Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red.
This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers.
I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point.
There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of.
On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land?
Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.
To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers.
Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter
AoE attacks don't work on greens though. Destroying a ship vs boarding it was going to be one of the main strategic decision making processes in naval in my opinion for precisely that reason. So again I'm not seeing how the scenario would have come up in the way you are describing. Even if AoE did hit greens, that'd be way more likely of a strategy on land than on sea. Got any other thoughts on how it'd come up more frequently in the old system?
If you think corruption is meant to be only a limiter not a weapon, I respect that. I think about game design/fun a little differently than you which is why I highly encouraged IS during that one dev discussion to find a way to nerf karma bombing as it benefits me immensely and that'd be kind of unfair/unfun for people who don't enjoy that style of play. It's definitely an important topic that needs to be addressed.
Also now that you've made me think about it more I'm starting to dislike this change (I didn't care before since it mostly only benefited me.) Because you just pointed out to me that this change indirectly simplifies the boat meta of the game. Long ranged potion launcher attacks are now way more powerful and will now probably be more difficult to balance since everyone is forced into purple and can now be more easily effected by AoE.
If AOE attacks don't work on ships, then how will engagements work? Instead of being able to engage the entire ship with potion launchers you have to catch up and board or individually target every crew member with each potion launcher attack? Likeni said in other comments, the systems don't need to be the same if it can work.
I think you made a jump I was not making. So let's see if I can briefly explain how I assumed naval combat was going to work. Assume ships have hull levels and individual component health that can be damaged by either canon fire or player attacks. Assume potion launchers can deal structural damage as well as normal aoe damage. If you shoot the launcher at the ship's rails it'll do structural damage to the rails and a percent damage to the hull. But if a green is standing right there, they won't really get hit. In order to hit a green you'd need to board or destroy the ship so you can get close enough to them to use single target attacks (or just let the sharks eat them.) Maybe you can have ballistas that count as single target attacks to help with engagement threat range a bit. This was the very basic model of what I was assuming navel was going to be like. To me this is very functional and balanceable naval combat.
I agree if you assume potion launcher aoe can kill greens there is some risk involved with firing at people who you don't know the level of. But then I gotta ask, why are you aiming at greens instead of the ship at that range. Why are the greens wanting to get killed. Seems pretty obvious that you should just be aiming at the hull when you can. And why does it matter that your cannoneers are corrupted in this model? Lots of potential interesting questions.
But I think you can now possibly see why I was not understanding why you thought greens were going to die by potion launcher? I just never saw it as a necessary component of naval combat. So it's at least clarified to me why you think there might be a karma bombing problem in the old model. I disagree that this was going to be the case. We may never know (except we will because coastal naval combat is still going to be a thing.) I'm looking forward to that particular presentation from IS.
Plenty of reason to aim at the people that you are fighting.
Why are you assuming them are aiming at greens, when they are doing combat they are aiming at the boat and hitting whatever they can. Based on where people are on the boat they are bound to get hit or try to get hit. I don't know why you are thinking this as a shooter like someone is going to be trying to hit a certain part of a moving ship and not just trying to get any damage they can on who they are fighting.
You are purpose trying to skew information to benefit your point and ignore clear facts even without all the information about navel combat being available. Doesn't sound like a good way to convince someone if you ae going to purposely be bias about it.
This is a modern game, and that much should be expected as a large possibility to ensure group play is also active at sea.
Group play will be active at sea - even more so than on land.
You have one person that can see what is going on, one person that is steering the ship, several people that are able to fire the weapons, and some people running around patching the ship up. And that is just the basics - I expect to see a few more roles than that.
The idea with naval combat in Ashes is that it has it's own classes and specialties - not that it relies on your combat class. You may well be a tank as your primary class, but on a ship you could be the navigator, or a gunner, or what ever else they have. The two spheres are totally independent of each other.
The only way to make that work is to remove the benefit of players fighting players, and boost the benefit of ships fighting ships.
When I was thinking about dealing with naval corruption with the ship as a unit, there were a few states I thought would be necessary:
- Functioning in combat / out of combat
- Disabled in combat / out of combat
- Destroyed
Mainly the disabled state v. the destroyed state have very different corruption implications. I'm pulling this from naval combat in AC;Odyssey - if I disable a ship I don't have to board it. I don't have to destroy it. But can I loot a disabled ship for a smaller % of gain? There are combinations of loot / corruption in there, but thought I would toss it out there while I had a minute.
Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red.
This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers.
I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point.
There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of.
On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land?
Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.
Exploiting the system is strategy...... When has Steven ever said that?
In L2, which is the inspiration for the corruption system baiting players to accidentally kill a white player (green in AoC) to get them red and kill them was a common tactic. The white one was sitting in the middle of the road and was annoying all the other players. If someone annoyed you you would run to him and hit him once. You would get purple, but that was basically slap to the face. The problem was that the white player had a dot on him and was hovering at 1HP. So hitting him cause any player to go red and then his friends came out and killed you. A friend of mine lost his weapons that way which he worked for for month. So...this was not an exploit then and I doubt steven sees it that way. But you have to ask him
As Dygz says below your post. Basing inspiration doesn't mean wanting exploits. It is why there have been changings to the overall system and making it more pve friendly.
Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red.
This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers.
I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point.
There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of.
On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land?
Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.
To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers.
Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter
Simple solution would be to base corruption gained not on the number or level of player on board but on the difference of the ship classes.
How would you go about ship classes then
Bigger ships killing smaller green ships get more corruption. Since there are only 3 classes that I know of, and we want to promote PvP I would say for the biggest ship (tier 1) against anothe tier 1, almost no corruption gain. Tier 1 against tier 2 only slightly more. Tier 1 againts Tier 3 (personal ship) maximum corruption.
