved the change. i hope they keep this design decision as it makes gameplay way more exciting when the open sea is a Dangerous place

hope they do the same for world bosses with open pvp zones

Noaani

George_Black wrote: »

It worked in L2. Stop this madness.

Instanced content worked in Archeage, which is more of an influence to this game than L2.

I assume now you are all for instanced content in Ashes.

If not, why are you making this argument?

NaughtyBrute

Noaani wrote: »

NaughtyBrute wrote: »

It worked in L2. Stop this madness.

Instanced content worked in Archeage, which is more of an influence to this game than L2.

I assume now you are all for instanced content in Ashes.

If not, why are you making this argument?

I didn't say that.. fix your quote please

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

in Archeage, which is more of an influence to this game than L2.

I will have to press X to doubt and ask for a Steven's quote on that one.

George_Black

Yeah... I start to see now that people confuse "test correct function" with "try and see if you like it".

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

in Archeage, which is more of an influence to this game than L2.

I will have to press X to doubt and ask for a Steven's quote on that one.

I mean, we could list off all the things in Ashes that L2 has and Archeage doesnt, and then all the things in Ashes that Archeage has and L2 doesnt - but I honestly think one of those two lists would be empty.

Lethality

My feedback is short and sweet on this one.

I still see it as a consistency problem. If the corruption system was designed to take all of this into account on "land", why chuck it out the window at "sea"?

Did the design break down somewhere? I would like to hear the rationale from the team, if possible!

Lethality

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Well, it was...until it wasn't.

This announcement is straight up not a surprise to me. It isn't something I would have ever got in to a discussion with you about - because I knew full well you would pull up the discussion you posted a few posts above, and without something specifically from Steven, I would have nothing to say in reply other than "this is my expectation".

As such, all I was left with was a fairly hollow "based on discussions with you for many years, based on knowing what the goal of this game is, and based on having known Steven (peripherally) as a gamer, this game is probably not for you".

How can it not be a surprise?

Making this arbitrary change to a certain area of the game, in my opinion, invalidates the design of the corruption system for the rest of the game -- because it was designed to take all of this into account.

Dolyem

Dolyem wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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.

If I had to make a guess, the "why" whilst staying true to the whole games philosophy so far may be that it falls in line with higher risk for higher reward as Steven said. Not to mention, it is an area without node influence, so this system could help highlight that fact and provide a distinct separation between nodes where you can benefit your home through activities, and an area that has no benefit to anyone except what you can harvest from it to take back to your home node. Its also just a different option, which is a nice thing to have. Hard to really say what their reason for "why" is since I am not them, but thatd be my first guess.

Lethality wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Well, it was...until it wasn't.

This announcement is straight up not a surprise to me. It isn't something I would have ever got in to a discussion with you about - because I knew full well you would pull up the discussion you posted a few posts above, and without something specifically from Steven, I would have nothing to say in reply other than "this is my expectation".

As such, all I was left with was a fairly hollow "based on discussions with you for many years, based on knowing what the goal of this game is, and based on having known Steven (peripherally) as a gamer, this game is probably not for you".

How can it not be a surprise?

Making this arbitrary change to a certain area of the game, in my opinion, invalidates the design of the corruption system for the rest of the game -- because it was designed to take all of this into account.

explain how it invalidates it. Because both land and sea even with these differences are still PvX. You have land which is lawful, and sea which is lawless. Sounds like a great dynamic to me.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

in Archeage, which is more of an influence to this game than L2.

I will have to press X to doubt and ask for a Steven's quote on that one.

I mean, we could list off all the things in Ashes that L2 has and Archeage doesnt, and then all the things in Ashes that Archeage has and L2 doesnt - but I honestly think one of those two lists would be empty.

Even considering that Archeage's Creator(Jake Song) is literally a former Lineage Dev, Archeage certainly share many concepts from Lineage 2, but even the Ashes wiki has listed more inspirations from one than the other... https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Inspiration

But, instanced content also worked in Lineage 2, so i don't know how it wouldn't work in Ashes aswell, even if it's quantity isn't going to be very big compare to other more PvE-centric MMOs.

JamesSunderland

Lethality wrote: »

How can it not be a surprise?

Making this arbitrary change to a certain area of the game, in my opinion, invalidates the design of the corruption system for the rest of the game -- because it was designed to take all of this into account.

It isn't surprising for people that Played Archeage and knows that Archeage is one of the greatest inspirations for Ashes, for those without those 2 informations it can certainly look "arbitrary" or "inconsistent".
It certainly doesn't invalidade nor dimishes the corruption system.

Lethality

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

How can it not be a surprise?

Making this arbitrary change to a certain area of the game, in my opinion, invalidates the design of the corruption system for the rest of the game -- because it was designed to take all of this into account.

It isn't surprising for people that Played Archeage and knows that Archeage is one of the greatest inspirations for Ashes, for those without those 2 informations it can certainly look "arbitrary" or "inconsistent".
It certainly doesn't invalidade nor dimishes the corruption system.

So, I played ArcheAge pretty hardcore from alpha. Saying "because ArcheAge did it" is not valid, since this game is also very specifically departing from ArchAge's design in many ways, on purpose.

The reason this is surprising is because the corruption system was designed to *already account* for the varied types of players and gameplay, taking it all of the risk and reward.

It's inconsistent, because why is there suddenly and arbitrarily a new rule set for certain zones of the game?

This is a change in design that I believe deserves a more detailed explanation of rationale, because for over 5 years now it's been consistent with the corruption system. What changed? Especially when there has not been any players or play testing to inform it.

