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

JamesSunderland

Dygz wrote: »

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.

I see... this is an information i didn't knew, isn't present in the wiki, its definitely a change and as you said "Everything is subject to change.", with that in mind, i'd like to know if you do consider any changes that occur in design to be "inconsistencies".

Dygz

JamesSunderland wrote: »

I see... this is an information i didn't knew, isn't present in the wiki, its definitely a change and as you said "Everything is subject to change.", with that in mind, i'd like to know if you do consider any changes that occur in design to be "inconsistencies".

Changes are inherently inconsistencies. Inconsistencies can be OK. This one just happens to be a change that does not fit my playstyle.
I was already very hesitant to play the game with global Corruption and global default as Non-Combatant. Those parameters are the compromises that had me open to playing on the same server with PvPers.
Again, that's why, within 5 minutes of our first interview with Steven on The Ashen Forge, back in 2018, I asked him to compare the Ashes PvP philoosphy with the PvP in EvE Online and in ArcheAge.
I chose not to play ArcheAge specifically because I'm not a fan of their naval combat.

For me, it's almost as if he announced that Ashes would now be P2W.
Not quite because where other people would be angry if he announced Ashes is now P2W, I'm not angry. I'm just not willing to play on servers that have zones where I'm auto-flagged as a Combatant. 1% of me wishes I had known at Kickstarter that this feature would be added. 1% of me wishes he had revealed this feature back in 2018, when I asked him about the PvP philosophy. 98% of me is fine with the change - it just means I won't be playing, but there was already a fairly decent chance that Corruption would not be enough of a deterrent for me to be willing to play the game. I just now know before testing Corruption in Alpha 2.

For me, Steven announcing that Ashes is now P2W would be as trivial as the free-for-all Open Seas is for PvPers. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people for whom the announcement that Ashes is now P2W would be a dealbreaker.
Different strokes for different folks.

Just because the free-for-all Open Seas are a dealbreaker for me does not mean I can't support and feel happy for the PvPers who are ecstatic about the change.

Mag7spy

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

hleV wrote: »

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

If you do that you devide the game into areas for PvP and PvE. You can do that, but that was not the original idea for the game. Then you could simply have created two games or have different server types. The PvE players just wont go into these areas. And if you force them to (by putting important content there) you will loose them in the long run. Then you only have the PvP part left. The game might live, but it will not be the game that was originally envisioned. That sounds dramatic, but that is how it goes. Usually the developer changes things up before that happens and that is when PvPers complain 'the developer ruining the game by listening to carebears'.

What was the original idea for the game? As far as I'm aware, it was always marketed as a PvX game, meaning PvP exists along PvE and you can't guarantee yourself PvP-safety unless you stay in a town. Going outside of town is a risk. Well going into open sea is a bigger risk. That's still PvX, with emphasis on risk vs reward. Nothing wrong with certain areas being more risky (as in, higher probability of PvP), it makes things more interesting.

More interesting for some yes. Mainly the PvP players. The original idea was to have both together. If you make one area more PvP than others the player base will devide. The PvE will avoid the PvP heavy zones and the PvPer will go there because there is more of the content they like. This might even be good for the PvE players because now they have less PvP players in the light PvP zones of the game. You still have PvE and PvP content, so it is still a PvX game, but the content is now more segregated and so is the player base.
There are many ways the game can go from there, but I personally think its not a good direction.

Don't agree with this, you have to be looking at PvP and Pve and different and assuming how Pvp players will act. Simply because their is content added to the game that enhances pvp does not take away from the fact it is a PvX game.

The pve content is the trail for all types of players to follow and further push friction and pvp within the game. It is clear their direction with the sea content for that to be elevated to a higher level in terms of player contested territory. If you are trying to look at it different like players will go there just to PvP that isn't true. People that enjoy using boats and having a bit of fun will do that tiem to time sure, or maybe they have a planned assassination of some people. But PvP players will go where the content is that will help them progress and if a war happens they can have fun with be it on land or sea they would be there no difference. They have node and guild dec after all, there are plenty of ways to bypass the simply punishment of corruption in a more fair way.