Tier 2 againts Tier 1 slightly more than normal. Tier 1 against Tier 1 normal corruption. Lower classes against higher classes no curruption (I believe that would be hard to win anyway).
And what if I run a fleet of fast small ships to take down a large ship?
Then you do that. Its the same as when low level players band together to kill a highlevel player on land.
As you can see from my discussion posts, I want to have the corruption system on the open sea. But making the corruption system work in all situations was always a pipedream. It will never cover every possible situation one can dream of regardless of where it is active. So all I ask is the same behavior as far as it is possible.
But smaller ships aren't necessarily weaker... just for an example, in sea of thieves I run circles around galleons with a sloop.
Right but can you prevent the Galleon from doing whatever it was that it was trying to do? And if you could, who needed a Galleon?
It's definitely not that the scenarios are the same, but even in terms of how one might hope or expect this type of world to 'feel', it seems to me that it'd be more beneficial if 'big boat can be chased off by flotilla of smaller boats'.
If your sloop fleet is able to seriously bring down a Galleon, and that's the only Galleon in the enemy group, isn't that a standard encounter problem of 'being swarmed by quick enemies'?
Similarly, this seems like it could be 'easily' resolved by disabling the 'Greens can freely attack Reds' rule on the Ocean, rather than making the whole zone autoflag.
I was addressing his tier proposal of larger ships suffering more corruption killing smaller ships
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
"Please explain if you are still of the opinion that the reason for the change is technical."
Sorry, i don't think it's purely technical, just thought it might have played a role. I also think it was made because the kind of content that was planned for the sea and to support the pirate playstyle.
Please clarify if you expect Coastal content to not include things like meaningful/complex PvE encounters, in contrast to the Open Sea where it might be necessary to change the flagging system due to such encounters.
I'd expect coastal pve enounters to work the same as the ones on land and not involve ships but that is purely my guess. On the ocean, I expect ships to play a larger role in pve encounters like the kraken/leviathon from Archeage but i'm not going to go as far as say the change is necessary.
I think the difference between the zones and reason for the change is more that the land has a large variety of content but the sea will probably be focused on high level content.
Please clarify if you perceive that this high level content will be rewarding enough to be a meaningful impact on the power balance on the server.
I hope not. I think it should at least some of the best stuff but wouldn't want it to be so significant that you couldn't compete against players with it.
Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red.
This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers.
I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point.
There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of.
On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land?
Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.
To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers.
Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter
AoE attacks don't work on greens though. Destroying a ship vs boarding it was going to be one of the main strategic decision making processes in naval in my opinion for precisely that reason. So again I'm not seeing how the scenario would have come up in the way you are describing. Even if AoE did hit greens, that'd be way more likely of a strategy on land than on sea. Got any other thoughts on how it'd come up more frequently in the old system?
If you think corruption is meant to be only a limiter not a weapon, I respect that. I think about game design/fun a little differently than you which is why I highly encouraged IS during that one dev discussion to find a way to nerf karma bombing as it benefits me immensely and that'd be kind of unfair/unfun for people who don't enjoy that style of play. It's definitely an important topic that needs to be addressed.
Also now that you've made me think about it more I'm starting to dislike this change (I didn't care before since it mostly only benefited me.) Because you just pointed out to me that this change indirectly simplifies the boat meta of the game. Long ranged potion launcher attacks are now way more powerful and will now probably be more difficult to balance since everyone is forced into purple and can now be more easily effected by AoE.
If AOE attacks don't work on ships, then how will engagements work? Instead of being able to engage the entire ship with potion launchers you have to catch up and board or individually target every crew member with each potion launcher attack? Likeni said in other comments, the systems don't need to be the same if it can work.
Above all else, we have what I consider another problem.
Are coastal battles between ships subject to all of this or not?
If the result is 'hey don't fight in coastal waters you might get KarmaBombed', that's not great in my opinion. Similar to if you get 'well, coastal battles don't really involve ships', because there are probably quite a few players who would want to do this.
Steven gives the argument about Cross Continental Trade opportunities, but I don't really see why because Naval Caravans should have been PvP zones anyway. Maybe it's for 'preventing scouts who are out there looking for hypothetical red pirates' from being effective?
This decision definitely isn't 'causing' any new technical problems with Corruption, but it definitely seems to be getting into a weird space.
If I use my ship to bring my crew to the edge of open water and they jump off and go attack a coastal fishing boat and sink it, who gets Corruption for boat-sinking, if anyone?
Currently, i'd' imagine that fighting on the coast line would come with the risk of corruption and not be encouraged.
I'd imagine whoever killed the the noncombatant would get the corruption if they jumped off and attacked a fisher that wasn't out in the open sea.
1. only aim to hit the boat and don't hit the players....
2. People don't be able to do anything on the boat so there is no reason for them to deal damage. Game will have a lack of mechanics to support group play for navel combat.
What are these points? You are aiming to hit whatever you can. Why is there arguments being made with an expectation of navel combat to be extremes simple? no mechanics and only person driving and shooting? Thinking there isn't a benefit to less people shooting at your boat when you take out the driver or people using the weapon on the boat.
When I was thinking about dealing with naval corruption with the ship as a unit, there were a few states I thought would be necessary:
- Functioning in combat / out of combat
- Disabled in combat / out of combat
- Destroyed
Mainly the disabled state v. the destroyed state have very different corruption implications. I'm pulling this from naval combat in AC;Odyssey - if I disable a ship I don't have to board it. I don't have to destroy it. But can I loot a disabled ship for a smaller % of gain? There are combinations of loot / corruption in there, but thought I would toss it out there while I had a minute.
