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

mcstackerson

Lethality wrote: »

If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.

Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.

Lethality wrote: »

What I'd really like to hear from Steven and the team is how was this decision arrived at? Without actual gameplay testing, which to me, would be the only thing that could inform such a drastic change. As far as we know, the "idea" of the Corruption system is the same as it always was, and as bad or as good as it has ever been... until it gets in the hands of players. So I'd expect play testing before a change like this.

Well you will also be able to test this change.

They probably arrived at this decision because the complications of the corruption system in a ship vs ship scenario and the fact they already intended the ocean to be a place for high level content.

Without this change, 2 ships fighting would be a race to see who could destroy the other ship without the players interacting with eachother. It would be awkward. It might be a strategy to send people over to interrupt repairs and shooting. If someone jumped over to your ship and flagged to interrupt you, you would then have to choose how many people you would flag to kill them. The cannon users on the other ship could then choose to flag to damage the people who flagged to kill the interrupter. You would then have to choose to send people over to flag on them or maybe switch out your cannon users with your flagged users. If your healers tried to help, they would become flagged. If killing a ship of a none-combatant would give you corruption then killing any ship would always give corruption since the driver doesn't have to fight back to function.

Combine this with the fact they intended the ocean to have contested content and it makes sense that you might change it so people are just flagged when they are on the ocean.

Dygz

mcstackerson wrote: »

I don't believe Steven knew of this specific change back then but also, all zones are pvp zones which is one of the points Steven was making. All this does is remove the potential penalty for killing from someone which is still different from archeage where zones enable or disable pvp.

Steven was making the point that, in Ashes, all zones have the same PvP mechanic:
Default Non-Combatant with Corruption.

mcstackerson wrote: »

The system had already been explained to Dygz, i don't think there is anything Steven could do to further explain how the system would play to him without creating further situations like this where things are miss-interpreted.

Nothing was misinterpreted.

mcstackerson wrote: »

It's a change but i don't think it's as drastic as you are making it out to be. All zones have always been pvp zones since you could be attacked in every zone. This is different from archeage that disables pvp in zones during peace time. All this change does is remove the potential penalty for killing, not attacking, someone in the ocean.

It is a change that is more trivial to you than it is to me.
All zones will always be PvP zones. True.
However, I will not play on a server that has zones with no Corruption and auto-flags me as a Combatant.
The specific types of PvP mechanics that ArcheAge had are irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Steven stated that Ashes has one global flagging system with no zones that have a different flagging system.
We now have a zone with a different PvP mechanic.
And, for me, that PvP mechanic of auto-flagged as Combatant with no Corruption means the Ashes Open Seas will be as much of a cluster-fuck as the ArcheAge naval content... if not worse.

Lethality

mcstackerson wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.

Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.

They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!

So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?

Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.

Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?

Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?

Dygz

Well, I mean... Steven told us Friday...
"Not everybody is as excited about PvP. But, as I've always said...Ashes of Creation is not meant to be the game for everyone."

hleV

mcstackerson wrote: »

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

Brilliant take! The corruption system strictly protects the land, but due to how harsh it is, the PvPers get an open sea where they can go ham.

Asgerr

We get it Dygz, Steven lied to you, broke your heart and stole your money. You can always ask him for a refund, I'm sure he's lenient about it at this stage of the game's development.

Dygz

LMAO
Give me a kiss and I will feel better.

mcstackerson

Dygz wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I don't believe Steven knew of this specific change back then but also, all zones are pvp zones which is one of the points Steven was making. All this does is remove the potential penalty for killing from someone which is still different from archeage where zones enable or disable pvp.

Steven was making the point that, in Ashes, all zones have the same PvP mechanic:
Default Non-Combatant with Corruption.

mcstackerson wrote: »

The system had already been explained to Dygz, i don't think there is anything Steven could do to further explain how the system would play to him without creating further situations like this where things are miss-interpreted.

Nothing was misinterpreted.

mcstackerson wrote: »

It's a change but i don't think it's as drastic as you are making it out to be. All zones have always been pvp zones since you could be attacked in every zone. This is different from archeage that disables pvp in zones during peace time. All this change does is remove the potential penalty for killing, not attacking, someone in the ocean.