Lethality

Dolyem wrote: »

explain how it invalidates it. Because both land and sea even with these differences are still PvX. You have land which is lawful, and sea which is lawless. Sounds like a great dynamic to me.

It invalidates it because it suggests the system's design was not good enough to actually solve the problem it was trying to solve. So why does it remain at all?

5+ years of them pitching and us hearing about the Corruption system, but suddenly an arbitrary "land is lawful, sea is lawless" makes sense?

Dygz

Lethality wrote: »

How can it not be a surprise?

Making this arbitrary change to a certain area of the game, in my opinion, invalidates the design of the corruption system for the rest of the game -- because it was designed to take all of this into account.

I think Noaani is saying that it fits the way Steven likes to play.
And Steven is spending the money to create a game that fits the way he likes to play.

And he seems to be saying that I should not have believed Steven when he said Ashes would be different than EvE Online and ArcheAge... and the Corruption flagging system would be global, rather than having zones with different flagging rules.
("Everything is subject to change.")

Dygz

JamesSunderland wrote: »

It isn't surprising for people that Played Archeage and knows that Archeage is one of the greatest inspirations for Ashes, for those without those 2 informations it can certainly look "arbitrary" or "inconsistent".
It certainly doesn't invalidade nor dimishes the corruption system.

Again... I specifically asked Steven to compare Ashes PvP to ArcheAge PvP.
His answer was:
"Well, ArcheAge... You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone, so...if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them.
So, that really doesn't relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just a flagging system that relates to the other players."

So...adding a zone that is auto-flag Combatant with no Corruption is inconsistent with what he said when I asked him 4 years ago. It's fine for us to go with, "Everything is subject to change."
But, it absolutely is an inconsistent PvP philosophy for the Ashes game design.

mcstackerson

Lethality wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

explain how it invalidates it. Because both land and sea even with these differences are still PvX. You have land which is lawful, and sea which is lawless. Sounds like a great dynamic to me.

It invalidates it because it suggests the system's design was not good enough to actually solve the problem it was trying to solve. So why does it remain at all?

5+ years of them pitching and us hearing about the Corruption system, but suddenly an arbitrary "land is lawful, sea is lawless" makes sense?

The corruption system is designed to allow pvp but encourage players to have a reason for pking by adding a potential cost to it. On land, the area where you can spend most of your time, it will still be there encouraging players to have a reason before they kill someone. Their reason for removing it from the ocean was probably because the system isn't the best for ship v ship and the ocean was already intended to focus on high-level content that they wanted players fighting over.

If you want to assume that this change is because the corruption system isn't good enough then based off the fact the change they made was one to allow pvp in an area, it is implying the system isn't good enough at allowing pvp. So if you are going to say their corruption system isn't good enough then you are telling them that the penalty must be too high and they need to lower it so pvp is more common on land.

JamesSunderland

Lethality wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

How can it not be a surprise?

Making this arbitrary change to a certain area of the game, in my opinion, invalidates the design of the corruption system for the rest of the game -- because it was designed to take all of this into account.

It isn't surprising for people that Played Archeage and knows that Archeage is one of the greatest inspirations for Ashes, for those without those 2 informations it can certainly look "arbitrary" or "inconsistent".
It certainly doesn't invalidade nor dimishes the corruption system.

So, I played ArcheAge pretty hardcore from alpha. Saying "because ArcheAge did it" is not valid, since this game is also very specifically departing from ArchAge's design in many ways, on purpose.

The reason this is surprising is because the corruption system was designed to *already account* for the varied types of players and gameplay, taking it all of the risk and reward.

It's inconsistent, because why is there suddenly and arbitrarily a new rule set for certain zones of the game?

This is a change in design that I believe deserves a more detailed explanation of rationale, because for over 5 years now it's been consistent with the corruption system. What changed? Especially when there has not been any players or play testing to inform it.

Interesting, so you had those 2 informations regarding Archeage and was still surprised by it? Quite Odd.

Is it really that surprising when one of the main inspirations from Archeage cited by Steven was its Naval Combat?

Is it really "inconsistent" when you hasn't tested it yet and one system simple doesn't interact nor influences the other and the functionality of the corruption system hasn't changed at all?

Who gets decides was is or isn't valid for the game design isn't me nor you, but Steven.
Still, i believe your desire for a more detailed explanation is valid tho.

Dolyem

Lethality wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

explain how it invalidates it. Because both land and sea even with these differences are still PvX. You have land which is lawful, and sea which is lawless. Sounds like a great dynamic to me.

It invalidates it because it suggests the system's design was not good enough to actually solve the problem it was trying to solve. So why does it remain at all?

5+ years of them pitching and us hearing about the Corruption system, but suddenly an arbitrary "land is lawful, sea is lawless" makes sense?

That isn't invalidating though, nothing about it means that the corruption system doesn't work, its simply a different zone with different rules. Not sure where you read anywhere or got the idea that they are abandoning corruption or something. And I have provided a possible reasoning in another comment

Dolyem wrote: »

If I had to make a guess, the "why" whilst staying true to the whole games philosophy so far may be that it falls in line with higher risk for higher reward as Steven said. Not to mention, it is an area without node influence, so this system could help highlight that fact and provide a distinct separation between nodes where you can benefit your home through activities, and an area that has no benefit to anyone except what you can harvest from it to take back to your home node. Its also just a different option, which is a nice thing to have. Hard to really say what their reason for "why" is since I am not them, but thatd be my first guess.

Child Item