Well, this makes sense to me as it is literally the essence of piracy. Pirates don't want to fight, they want you to agree to hand over some amount of resources so that neither side takes damage, and they threaten if they think you want the same thing.
Now, this doesn't work well in a world with magical healing and MP that ticks back up because the crew is still going strong 'indefinitely', but it points to something else. "Pirate" gameplay, if even meant to be remotely 'realistic', should have to involve ways of resupply and 'hostile and friendly ports' and all that.
If it doesn't, we're not really 'playing Pirates' at all, we're just sailing around blasting, even if the ships need repairs and ammunition resupply. If you can just 'sail into a harbor and restock safely' after killing off a bunch of people, I feel like the experience is diminished.
Does a Pirate Ship turn green 90s after entering coastal waters?
This is a modern game, and that much should be expected as a large possibility to ensure group play is also active at sea.
Group play will be active at sea - even more so than on land.
You have one person that can see what is going on, one person that is steering the ship, several people that are able to fire the weapons, and some people running around patching the ship up. And that is just the basics - I expect to see a few more roles than that.
The idea with naval combat in Ashes is that it has it's own classes and specialties - not that it relies on your combat class. You may well be a tank as your primary class, but on a ship you could be the navigator, or a gunner, or what ever else they have. The two spheres are totally independent of each other.
The only way to make that work is to remove the benefit of players fighting players, and boost the benefit of ships fighting ships.
Then every person on the ship is a threat you want to take out, and there for you want to work together to keep each other alive. (Doesn't mean aoes are one shotting people on the ship id expect hugely reduced damage but you still need to be conscious of the damage you may take at times.)
Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red.
This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers.
I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point.
There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of.
On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land?
Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.
Exploiting the system is strategy...... When has Steven ever said that?
In L2, which is the inspiration for the corruption system baiting players to accidentally kill a white player (green in AoC) to get them red and kill them was a common tactic. The white one was sitting in the middle of the road and was annoying all the other players. If someone annoyed you you would run to him and hit him once. You would get purple, but that was basically slap to the face. The problem was that the white player had a dot on him and was hovering at 1HP. So hitting him cause any player to go red and then his friends came out and killed you. A friend of mine lost his weapons that way which he worked for for month. So...this was not an exploit then and I doubt steven sees it that way. But you have to ask him
As Dygz says below your post. Basing inspiration doesn't mean wanting exploits. It is why there have been changings to the overall system and making it more pve friendly.
Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red.
This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers.
I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point.
There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of.
On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land?
Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.
To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers.
Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter
Simple solution would be to base corruption gained not on the number or level of player on board but on the difference of the ship classes.
How would you go about ship classes then
Bigger ships killing smaller green ships get more corruption. Since there are only 3 classes that I know of, and we want to promote PvP I would say for the biggest ship (tier 1) against anothe tier 1, almost no corruption gain. Tier 1 against tier 2 only slightly more. Tier 1 againts Tier 3 (personal ship) maximum corruption.
Tier 2 againts Tier 1 slightly more than normal. Tier 1 against Tier 1 normal corruption. Lower classes against higher classes no curruption (I believe that would be hard to win anyway).
And what if I run a fleet of fast small ships to take down a large ship?
Then you do that. Its the same as when low level players band together to kill a highlevel player on land.
As you can see from my discussion posts, I want to have the corruption system on the open sea. But making the corruption system work in all situations was always a pipedream. It will never cover every possible situation one can dream of regardless of where it is active. So all I ask is the same behavior as far as it is possible.
But smaller ships aren't necessarily weaker... just for an example, in sea of thieves I run circles around galleons with a sloop.
I am not seeing the problem. You want a smaller ship that attacks a bigger green ship to get more corruption?
I know its not perfect, but that is something that can be tested and adjusted.
Corruption is supposed to be a deterrent, not a weapon. You get more corruption for attacking a lower level player because they want to deter you from doing that. When it comes to ships, this isn't necessarily the case since ships server different roles. A smaller ship isn't the same as a lower level player.
"Please explain if you are still of the opinion that the reason for the change is technical."
Sorry, i don't think it's purely technical, just thought it might have played a role. I also think it was made because the kind of content that was planned for the sea and to support the pirate playstyle.
Please clarify if you expect Coastal content to not include things like meaningful/complex PvE encounters, in contrast to the Open Sea where it might be necessary to change the flagging system due to such encounters.
I'd expect coastal pve enounters to work the same as the ones on land and not involve ships but that is purely my guess. On the ocean, I expect ships to play a larger role in pve encounters like the kraken/leviathon from Archeage but i'm not going to go as far as say the change is necessary.
I think the difference between the zones and reason for the change is more that the land has a large variety of content but the sea will probably be focused on high level content.
Please clarify if you perceive that this high level content will be rewarding enough to be a meaningful impact on the power balance on the server.
I hope not. I think it should at least some of the best stuff but wouldn't want it to be so significant that you couldn't compete against players with it.
Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red.
This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers.
I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point.
There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of.
On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land?
Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.
To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers.
Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter
AoE attacks don't work on greens though. Destroying a ship vs boarding it was going to be one of the main strategic decision making processes in naval in my opinion for precisely that reason. So again I'm not seeing how the scenario would have come up in the way you are describing. Even if AoE did hit greens, that'd be way more likely of a strategy on land than on sea. Got any other thoughts on how it'd come up more frequently in the old system?
If you think corruption is meant to be only a limiter not a weapon, I respect that. I think about game design/fun a little differently than you which is why I highly encouraged IS during that one dev discussion to find a way to nerf karma bombing as it benefits me immensely and that'd be kind of unfair/unfun for people who don't enjoy that style of play. It's definitely an important topic that needs to be addressed.