It is a change that is more trivial to you than it is to me.
All zones will always be PvP zones. True.
However, I will not play on a server that has zones with no Corruption and auto-flags me as a Combatant.
The specific types of PvP mechanics that ArcheAge had are irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Steven stated that Ashes has one global flagging system with no zones that have a different flagging system.
We now have a zone with a different PvP mechanic.
And, for me, that PvP mechanic of auto-flagged as Combatant with no Corruption means the Ashes Open Seas will be as much of a cluster-fuck as the ArcheAge naval content... if not worse.

Archeage mechanics are only relevant because you used it for your comparison and it's that comparison you are using for your argument. You have picked out a statement and to understand the context of the statement, you need to understand what it was referring to.

I kind of hope it's a cluster-fuck and think that is the desire.

You can easily avoid it when you don't want to pvp since there will be plenty of content on land. The way i see it is if you play the way you claim and just explore, there is no reason someone would want to attack you. The only people who would attack you are those who just want to pvp and are looking for a fight. With this change, the majority of those people are probably going to be going to the ocean for that so your chances of being attacked has dropped. I guess i don't know how much you love the ocean so i could be miss reading this but i think this change is better for you then you realize.

Lethality wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.

Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.

They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!

So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?

Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.

Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?

Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?

This hasn't changed anything, people will still be fighting all over the world, there will just be some zones where there is more fighting.

I left a bigger response on my response to your edit but the short of it is probably the complications of corruption in a ship v ship scenario and the fact the ocean was already intended for high level content they wanted people to fight over.

To answer your last question, this change is obviously for people who want to pvp.

Fantmx

I am not a pvper. I have always planned to run a freehold and at times engage in pve. But I accepted, during Kickstarter, that I will be in a world of pvp. I am 100% okay with that. I'm also a lifetime sub. So this is not about do I or do I not pay to play. This is about the long term health of a game that I am already invested in and very passionate about. That is generally the lens that I look at things through.

My concern is a perceived growing imbalance between pvp and pve, both of which are needed for Ashes to be what it wants to be. If we get to a state where PvE players and crafters can't enjoy the game because a significant portion of the game time is spent fighting off players that they don't want to be fighting in the first place, we will lose them.

It is in my opinion that it is already difficult to get the average pve player and crafter committed because of the possibility of daily forced pvp. I am well aware of the views Ashes is getting on YouTube and that is a great thing. But I have been running in pve MMORPG circles since EQ and I can say there is a growing concern among them.

That said, it was made more tolerable because of the proposed corruption mechanic. Now removing that from a significant portion of the game has some ramifications.

Steven once said:

If you don't have a strong, solid PvE focus as a game, then there's not much meaning to whatever PvP is going to provide.

I fully agree with that statement.

The mechanism for world change, according to the original Kickstarter video, is not open world or naval free for all pvp. It is castle sieges, guild wars, node sieges, battlegrounds, and caravans. Another statement I fully agree with.

The last thing I will say is I think we can all agree that we all very much want to see Ashes succeed in all of it's vision.

Mag7spy

I've said this before ill say it again, quoting thing from 4-5 years ago when they have more and different designers working on the team. Though it will stay as its original goal for the overall game. Things will change in some design elements based on what they are working on and planning for players.

This can include all kinds of elements with design, combat, etc. It is a game in development and things are not set in stone either way and will be overly tested as well as gathering feedback from player opinion and developer goals.

hleV

Dygz wrote: »

Steven was making the point that, in Ashes, all zones have the same PvP mechanic:
Default Non-Combatant with Corruption.

You choose to interpret it that way.

Steven described how unlike Archeage's peace and PvP zones, AoC's whole open world is PvP-viable, not just some zones. And there's flagging system, but nowhere does he mention that the flag won't be enforced under any circumstances. In the open sea case, the flag is enforced just like it's enforced when you attack a Non-Corrupted player.