I honestly don't understand why this is a big deal, mmos have plenty types of content for people no one should be expected that they will like every aspect of a mmorpg. To say you won't play because a part of it doesn't fit your style is a bit silly. It be like me saying I'm quitting BDO over the fact i think the navel gameplay is dog crap or life skilling in the game.

Even if they go the route of some of the stuff you need at sea to make your gear in a more heavy contested pvp zone, you are simply going int here with a understanding and ready to fight for what you want, else you don't go there and do that content later when you feel up for it. If you detest it that much simply buy it off people and focus land, i highly doubt that content is going to highly impact your gameplay loop within the game.

AGAIN if you are jumping ashes saying you are a PvE player and detest pvp, i have to ask if you realize you are playing a PvX game that has a clear focus on PvP as it impacts the entirely of the gameplay experience. When you play AoC you aren't a PvE player, you are a PvX player.

Dygz

LMAO
I am a non-competitive, carebear, casual challenge/hardcore time player.
That is my playstyle.
While I like objective-based opt-in PvP sometimes, I detest random PvP combat - especially when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat.
I've learned over the 25 years I've been playing MMORPGs that I don't enjoy playing on the same servers as PvPers. Even though I sometimes enjoy objective-based PvP combat, opt-in PvP combat, I'd rather just play on PvE-Only servers.

I don't really believe that you can get people who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play on the same servers as PvPers, but...
The EQNext devs seemed to think it's possible... and, since 2013, I've wanted to know how they would accomplish that.
Ashes devs also seemed to think they had that figured out - with Corruption.
Steven seemed to think that Corruption would be enough of a deterrent that players who typically play on PvE-Only servers would be comfortable playing on the same server as PvPers.
People who played Lineage II said Corruption should accomplish that because it's harsher than Karma.

Global default as Non-Combatant and global Corruption is enough of a compromise for me to be open to trying to play on the same servers as PvPers. Let's wait for Alpha 2 to see if Corruption is a sufficient deterrent to unwanted PvP combat for me to be willing to play the game. That's where I've been since 2017.
When newbies come to the forums and ask for a separate PvE-Only server, I tell them, "Hey, let's wait til Alpha 2 to see if Corruption is a sufficient deterrent for you to feel comfortable."

But, changing the parameters to include zones with unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities that 24/7 auto-flag players as Combatants with no Corruption is a deal-breaker for me. I refuse to play on a server with that ruleset.
That enhances PvP combat beyond my interest threshold.
It's great for PvPers. It's great for anyone who enjoys that enhancement.
It just does not include me.
Again, I specifically chose not to play ArcheAge because the naval combat PvP is too intense for my playstyle. I don't play EvE because the PvP is too intense for my playstyle.

You can continue to call Ashes a PvX game if you want to.
Whatever the label others wish to use, it's now too PvP-centric for me.
I guess you don't have to understand that if you can't understand that.

What I previously understood was that Ashes is a game with global default as Non-Combatant and global Corruption. I was open to playing on a server with that ruleset.
I am not willing to play on a server that includes zones with auto-flagging as Combatant and no Corruption... which is why, in 2018, I asked Steven to compare Ashes PvP with EvE PvP and ArcheAge PvP. Two games that I refuse to play.
Steven stated that a key difference is that Ashes will not have zones with different PvP rulesets.
Just because that's not important to you, does not mean it's not important to me.
P2W is not important to me. It's a dealbreaker for others.
I don't really understand why P2W is a dealbreaker for some people, but I accept that it is a dealbreaker for some people.

If I have to play on a server that includes zones with no Corruption that auto-flag me as Combatant, I won't be playing Ashes, so I guess I won't be a PvX player.
And...that's OK.

I'm pretty confident that Ashes can survive one person choosing not play the game.