Also now that you've made me think about it more I'm starting to dislike this change (I didn't care before since it mostly only benefited me.) Because you just pointed out to me that this change indirectly simplifies the boat meta of the game. Long ranged potion launcher attacks are now way more powerful and will now probably be more difficult to balance since everyone is forced into purple and can now be more easily effected by AoE.
If AOE attacks don't work on ships, then how will engagements work? Instead of being able to engage the entire ship with potion launchers you have to catch up and board or individually target every crew member with each potion launcher attack? Likeni said in other comments, the systems don't need to be the same if it can work.
Above all else, we have what I consider another problem.
Are coastal battles between ships subject to all of this or not?
If the result is 'hey don't fight in coastal waters you might get KarmaBombed', that's not great in my opinion. Similar to if you get 'well, coastal battles don't really involve ships', because there are probably quite a few players who would want to do this.
Steven gives the argument about Cross Continental Trade opportunities, but I don't really see why because Naval Caravans should have been PvP zones anyway. Maybe it's for 'preventing scouts who are out there looking for hypothetical red pirates' from being effective?
This decision definitely isn't 'causing' any new technical problems with Corruption, but it definitely seems to be getting into a weird space.
If I use my ship to bring my crew to the edge of open water and they jump off and go attack a coastal fishing boat and sink it, who gets Corruption for boat-sinking, if anyone?
Currently, i'd' imagine that fighting on the coast line would come with the risk of corruption and not be encouraged.
I'd imagine whoever killed the the noncombatant would get the corruption if they jumped off and attacked a fisher that wasn't out in the open sea.
Please clarify if your basis for this is that you perceive that boats cannot be attacked and sunk in coastal waters, or if your basis is that you see no reason for destroying/stealing a boat to grant corruption.
"Please explain if you are still of the opinion that the reason for the change is technical."
Sorry, i don't think it's purely technical, just thought it might have played a role. I also think it was made because the kind of content that was planned for the sea and to support the pirate playstyle.
Please clarify if you expect Coastal content to not include things like meaningful/complex PvE encounters, in contrast to the Open Sea where it might be necessary to change the flagging system due to such encounters.
I'd expect coastal pve enounters to work the same as the ones on land and not involve ships but that is purely my guess. On the ocean, I expect ships to play a larger role in pve encounters like the kraken/leviathon from Archeage but i'm not going to go as far as say the change is necessary.
I think the difference between the zones and reason for the change is more that the land has a large variety of content but the sea will probably be focused on high level content.
Please clarify if you perceive that this high level content will be rewarding enough to be a meaningful impact on the power balance on the server.
I hope not. I think it should at least some of the best stuff but wouldn't want it to be so significant that you couldn't compete against players with it.
Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red.
This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers.
I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point.
There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of.
On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land?
Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.
To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers.
Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter
AoE attacks don't work on greens though. Destroying a ship vs boarding it was going to be one of the main strategic decision making processes in naval in my opinion for precisely that reason. So again I'm not seeing how the scenario would have come up in the way you are describing. Even if AoE did hit greens, that'd be way more likely of a strategy on land than on sea. Got any other thoughts on how it'd come up more frequently in the old system?
If you think corruption is meant to be only a limiter not a weapon, I respect that. I think about game design/fun a little differently than you which is why I highly encouraged IS during that one dev discussion to find a way to nerf karma bombing as it benefits me immensely and that'd be kind of unfair/unfun for people who don't enjoy that style of play. It's definitely an important topic that needs to be addressed.
Also now that you've made me think about it more I'm starting to dislike this change (I didn't care before since it mostly only benefited me.) Because you just pointed out to me that this change indirectly simplifies the boat meta of the game. Long ranged potion launcher attacks are now way more powerful and will now probably be more difficult to balance since everyone is forced into purple and can now be more easily effected by AoE.
If AOE attacks don't work on ships, then how will engagements work? Instead of being able to engage the entire ship with potion launchers you have to catch up and board or individually target every crew member with each potion launcher attack? Likeni said in other comments, the systems don't need to be the same if it can work.
Above all else, we have what I consider another problem.
Are coastal battles between ships subject to all of this or not?
If the result is 'hey don't fight in coastal waters you might get KarmaBombed', that's not great in my opinion. Similar to if you get 'well, coastal battles don't really involve ships', because there are probably quite a few players who would want to do this.
Steven gives the argument about Cross Continental Trade opportunities, but I don't really see why because Naval Caravans should have been PvP zones anyway. Maybe it's for 'preventing scouts who are out there looking for hypothetical red pirates' from being effective?
This decision definitely isn't 'causing' any new technical problems with Corruption, but it definitely seems to be getting into a weird space.
If I use my ship to bring my crew to the edge of open water and they jump off and go attack a coastal fishing boat and sink it, who gets Corruption for boat-sinking, if anyone?
Currently, i'd' imagine that fighting on the coast line would come with the risk of corruption and not be encouraged.
I'd imagine whoever killed the the noncombatant would get the corruption if they jumped off and attacked a fisher that wasn't out in the open sea.
Please clarify if your basis for this is that you perceive that boats cannot be attacked and sunk in coastal waters, or if your basis is that you see no reason for destroying/stealing a boat to grant corruption.
I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs.
Then every person on the ship is a threat you want to take out, and there for you want to work together to keep each other alive. (Doesn't mean aoes are one shotting people on the ship id expect hugely reduced damage but you still need to be conscious of the damage you may take at times.)
I think you are missing the point that Intrepid want to make naval combat it's own thing, not a subset of regular combat.
Sure, you and those on your ship want to work together to keep each other alive. That is why you have people running around patching up the ship. These people are essentially healers in naval combat. They are who is keeping you alive.