Dygz

mcstackerson wrote: »

Archeage mechanics are only relevant because you used it for your comparison and it's that comparison you are using for your argument. You have picked out a statement and to understand the context of the statement, you need to understand what it was referring to.

The only part I need to understand is that when answering my question about ArcheAge, Steven stated that Ashes only has one global PvP flagging rules, rather than zones with different PvP flagging rules.
And that change to the Open Seas flagging rules will be a cluster-fuck similar to the ArcheAge naval content...ArcheAge naval content is the precise reason that I chose not to play ArcheAge

mcstackerson wrote: »

I kind of hope it's a cluster-fuck and think that is the desire.

Precisely my point.
It's just not my desire.

mcstackerson wrote: »

You can easily avoid it when you don't want to pvp since there will be plenty of content on land. The way i see it is if you play the way you claim and just explore, there is no reason someone would want to attack you. The only people who would attack you are those who just want to pvp and are looking for a fight. With this change, the majority of those people are probably going to be going to the ocean for that so your chances of being attacked has dropped. I guess i don't know how much you love the ocean so i could be miss reading this but i think this change is better for you then you realize.

I can easily avoid it by not playing the game.
Just as I did with ArcheAge.
I'm not going to play on a server that has a zone that auto-flags me as a Combatant and has no Corruption.

CROW3

Mag7spy wrote: »

I've said this before ill say it again, quoting thing from 4-5 years ago when they have more and different designers working on the team. Though it will stay as its original goal for the overall game. Things will change in some design elements based on what they are working on and planning for players.

This can include all kinds of elements with design, combat, etc. It is a game in development and things are not set in stone either way and will be overly tested as well as gathering feedback from player opinion and developer goals.

Yes, and it's important to note there are orders of magnitude when those changes occur. The corruption system - including it's presence - isn't a design 'element' it's a design 'pillar;' it is the backbone of PvX.

Hence the spike in conversation & amplitude of the responses.

Lethality

mcstackerson wrote: »

This hasn't changed anything, people will still be fighting all over the world, there will just be some zones where there is more fighting.

I don't mean to do a quote war, but, if nothing has changed, then why change anything?

And, how can we draw a conclusion there will be more fighting? Those non-combatants aren't any more likely to fight back that they were before, in fact there will likely be less frighting. Just more Ganking which has nothing to do with game objectives.

mcstackerson wrote: »

To answer your last question, this change is obviously for people who want to pvp.

Similarly, how does this deliver more "pvp" to those who want to PvP? They could attack everyone just like they could before - only now without a rules check.

They're not getting any PvP because there's nothing here that says those players will now all of a sudden fight back... that's not PvP that's ganking.

I'd agree that IS probably what they want, what doesn't make sense is why Steve would trash the Corruption system to allow it. The system that has been touted as the holy grail to make PvPvE finally possible and balanced in am MMO.

mcstackerson

Lethality wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

This hasn't changed anything, people will still be fighting all over the world, there will just be some zones where there is more fighting.

I don't mean to do a quote war, but, if nothing has changed, then why change anything?

And, how can we draw a conclusion there will be more fighting? Those non-combatants aren't any more likely to fight back that they were before, in fact there will likely be less frighting. Just more Ganking which has nothing to do with game objectives.

This will most likely lead to more fighting because people who want to fight will gravitate towards the ocean and will be encountering each other more often then if they were spread out across the world.

Azherae

"Your Bad Omen Feeling Intensifies."

We now seem to be 'well it's your mistake for not thinking the game might not be for you in the first place, and clearly the goal is to have some free for all areas, you could just not play in those'.

I see the implication here as 'but you should play anyway, it's not a big deal'.

But some PvE players, and at least the PvP players I know personally, have seen this in other games and it usually amounts to just the 'wolf and sheep' thing. Because in the end, some people prefer their danger and challenge to primarily come from PvE content.

And if you say 'the world is supposed to feel dangerous' but then go 'so we have increased the PvP content', those people have no recourse. AI plays fair, people don't, and I'm not talking about power gaps. If an AI starts to do something contrary to 'general reason' that is somehow annoying (not even necessarily effective), a PvE player complains, or flags it as a bug.