Plandemonium

I think that by generalising we are dividing ourselves into two camps of players here, and I don't mean dividing PVP and PVE. Let's call it group A and group B.

Group A:
Belong players who accept that there will be world PVP in Vera. They are adventure-oriented players who accept that, in the course of these adventures, danger and risk of death await them from time to time. For this type of player, going through the adventure without any risk would be downright pointless. However, there is a big difference between risk and certainty that something bad will happen every time you leave city gates. When a fisherman sets out on his boat, he assumes that there is a chance that something bad could happen to him. In Vera's world, a poor fisherman setting out to sea is certain that he will not return to port unharmed. Group A leans more towards RP players, and wants risks to be balanced as in real life.

Group B:
Can be described more easily. These are players for whom the realism of the game world is of secondary or tertiary importance. They do not care about immersion. Unlike group A players, they will treat their freeholds purely as a tool for resource acquisition, not as their home. These are players focused on results more than adventure. If a B player has the opportunity to fight, he will do so. His approach to the game is more on a battle royale basis.

Of course, Steven reiterates all the time that AoC will not be a game for everyone. The question is whether there will be enough of this select group of players to fill the servers ? How many people will there be, such as Dygz, who will have to say "no thanks" ? This game doesn't have to be for everyone, as long as it doesn't turn out to be a sandbox with no one to play with.

Dygz

heebi wrote: »

I think that by generalising we are dividing ourselves into two camps of players here, and I don't mean dividing PVP and PVE. Let's call it group A and group B.

Group A:
Belong players who accept that there will be world PVP in Vera. They are adventure-oriented players who accept that, in the course of these adventures, danger and risk of death await them from time to time. For this type of player, going through the adventure without any risk would be downright pointless. However, there is a big difference between risk and certainty that something bad will happen every time you leave city gates. When a fisherman sets out on his boat, he assumes that there is a chance that something bad could happen to him. In Vera's world, a poor fisherman setting out to sea is certain that he will not return to port unharmed. Group A leans more towards RP players, and wants risks to be balanced as in real life.

Group B:
Can be described more easily. These are players for whom the realism of the game world is of secondary or tertiary importance. They do not care about immersion. Unlike group A players, they will treat their freeholds purely as a tool for resource acquisition, not as their home. These are players focused on results more than adventure.

What???!!!

heebi wrote: »

Of course, Steven reiterates all the time that AoC will not be a game for everyone. The question is whether there will be enough of this select group of players to fill the servers ? How many people will there be, such as Dygz, who will have to say "no thanks" ? This game doesn't have to be for everyone, as long as it doesn't turn out to be a sandbox with no one to play with.

True.

Asgerr

CROW3 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Cant agree with this comparison. Open oceans with autoflagged PVP still involve PVP and PVE cohesion, therefore retaining the PVX format.

Sure, let's throw an instanced pvp duel into that no-ow PvP example. We can probably determine exactly where that analogous balance point is. However, I think most PvP'ers would see this terrestrial area as a PvEr space just as most PvE'ers will now look at auto-flagged open seas as a PvPer space. That leaves us at a red v. blue Venn with very little purple in the middle.

IMO Intrepid's success through Ashes hinges on maximizing the purple.

So, I'm just very curious on the why behind this call, and the implications on the overall direction for PvX.

My take as to why:

Preservation of naval combat
Retention of hardcore PvP gamers
Diversification of gameplay
Controlling the power of coastal Nodes

1 - Up until the current update to the system, players on a ship would all turn combattant or corrupted if just one player did, because they all were part of the same ship. This exposed players to no small amount of griefing and trolling from other players.
Basically someone ship is about to attack you, and one of the players in your game kills one of their players. Suddenly everyone is corrupt and the pirates now get full loot whenever they kill you (which they will as you now have dampened stats). Turns out, that player who got you all corrupt? He was in cahoots with the pirates.
Instead, since you are all now auto-flagged as combatants, no such repercussions exist if some player decides to troll, as they can't troll you anymore.