I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs.
See, I'm all for it as well.
However, I would suggest to Intrepid the following;
You laid down a base PvP experience in Ashes with corruption.
This statement about open sea combat (even if expected) skews the game more towards PvP than that base that was laid down would suggest.
As such, add in content that skews things back (in terms of the game as a whole) to where it was.
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
"Please explain if you are still of the opinion that the reason for the change is technical."
Sorry, i don't think it's purely technical, just thought it might have played a role. I also think it was made because the kind of content that was planned for the sea and to support the pirate playstyle.
Please clarify if you expect Coastal content to not include things like meaningful/complex PvE encounters, in contrast to the Open Sea where it might be necessary to change the flagging system due to such encounters.
I'd expect coastal pve enounters to work the same as the ones on land and not involve ships but that is purely my guess. On the ocean, I expect ships to play a larger role in pve encounters like the kraken/leviathon from Archeage but i'm not going to go as far as say the change is necessary.
I think the difference between the zones and reason for the change is more that the land has a large variety of content but the sea will probably be focused on high level content.
Please clarify if you perceive that this high level content will be rewarding enough to be a meaningful impact on the power balance on the server.
I hope not. I think it should at least some of the best stuff but wouldn't want it to be so significant that you couldn't compete against players with it.
Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red.
This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers.
I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point.
There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of.
On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land?
Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.
To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers.
Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter
AoE attacks don't work on greens though. Destroying a ship vs boarding it was going to be one of the main strategic decision making processes in naval in my opinion for precisely that reason. So again I'm not seeing how the scenario would have come up in the way you are describing. Even if AoE did hit greens, that'd be way more likely of a strategy on land than on sea. Got any other thoughts on how it'd come up more frequently in the old system?
If you think corruption is meant to be only a limiter not a weapon, I respect that. I think about game design/fun a little differently than you which is why I highly encouraged IS during that one dev discussion to find a way to nerf karma bombing as it benefits me immensely and that'd be kind of unfair/unfun for people who don't enjoy that style of play. It's definitely an important topic that needs to be addressed.
Also now that you've made me think about it more I'm starting to dislike this change (I didn't care before since it mostly only benefited me.) Because you just pointed out to me that this change indirectly simplifies the boat meta of the game. Long ranged potion launcher attacks are now way more powerful and will now probably be more difficult to balance since everyone is forced into purple and can now be more easily effected by AoE.
If AOE attacks don't work on ships, then how will engagements work? Instead of being able to engage the entire ship with potion launchers you have to catch up and board or individually target every crew member with each potion launcher attack? Likeni said in other comments, the systems don't need to be the same if it can work.
Above all else, we have what I consider another problem.
Are coastal battles between ships subject to all of this or not?
If the result is 'hey don't fight in coastal waters you might get KarmaBombed', that's not great in my opinion. Similar to if you get 'well, coastal battles don't really involve ships', because there are probably quite a few players who would want to do this.
Steven gives the argument about Cross Continental Trade opportunities, but I don't really see why because Naval Caravans should have been PvP zones anyway. Maybe it's for 'preventing scouts who are out there looking for hypothetical red pirates' from being effective?
This decision definitely isn't 'causing' any new technical problems with Corruption, but it definitely seems to be getting into a weird space.
If I use my ship to bring my crew to the edge of open water and they jump off and go attack a coastal fishing boat and sink it, who gets Corruption for boat-sinking, if anyone?
Currently, i'd' imagine that fighting on the coast line would come with the risk of corruption and not be encouraged.
I'd imagine whoever killed the the noncombatant would get the corruption if they jumped off and attacked a fisher that wasn't out in the open sea.
Please clarify if your basis for this is that you perceive that boats cannot be attacked and sunk in coastal waters, or if your basis is that you see no reason for destroying/stealing a boat to grant corruption.
I want to say neither. You are free to do this and potentially punished for this. Even with the potential punishment, you may still have a reason.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this scenario.
Then every person on the ship is a threat you want to take out, and there for you want to work together to keep each other alive. (Doesn't mean aoes are one shotting people on the ship id expect hugely reduced damage but you still need to be conscious of the damage you may take at times.)
I think you are missing the point that Intrepid want to make naval combat it's own thing, not a subset of regular combat.
Sure, you and those on your ship want to work together to keep each other alive. That is why you have people running around patching up the ship. These people are essentially healers in naval combat. They are who is keeping you alive.
Which is a threat lol, everyone knows in a mmorpg you kill the healer.
Please clarify if your basis for this is that you perceive that boats cannot be attacked and sunk in coastal waters, or if your basis is that you see no reason for destroying/stealing a boat to grant corruption.
My assumption is that attacking a boat will function the same as attacking a mount or combat pet.
Then every person on the ship is a threat you want to take out, and there for you want to work together to keep each other alive. (Doesn't mean aoes are one shotting people on the ship id expect hugely reduced damage but you still need to be conscious of the damage you may take at times.)
I think you are missing the point that Intrepid want to make naval combat it's own thing, not a subset of regular combat.
Sure, you and those on your ship want to work together to keep each other alive. That is why you have people running around patching up the ship. These people are essentially healers in naval combat. They are who is keeping you alive.
Which is a threat lol, everyone knows in a mmorpg you kill the healer.
Yeah, but naval combat is supposed to be it's own thing. It is not supposed to be just normal combat on water. It is supposed to have it's own paradigm.
The paradigm shift is that rather than looking at a group as a bunch of individual players as in regular combat, you need to look at the group as the ship - not as the individual component players that make it up.
I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs.
Another approach. Ships (as whole units) have their own corruption, with no cascading corruption to individual players, but red ships become more vulnerable and drop more loot the more 'innocent' ships it destroys. Emphasis on destroys, instead of disabling.