If a human starts to do something 'contrary to general reason' that is somehow annoying (again, not necessarily effective), the PvE player can't be sure it will or won't continue. Some people say 'just adapt', but the stronger option is just better because most PvP opponents are not fun.

The stronger option being the one chosen. "Just don't play". That's the core here. If you can't grasp why Dygz doesn't play on servers with autoflag PvP zones, one big potential reason is because games like that get more of a certain annoying type of player in their population.

My fighting game experience applies in this case only because it's the psychology of players that applies, not the mechanics. In those games if I get into a match where my opponent's entire goal is to annoy and negate any option I have, even if I win I lose so I stop fighting. I can 'leave altogether'. Some of those people will invite me back, sometimes I'll go back because I think their intention is 'Ok ok I'll stop'.

8 out of 10 times it isn't. They're so dedicated to just being annoying that they do this anyway.

So from my end, PvP heavy games aren't unappealing because of the threat of people killing me. They're unappealing because people are annoying, often instead of actually fighting. Ashes explicitly has no defenses against people being annoying in their owPvP as it is. To me, this would be a big deal. This may not apply to any of you talking now, but I know you know they exist.

The most appealing thing about a strongly designed PvX game for me was the idea that the 'person who plays just to annoy' would not even want to play. I feel like that's been eroded now, but I'm not sure, so I'll await the 'reassurances'. Corruption wasn't even going to resolve this in 1v1, and if I start fighting and start winning but then keep being pinged or 'harassed' by an opponent who now flees, every time I flag Combatant I have removed any chance they have corruption. I've looked into ArcheAge, and am doing so more and more from this. It's not the same as playing it, but it's certainly not showing up any good points so far.

I'm already thinking about how the 'attacking a ship in coastal waters from Open Sea' and 'moving in and out of open sea or neutral waters quickly' mechanics will work in Ashes (I expect they will be fine, but expectation isn't a strong factor around here at the moment)

tl;dr People suck and this change makes more of the worst people more willing to play this game.

Rando88

Dygz wrote: »

Or I could just not play on the server that doesn't fit my playstyle.
I was already going out of my comfort zone with global Corruption.

Oh I didn't realize the servers would be different. That works too

Dygz

Servers won't be different... which is why I won't be playing.

Dolyem

Lethality wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Lethality wrote: »

If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.

Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.

They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!

So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?

Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.

Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?

Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?

Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?

Mag7spy

CROW3 wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I've said this before ill say it again, quoting thing from 4-5 years ago when they have more and different designers working on the team. Though it will stay as its original goal for the overall game. Things will change in some design elements based on what they are working on and planning for players.

This can include all kinds of elements with design, combat, etc. It is a game in development and things are not set in stone either way and will be overly tested as well as gathering feedback from player opinion and developer goals.

Yes, and it's important to note there are orders of magnitude when those changes occur. The corruption system - including it's presence - isn't a design 'element' it's a design 'pillar;' it is the backbone of PvX.

Hence the spike in conversation & amplitude of the responses.

That element hasn't changed its still in the game as intended for those areas in the normal gameplay loop. I don't see it personally as being a backbone of PvX, i see it as a tool to control the amount of pvp that is going on for very set reasons. Something that is needed to prevent certain bad elements of players forced in a small area that can prevent node and player progress if done too much a be a bit of a larger wall to overcome.

The Ocean is a different kind of content with its own gameplay loop and challenges. Is as much nearly impact the node development, nor are people respawning as close together having a whole ocean and coast to take their boat along before they go into the flagged area. It simply is a more dangerous area that players can go and be challenged by more kinds of pvp content. This is a PvX game just as you have the pve content there is pvp content that has its own flavors and styles as well then being simply the same type of content.

It is like saying you don't like the arena in a game so you won't play it because of that. Or you don't like the fact a guild can dec you and nothing can protect you from them attacking you, or a node. There is different levels and flavors and the sea content is something you can avoid in game unless you feel like consenting so that kind of PvP and area it is your choice.

Child Item