2 - We've seen a considerable amount of interested players, as well as those who already bought in, raise their voices to ask for the possible removal of Corruption, or for a more lenient version of it.
Though we can all agree that the entire removal of it is a negative on the game, this new update to the system, limiting it to a fraction of the world, helps retain a lot of those more 90% focused PvPers.
Not to account for the simple fact that the more high level players end up PvPing each other at sea, the fewer there will be on land, where more hardcore PvErs will spend the majority of their time.

3 - Seems pretty self explanatory.

4 - Up until the update, the entirety of the sea would have fallen within the purview of coastal nodes' zones of influence. All the sea was a place for resource gathering and PvE etc. with all of its corresponding XP gain counting towards the leveling of the Node.
With the expansion in size of the world, this would have conferred ulterior power to coastal nodes. They would have developed faster, offered more area of influence, leading to reduced risks of encountering anyone who may decide to PK anyone, thus diluting the PvX aspect of the game.
By essentially limiting the area a coastal node has power over, we're keeping coastal nodes to the same standards as all other nodes. Thus, we avoid the ever dreaded situation of META nodes.
But what happens when you have a regulated sized for a coastal node's ZOI? You're left with bits of maritime territories that don't fall under any node's ZOI. What do you make of it. Just leave it as an entire zone of nothingness where corruption still applies, but nothing you do there otherwise contributes to a node's development? That's basically giving you PvP without the PvE anyway. And with the risk for corruption and dropping completed items, you also then have to worry about how you program loot dropping in the middle of the sea. Does the lootable pouch spawn floating on the water? Does it drop to the bottom of the ocean floor?
With auto-flagging, you now don't drop those completed items for meandering in zone with the least content and benefit to your node, and you ease the load on the server's computations for managing what is in fact dropped (materials vs full loot).

So yeah, these are the reasons I could think of. I'm sure I could come up with these, that Intrepid probably has about double the amount of reasons, as they have more data on their systems and systems architecture.

Liniker

Dygz wrote: »

It has always been the case that my decision to play is contingent on how well Corruption works as a deterrent for unwanted PvP combat. This change fails to meet my requirements. I'm just now able to determine that before testing it in the Alpha 2.

tbh, from what you have said, you wouldn't enjoy playing ashes even without the sea change..

corruption being a deterrent does not mean people won't PK you, they Definitely will, it's just that it won't be All the time specially in your territory

and you seem to be under the wrong impression that killing a green = dying and getting 4x penalties

the map is Huge and there are plenty of mounts, people will run away Really easy in AoC you can bet on that, and after someone killed you, you will Never know if he died or not - imagine dying to people without going purple, getting 100% death penalty just to find out the other guy cleared his corruption and is now standing next to you in the node saying "thx for the farm" lol

I like that so I'm really happy Steven is going more to the risk side of things, but players like you wouldn't last that long I imagine, it goes down to personal preference

Rando88

I like the idea of having pirates and an ocean pvp zone. Kind of reminds me of the wilderness in runescape. It worked well there.

"I will not play the game because there's one piece of content I don't like" really? -.-

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

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...

I mean, the system is still very different to Archeages. We need more information on

Dygz wrote: »

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.

@Dygz

My take on that comment was in relation to the fact that in Archeage you do not have any penalty or restriction at all for killing half of the games population.

That games equivalent of the corruption system only applies to same faction PvP, not cross faction PvP.

In that regard, the over all PvP aspects of Ashes are still significantly more friendly than those of Archeage.

Smork1

Anyone know if Dygz will be playing or not? I'm not certain if he's told us yet... Anyone know if this is not the game for him? Dygz please man NO ONE ASKED, you can keep those comments to yourself from now on.

FuryBladeborne

@Dygz
You have probably thought about this; but, I just have to say it anyway. Unless you were specifically looking forward to naval gameplay, not doing it would have very little impact on your game experience. You don't need anything from it as everything can be traded. You can just do the content that you like on land and purchase anything that is needed from the sea.