Player corruption would still be in play if a player swings over to another ship and starts murdering greens, or pelting greens floating in the water until they're dead.
I figure if a purple boat is carrying greens and is destroyed, all the green players go in the water, as long as they aren't actively picked off, they do not give the attacking ship or its crew corruption. Green players that drown in the water are collateral damage. Have the devs create life-jackets or something.
If a green boat is destroyed the corruption goes to the ship, but as long as the green crew isn't murdered while they're floating around, the crew of the attacking boat likewise get no corruption.
Edit: It's rare when @Noaani and I agree on something, even more rare when we're saying pretty much the same thing. I dig it.
The paradigm shift is that rather than looking at a group as a bunch of individual players as in regular combat, you need to look at the group as the ship - not as the individual component players that make it up.
I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs.
See, I'm all for it as well.
However, I would suggest to Intrepid the following;
You laid down a base PvP experience in Ashes with corruption.
This statement about open sea combat (even if expected) skews the game more towards PvP than that base that was laid down would suggest.
As such, add in content that skews things back (in terms of the game as a whole) to where it was.
I would consider the land content enough for what the game is intending to be, but do you have any suggestions that maintain the PVX mindset of the game?
I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs.
Another approach. Ships (as whole units) have their own corruption, with no cascading corruption to individual players, but red ships become more vulnerable and drop more loot the more 'innocent' ships it destroys. Emphasis on destroys, instead of disabling.
Player corruption would still be in play if a player swings over to another ship and starts murdering greens, or pelting greens floating in the water until they're dead.
I figure if a purple boat is carrying greens and is destroyed, all the green players go in the water, as long as they aren't actively picked off, they do not give the attacking ship or its crew corruption. Green players that drown in the water are collateral damage. Have the devs create life-jackets or something.
If a green boat is destroyed the corruption goes to the ship, but as long as the green crew isn't murdered while they're floating around, the crew of the attacking boat likewise get no corruption.
Edit: It's rare when @Noaani and I agree on something, even more rare when we're saying pretty much the same thing. I dig it.
The paradigm shift is that rather than looking at a group as a bunch of individual players as in regular combat, you need to look at the group as the ship - not as the individual component players that make it up.
I definitely want to test it but it seems at least like a simpler effective approach.
I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs.
See, I'm all for it as well.
However, I would suggest to Intrepid the following;
You laid down a base PvP experience in Ashes with corruption.
This statement about open sea combat (even if expected) skews the game more towards PvP than that base that was laid down would suggest.
As such, add in content that skews things back (in terms of the game as a whole) to where it was.
I would consider the land content enough for what the game is intending to be, but do you have any suggestions that maintain the PVX mindset of the game?
Yeah, things I have already talked about in the past.
Add in some instanced PvE (which brings the PvE balance back, and potentially past where it was), but then add in an additional journey where the PvP is heightened. My suggestion in the past has been to make it so the raid needs to carry the spoils of their encounter back home via the caravan system - but to also send out an announcement to attract would be attackers. (ie, PvE is free from PvP, but getting worth out of the rewards attracts even more PvP).
Another option could be to have instanced content on islands. You need to sail there and sail back - though the increased PvP aspects of naval content. While there though, you are assured of having content (lock out based), and are free from PvP prevention.
I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs.
See, I'm all for it as well.
However, I would suggest to Intrepid the following;
You laid down a base PvP experience in Ashes with corruption.
This statement about open sea combat (even if expected) skews the game more towards PvP than that base that was laid down would suggest.
As such, add in content that skews things back (in terms of the game as a whole) to where it was.
I would consider the land content enough for what the game is intending to be, but do you have any suggestions that maintain the PVX mindset of the game?
Yeah, things I have already talked about in the past.
Add in some instanced PvE (which brings the PvE balance back, and potentially past where it was), but then add in an additional journey where the PvP is heightened. My suggestion in the past has been to make it so the raid needs to carry the spoils of their encounter back home via the caravan system - but to also send out an announcement to attract would be attackers. (ie, PvE is free from PvP, but getting worth out of the rewards attracts even more PvP).
Another option could be to have instanced content on islands. You need to sail there and sail back - though the increased PvP aspects of naval content. While there though, you are assured of having content (lock out based), and are free from PvP prevention.
I'm not entirely convinced. While I personally enjoy instanced PVE content such as dungeons and raids, it just seems more like PVE and PVP events happening separately. Where I see PVX as having both be capable of being experienced at the same time. But I do love the concept of instanced raids and the loot being caravan driven and exposed
But I do love the concept of instanced raids and the loot being caravan driven and exposed
Despite many people around here thinking I am PvE driven, I wouldn't want instanced PvE content that didn't have some aspect like this associated with it.
I also don't see the issue of having PvP and PvE separate at times. I mean, if I am walking down the road and see a corrupt player and attack them, there isn't any PvE happening at the same time - it's just PvP.
Players fighting over a PvE spot are PvP'ing and then PvE'ing. They are not usually happening together (though sometimes are, obviously).
I literally see no reason at all why the two can't be occasionally separated, as long as the activity as a whole involves both (looking at you - military node Mayoral competition).
You are nothing if not consistent Noaani. lol. Like a drug dealer...or a used car salesman....hey hey hey have you seen these instances. Or one of those religious people that tap you on the shoulder on the street, "Do you have a moment to talk about instances?"
So because the ocean is lawless, we need more instances. I respect the hustle. I'd hire you to sell my ideas.
I mean what are the major PvE levers to pull as rewards in the open sea to justify the risk?