Also, I think you should consider some of the problems of having corruption on the sea. We have known that pirates will be a thing and large crews will also be a thing. What happens if a raid ship of 40 players is destroyed while choosing not to fight back? Does everyone on the attacking ship get corruption? Is the corruption split? Is only one person responsible for the corruption? (That could result in 1 player getting corruption for killing 40 players while only being 1 of the participants in the full fight.) What happens if a large ship pretty much one shots a small ship with a few players? In the example of destroying the large ship ridiculous amounts of corruption could be earned while destroying the weak ship would yield little corruption no matter how you split the corruption from killing a little ship. This is the opposite of the intent for corruption as the weak target actually yields the least corruption (at least if we assume that corruption is gained per player killed).

Corruption on the seas just could not work the same way as on land because corruption is earned from killing multiple players at once while the corruption is also earned by a group of attackers at a time. At the same time, power in a naval gunfight is not determined so much by the level of the players involved but by the tiers of the ships involved. However, corruption is determined by the difference in the levels of the players. How do you even determine what the corruption should be if you have a spread of levels in each group of players.

Regardless of how you look at it, either the corruption system needs a full rework for the sea; or, it needs to be removed. I think Steven did what made sense.

FuryBladeborne

@NaughtyBrute
I wrote this in the other naval flagging thread, but it directly answers the OP.

You should consider some of the problems of having corruption on the sea. We have known that pirates will be a thing and large crews will also be a thing. What happens if a raid ship of 40 players is destroyed while choosing not to fight back? Does everyone on the attacking ship get corruption? Is the corruption split? Is only one person responsible for the corruption? (That could result in 1 player getting corruption for killing 40 players while only being 1 of the participants in the full fight.) What happens if a large ship pretty much one shots a small ship with a few players? In the example of destroying the large ship, ridiculous amounts of corruption could be earned while destroying the weak ship would yield little corruption no matter how you split the corruption from killing a little ship. This is the opposite of the intent for corruption as the weak target actually yields the least corruption (at least if we assume that corruption is gained per player killed).

Corruption on the seas just could not work the same way as on land because sea corruption would be earned from killing multiple players at once while the corruption is also earned by a group of attackers at a time. On the other hand, power in a naval gunfight is not determined so much by the level of the players involved but by the tiers of the ships involved. However, corruption is determined by the difference in the levels of the players. How do you even determine what the corruption should be if you have a spread of levels in each group of players.

Regardless of how you look at it, either the corruption system needs a full rework for the sea; or, it needs to be removed. I think Steven did what made sense.

NaughtyBrute

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

@NaughtyBrute
I wrote this in the other naval flagging thread, but it directly answers the OP.

You should consider some of the problems of having corruption on the sea. We have known that pirates will be a thing and large crews will also be a thing. What happens if a raid ship of 40 players is destroyed while choosing not to fight back? Does everyone on the attacking ship get corruption? Is the corruption split? Is only one person responsible for the corruption? (That could result in 1 player getting corruption for killing 40 players while only being 1 of the participants in the full fight.) What happens if a large ship pretty much one shots a small ship with a few players? In the example of destroying the large ship, ridiculous amounts of corruption could be earned while destroying the weak ship would yield little corruption no matter how you split the corruption from killing a little ship. This is the opposite of the intent for corruption as the weak target actually yields the least corruption (at least if we assume that corruption is gained per player killed).

Corruption on the seas just could not work the same way as on land because sea corruption would be earned from killing multiple players at once while the corruption is also earned by a group of attackers at a time. On the other hand, power in a naval gunfight is not determined so much by the level of the players involved but by the tiers of the ships involved. However, corruption is determined by the difference in the levels of the players. How do you even determine what the corruption should be if you have a spread of levels in each group of players.

Regardless of how you look at it, either the corruption system needs a full rework for the sea; or, it needs to be removed. I think Steven did what made sense.