1. Boss / Raid content (and rewards)
2. Crafting recipes / mats / tools
3. Node contributions (influence, advancement, resources, special control access of deep sea node?)
4. Exploration (achievements, hints about other areas, treasure hunting)
5. RP/Story (open new / rare hooks for story-driven impact to any and all of the above)
6. Pirate costumes & cosmetics & pets
Any and all can be connected to the system we're riffing on.
Then every person on the ship is a threat you want to take out, and there for you want to work together to keep each other alive. (Doesn't mean aoes are one shotting people on the ship id expect hugely reduced damage but you still need to be conscious of the damage you may take at times.)
I think you are missing the point that Intrepid want to make naval combat it's own thing, not a subset of regular combat.
Sure, you and those on your ship want to work together to keep each other alive. That is why you have people running around patching up the ship. These people are essentially healers in naval combat. They are who is keeping you alive.
Which is a threat lol, everyone knows in a mmorpg you kill the healer.
Yeah, but naval combat is supposed to be it's own thing. It is not supposed to be just normal combat on water. It is supposed to have it's own paradigm.
The paradigm shift is that rather than looking at a group as a bunch of individual players as in regular combat, you need to look at the group as the ship - not as the individual component players that make it up.
It it is its own thing it makes sense that it has different gameplay mechanics and why they went with open flagging. Its different game and systems for people that enjoy that kind of thing.
Though I'm not going to assume how its going to be different and why people can't be on a boat to heal it until they show how navel combat will work.
I mean what are the major PvE levers to pull as rewards in the open sea to justify the risk?
1. Boss / Raid content (and rewards)
2. Crafting recipes / mats / tools
3. Node contributions (influence, advancement, resources, special control access of deep sea node?)
4. Exploration (achievements, hints about other areas, treasure hunting)
5. RP/Story (open new / rare hooks for story-driven impact to any and all of the above)
6. Pirate costumes & cosmetics & pets
Any and all can be connected to the system we're riffing on.
Of all of these, I only consider the first one to be PvE.
Everything else is as applicable to a PvE player as a PvP player.
You can't just assume actual PvP combat is PvP, and everything else is PvE. If you were to do that, then I would be able to assume that just PvE combat is PvE, and everything else is PvP.
Of all of these, I only consider the first one to be PvE.
Everything else is as applicable to a PvE player as a PvP player.
You can't just assume actual PvP combat is PvP, and everything else is PvE. If you were to do that, then I would be able to assume that just PvE combat is PvE, and everything else is PvP.
Since I'm on the side of PvX above everything else. I agree.
However, if I just look at it from a PvE perspective, those all have value to the solely PvE segment.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
I consider PvX to have people flagged as Non-Combatant by default at the very least... and probably also include Corruption.
Otherwise, it's literally a flag proclaiming you're in the area to PvP.
And it's not possible to flag to indicate you are there for PvE.
Comments
Plenty of reason to aim at the people that you are fighting.
Why are you assuming them are aiming at greens, when they are doing combat they are aiming at the boat and hitting whatever they can. Based on where people are on the boat they are bound to get hit or try to get hit. I don't know why you are thinking this as a shooter like someone is going to be trying to hit a certain part of a moving ship and not just trying to get any damage they can on who they are fighting.
You are purpose trying to skew information to benefit your point and ignore clear facts even without all the information about navel combat being available. Doesn't sound like a good way to convince someone if you ae going to purposely be bias about it.
Group play will be active at sea - even more so than on land.
You have one person that can see what is going on, one person that is steering the ship, several people that are able to fire the weapons, and some people running around patching the ship up. And that is just the basics - I expect to see a few more roles than that.
The idea with naval combat in Ashes is that it has it's own classes and specialties - not that it relies on your combat class. You may well be a tank as your primary class, but on a ship you could be the navigator, or a gunner, or what ever else they have. The two spheres are totally independent of each other.
The only way to make that work is to remove the benefit of players fighting players, and boost the benefit of ships fighting ships.
When I was thinking about dealing with naval corruption with the ship as a unit, there were a few states I thought would be necessary:
- Functioning in combat / out of combat
- Disabled in combat / out of combat
- Destroyed
Mainly the disabled state v. the destroyed state have very different corruption implications. I'm pulling this from naval combat in AC;Odyssey - if I disable a ship I don't have to board it. I don't have to destroy it. But can I loot a disabled ship for a smaller % of gain? There are combinations of loot / corruption in there, but thought I would toss it out there while I had a minute.
I was addressing his tier proposal of larger ships suffering more corruption killing smaller ships
Currently, i'd' imagine that fighting on the coast line would come with the risk of corruption and not be encouraged.
I'd imagine whoever killed the the noncombatant would get the corruption if they jumped off and attacked a fisher that wasn't out in the open sea.
1. only aim to hit the boat and don't hit the players....
2. People don't be able to do anything on the boat so there is no reason for them to deal damage. Game will have a lack of mechanics to support group play for navel combat.
What are these points? You are aiming to hit whatever you can. Why is there arguments being made with an expectation of navel combat to be extremes simple? no mechanics and only person driving and shooting? Thinking there isn't a benefit to less people shooting at your boat when you take out the driver or people using the weapon on the boat.
Actual weird arguments to make for this.
Well, this makes sense to me as it is literally the essence of piracy. Pirates don't want to fight, they want you to agree to hand over some amount of resources so that neither side takes damage, and they threaten if they think you want the same thing.
Now, this doesn't work well in a world with magical healing and MP that ticks back up because the crew is still going strong 'indefinitely', but it points to something else. "Pirate" gameplay, if even meant to be remotely 'realistic', should have to involve ways of resupply and 'hostile and friendly ports' and all that.
If it doesn't, we're not really 'playing Pirates' at all, we're just sailing around blasting, even if the ships need repairs and ammunition resupply. If you can just 'sail into a harbor and restock safely' after killing off a bunch of people, I feel like the experience is diminished.
Does a Pirate Ship turn green 90s after entering coastal waters?
Then every person on the ship is a threat you want to take out, and there for you want to work together to keep each other alive. (Doesn't mean aoes are one shotting people on the ship id expect hugely reduced damage but you still need to be conscious of the damage you may take at times.)
Corruption is supposed to be a deterrent, not a weapon. You get more corruption for attacking a lower level player because they want to deter you from doing that. When it comes to ships, this isn't necessarily the case since ships server different roles. A smaller ship isn't the same as a lower level player.
Please clarify if your basis for this is that you perceive that boats cannot be attacked and sunk in coastal waters, or if your basis is that you see no reason for destroying/stealing a boat to grant corruption.
Different gameplay loops
I think you are missing the point that Intrepid want to make naval combat it's own thing, not a subset of regular combat.
Sure, you and those on your ship want to work together to keep each other alive. That is why you have people running around patching up the ship. These people are essentially healers in naval combat. They are who is keeping you alive.
See, I'm all for it as well.
However, I would suggest to Intrepid the following;
You laid down a base PvP experience in Ashes with corruption.
This statement about open sea combat (even if expected) skews the game more towards PvP than that base that was laid down would suggest.
As such, add in content that skews things back (in terms of the game as a whole) to where it was.
I want to say neither. You are free to do this and potentially punished for this. Even with the potential punishment, you may still have a reason.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this scenario.
Which is a threat lol, everyone knows in a mmorpg you kill the healer.
My assumption is that attacking a boat will function the same as attacking a mount or combat pet.
Yeah, but naval combat is supposed to be it's own thing. It is not supposed to be just normal combat on water. It is supposed to have it's own paradigm.
The paradigm shift is that rather than looking at a group as a bunch of individual players as in regular combat, you need to look at the group as the ship - not as the individual component players that make it up.
Another approach. Ships (as whole units) have their own corruption, with no cascading corruption to individual players, but red ships become more vulnerable and drop more loot the more 'innocent' ships it destroys. Emphasis on destroys, instead of disabling.
Player corruption would still be in play if a player swings over to another ship and starts murdering greens, or pelting greens floating in the water until they're dead.
I figure if a purple boat is carrying greens and is destroyed, all the green players go in the water, as long as they aren't actively picked off, they do not give the attacking ship or its crew corruption. Green players that drown in the water are collateral damage. Have the devs create life-jackets or something.
If a green boat is destroyed the corruption goes to the ship, but as long as the green crew isn't murdered while they're floating around, the crew of the attacking boat likewise get no corruption.
Edit: It's rare when @Noaani and I agree on something, even more rare when we're saying pretty much the same thing. I dig it.
I would consider the land content enough for what the game is intending to be, but do you have any suggestions that maintain the PVX mindset of the game?
I definitely want to test it but it seems at least like a simpler effective approach.
Yeah, things I have already talked about in the past.
Add in some instanced PvE (which brings the PvE balance back, and potentially past where it was), but then add in an additional journey where the PvP is heightened. My suggestion in the past has been to make it so the raid needs to carry the spoils of their encounter back home via the caravan system - but to also send out an announcement to attract would be attackers. (ie, PvE is free from PvP, but getting worth out of the rewards attracts even more PvP).
Another option could be to have instanced content on islands. You need to sail there and sail back - though the increased PvP aspects of naval content. While there though, you are assured of having content (lock out based), and are free from PvP prevention.
I'm not entirely convinced. While I personally enjoy instanced PVE content such as dungeons and raids, it just seems more like PVE and PVP events happening separately. Where I see PVX as having both be capable of being experienced at the same time. But I do love the concept of instanced raids and the loot being caravan driven and exposed
I also don't see the issue of having PvP and PvE separate at times. I mean, if I am walking down the road and see a corrupt player and attack them, there isn't any PvE happening at the same time - it's just PvP.
Players fighting over a PvE spot are PvP'ing and then PvE'ing. They are not usually happening together (though sometimes are, obviously).
I literally see no reason at all why the two can't be occasionally separated, as long as the activity as a whole involves both (looking at you - military node Mayoral competition).
You are nothing if not consistent Noaani. lol. Like a drug dealer...or a used car salesman....hey hey hey have you seen these instances. Or one of those religious people that tap you on the shoulder on the street, "Do you have a moment to talk about instances?"
So because the ocean is lawless, we need more instances. I respect the hustle. I'd hire you to sell my ideas.
1. Boss / Raid content (and rewards)
2. Crafting recipes / mats / tools
3. Node contributions (influence, advancement, resources, special control access of deep sea node?)
4. Exploration (achievements, hints about other areas, treasure hunting)
5. RP/Story (open new / rare hooks for story-driven impact to any and all of the above)
6. Pirate costumes & cosmetics & pets
Any and all can be connected to the system we're riffing on.
It it is its own thing it makes sense that it has different gameplay mechanics and why they went with open flagging. Its different game and systems for people that enjoy that kind of thing.
Though I'm not going to assume how its going to be different and why people can't be on a boat to heal it until they show how navel combat will work.
Of all of these, I only consider the first one to be PvE.
Everything else is as applicable to a PvE player as a PvP player.
You can't just assume actual PvP combat is PvP, and everything else is PvE. If you were to do that, then I would be able to assume that just PvE combat is PvE, and everything else is PvP.
Since I'm on the side of PvX above everything else. I agree.
However, if I just look at it from a PvE perspective, those all have value to the solely PvE segment.
Otherwise, it's literally a flag proclaiming you're in the area to PvP.
And it's not possible to flag to indicate you are there for PvE.