The difficulty of implementation might be a valid reason for the change, but since the corruption system will be active in coastal waters (unless they change that too) and there will be ship battles there, I don't think this is the real reason for the change.

However, I don't want to make assumptions about the real reason for the change.. a change that I actually like!
And I know that in this thread a lot of people are focusing on if this change was good or not, but that was not my intention. There was already another thread for that.

All I am saying is that what was said on stream about the corruption in relation to the risk-vs-reward philosophy seems inconsistent to me. That's the inconsistency I am talking about, nothing else. I am not talking about systems in the game, I am not talking about the implementation of it, or anything like that. Just what was said on stream. To put it simply:
- Corruption - Bad in the open sea because we are going with a risk-vs-reward philosophy.
While, until now they were saying:
- Corruption - Good because it puts some risk on the attackers and enhances the risk-vs-reward philosophy.

Like, wtf?!

And to clarify.. The game studio from my perspective can make any change they want in their design philosophy. Their game, their rules. I'll play the game in any case, even more now since as a PvPer I want non-protected PvP areas.
I just don't like logical inconsistencies and this justification for the change seems illogical to me.. if they came out and said "It's difficult to implement so we are disabling it", or if it was a design philosophy reason "We decided to remove the risk from the top dogs in the sea and make this area a sandbox" I would be happy.

Why they chose to present it like that? I can make assumptions, but I don't want to go there. I just hope they give us more details on this.

Dygz

My Bartle Score is: Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
So... the most important thing for me is to be able to explore the entire map without being auto-flagged as Combatant. And, secondarily for there to be global Corruption.
If I'm going to be playing on the same server as PvPers.

It appears that you hear unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding and think, "Oh, I could just trade for those unique treasures."
I am an explorer, first and foremost and socializer secondarily, so... of course, it's most important to me to explore those areas, interact with the NPCs and attempt to FIND the treasures. I may or may not care about acquiring the treasures. Interacting with the unique NPCs is more important than acquiring loot.

My Killer Score is 0% which isn't completely accurate, but it's close enough.
Killing mobs holds my least interest and killing players is probably as close to 0% as possible without actually being 0%. Even when I PvP, it's objective-based PvP and I'm focused on the objectives; not killing stuff.

I am not willing to play on a server that has zones where I would have to be auto-flagged as a Combatant. Trading for items does not resolve that in any way.

I don't know that I care about the details of why the Open Seas is now designated as 24/7, auto-flag Combatant free-for-all PvP. It may make the most sense or be the easiest way to implement the zone. Notice that I have not asked for the devs to reconsider that decision.
That doesn't mean I will play on that server.
Had I known during Kickstarter that the stretch goal of Enhanced Naval Content (ADDED SHIPS AND EXPLORATION More Ship Classes + Expanded Underwater Environments!) would also mean adding a zone with 24/7, auto-flag Combatant free-for-all PvP, I would have pledged $50 instead of $500. I would have paid some money to support the base concept while trying to avoid reaching the Naval Content stretch goal.
There's at least one other person in the TheoryForge community who also had the instant response of "This isn't what I was intending to pay for with the Kickstarter. I don't pledge for PvP games."
And, if Steven had said, when I asked him 4 years ago about the Ashes PvP philosphy in comparison to EvE and ArcheAge that Ashes would have zones with different PvP rulesets - including no Corruption, auto-flag as Combatant - I would have the same response I have now. I'm not willing to play on that server. Just as I'm not willing to play EvE or ArcheAge.
There are people who love playing EvE. There are people who love playing ArcheAge.
That's awesome. I'm not one of them.

I never said that Steven's decision doesn't make sense.
It's just a decision that is a dealbreaker for me.

Warth

Dygz wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

I'm saying the game isn't for hardcore PvE players. It's for players who want the mix of PvP and PvE ergo PvX.

Territorial waters and for PvX, with a leaning towards PvE. International waters are PvX with a leaning towards PvP.

The game is still respecting its own risk vs reward philosophy. Just applying it differently to different areas. How is that breaking the original ideal?

Right. And it's being flagged as Non-Combatant by default with the risk of Corruption if someone that makes it PvX and that is the compromise that allows me to play the game.
If the entire map is not PvX - if there are zones on the map where, when I want to explore, I am auto-flagged for PvP and there is no Corruption... I'm just not going to play that game.

Again, I specifically asked Steven about the Ashes PvP philosophy compared to EvE Online and ArcheAge.
And I specifically asked about ArcheAge because the naval combat of ArcheAge is what caused me to not play that game. This new change does not conform with the answers Steven gave me in 2018.

Dygz: EvE is a murderbox for me.

Steven: Well, EvE is a murderbox if you choose to go to the appropriate sectors, right?

Dygz: I don't know. I stay away from EvE because it's too PvP-centric for me. So... are you hoping Ashes will be at the same PvP level as EvE? Or are you hoping for something different?

Steven: Well, no. It is different, right? My hopes with regard to our battle is that it is meaningful. So, that means it is a decision on behalf of the risk taker whether or not the reward is worthy of the risk...and then, additionally, as a player who might be on the receiving end of a PK, they are aware that this choice of an opponent directly impacts them probably more than it impacts the death of their character. And I think there is a recourse for that character who got killed to go out and pursue that murderer as well and exact ther revenge and also participate with others in their community who are Bounty Hunters that will have an oppportunity to locate in real-time the position of that player on the map and that will sort of, kind of limit the ability of those players to really go out and cause havoc.

We compared Ashes with EvE's designated sectors. Steven indicted Ashes would not be like that in a variety of ways.
Now he is saying Ashes will be like EvE.
So... it's not really possible for Steven to be still respecting the original risk v reward philosophy.

Dygz: What about in comparison to ArcheAge??

Steven: 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.

Again...I asked Steven how the Ashes PvP philosphy compares to ArcheAge. The answer was it doesn't relate well because ArcheAge as zones with different PvP mechanics, whereas Ashes only has the one flagging system everywhere.

Now, Steven has said that Ashes will have mechanics like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
It now has the mechanics and features that made me not want to play those games.
"Just applying it to different areas" is a significant change from the original PvP philosphy. It's now too close to EvE Online and ArcheAge for my playstyle.

For me its a very good change, but I think your discontent is very fair and i do understand where you are coming from. If the change went into the opposite direction, i'd probably not feel much different than you.

I do however believe for development to be fluid and changes to be expected. The change isn't mmassive enough for me to believe, that the core design really changed.

The risk within this Area is still there any maybe more prevalent than ever.

Considering how much i agree with his other design choices, i'm rather excited to see where he takes it

Plandemonium

In archage there was a division into 2 factions, so you could see from a distance that a red player was running at you so you could react accordingly. Ashesh has no factions so anyone can be a potential threat. This game is going to be very stressful. I love it!

Asgerr

@Dygz

Question: what do you do in MMOs once you've explored the entire map? Cause though large, you can likely explore an entire continent in a week, and the other one in about as much.

Maybe you can spend a month per each to see the different seasons.

But yes, do you just drop the games then? What's the endgame? Just using it as a VR chat? Unsubscribe and wait to resub once a new expansion to the map is added?

Because if exploration is all you were in the game for, you'd have basically explored for maybe a month and ran out of content that's for you, since raiding doesn't seem to be your scene either and artisanship is nowhere to be seen in any of your posts.

At this point, rather than tell everyone your Bartle score and what Steven may have said to you over and over, maybe just log off the forums. It's clearly not for you anymore.

Unless you are actually still here to demand they change it back. But you've said that's not the case. Your feedback though it may be useful for certain aspects is now entirely unnecessary. You wouldn't ask someone who isn't your customer to review their experience with your business would you?

Dygz

I typically have a bunch of alts. And the first thing I do at each level is explore the map as far as possible.
But, in addition to leveling characters and pursuing the questlines of various races, I also socialize with other players.
In Ashes, my expectation was to re-explore all areas of the map to see what's changed - because Ashes is a dynamic world, rather than a static world.

MMORPGs should not have an endgame. Endgame is when you've finished all of the quests and stories and you're waiting for new content.
But, yes, once I've had my fill of experiencing the story from a variety of points of view, I stop playing until the next expansion - although, by 2012/2013 I became disillusioned with the endgame treadmill of contemporary MMORPGs and thought perhaps I'd be done with MMORPGs.

Shortly thereafter, I stumbled upon EQNext. StoryBricks promised to put an end to endgame. That version of EQ would have players building and defending their cities - very similar to the Ashes concepts, but more ambitious and robust.
Similar to EQNext, the appeal of Ashes is that the rise and fall of Nodes also dynamically changes the content in the world.
So Ashes should not have an endgame.

It's interesting how people paraphrase what I write.
I did not state, "The only reason I play MMORPGs is to explore." I certainly did not state, "The only thing I do in MMORPGs is uncover the entire map."
I rarely raid. I tend to be in much smaller groups.

Why would I be talking about Artisan stuff when we know next to nothing about Artisan stuff?? Yes. In every MMORPG I play, I tend to have a handful of alts with a variety of professions.
That is also a form of exploration.

LMAO
Who said the forums are not for me anymore??
There are still features I will be testing. It actually is possible to be a fan of a game that you won't play. Especially if there are several features in the game being developed that you are interested in.
Where people ask questions about this situation I will provide answers, especially for people who continue to say, "But, I don't understand why that matters to you."

I haven't demanded anything, but, also...
"Everything is subject to change."
My feedback has always been unnecessary.
And, yeah, I might ask people who are not my customers for feedback.
Especially feedback on component parts they do like.
But...since I've spent more than $500 on this product - I don't know how I am not a customer.

There is an ignore button, by the way.

Dygz

Liniker wrote: »

tbh, from what you have said, you wouldn't enjoy playing ashes even without the sea change..

corruption being a deterrent does not mean people won't PK you, they Definitely will, it's just that it won't be All the time specially in your territory

Um. Yeah. It won't be all the time.
I didn't say getting PKed is a dealbreaker. Frequency of being PKed could be a dealbreaker. That's what Alpha 2 is for.

Liniker wrote: »

and you seem to be under the wrong impression that killing a green = dying and getting 4x penalties

It's not a mistaken impression.
The time it takes for my PKer to recover from Corruption will be considerably longer than it takes me to recover from being PKed. I'm OK with that if it acts sufficiently to minimize being the frequency of PKs. To the degree Steven and Lineage II players have said it should.
But, yeah, there is a good chance that Corruption would not have been a sufficient deterrent. Again... that's what Alpha 2 is for.

Liniker wrote: »

the map is Huge and there are plenty of mounts, people will run away Really easy in AoC you can bet on that, and after someone killed you, you will Never know if he died or not - imagine dying to people without going purple, getting 100% death penalty just to find out the other guy cleared his corruption and is now standing next to you in the node saying "thx for the farm" lol

Map size is irrelevant. Everyone will die at some point. It takes time to clear Corruption.
"The primary way to remove Corruption is through death. Multiple deaths may be necessary to remove all Corruption. Dying removes a significant portion of Corruption. Gaining experience will also slowly reduce a player's corruption score."
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption#Removing_corruption
It's not a farm if kills are not repeated.
If the map is Huge, how would the PKer find me again?
And, you know, stick and stones...

Liniker wrote: »

I like that so I'm really happy Steven is going more to the risk side of things, but players like you wouldn't last that long I imagine, it goes down to personal preference

Yep. That's cool. I didn't say people should not be really happy that Steven is going with more risk. It does go down to personal preference.
True.

Child Item