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

Dolyem

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me.

I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay

Azherae

Dolyem wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?

I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call.

There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid.

There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?

I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'?

Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three.

I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding?

I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness?

In regards to corruption and ship pvp, I think he means if there is someone on a ship killed by a player or a few on another ship with many players, it could entail possibly corrupting the entirety of the ships crew when they didn't want it to happen.

I don't see how. I admit I have not finished my research into the minutiae of ArcheAge's mechanics.

Is the person on the target ship killed by a cannon fired by someone? Cannon firer gets corruption, ship turns purple, if they want to be green they boot the cannon firer.

Is the person on the target ship killed by a magic attack? Magic attacker gets corruption. Same thing.

Is it 'worrying about being corrupted for attacking the ship because you happen to kill the green player'? Also easily solved in my mind. Green ship has all Green crew, captain can flag ship purple or not. Green ship can't fire back. Etc.

Is this above the thing we are considering 'awkward'? I just don't see it as very different from Group Land Combat corruption rules.

Enigmatic Sage

it's international waters, use at own risk. No reason for a corruption system out there.

Dolyem

Azherae wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?

I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call.

There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid.

There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?

I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'?

Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three.

I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding?

I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness?

In regards to corruption and ship pvp, I think he means if there is someone on a ship killed by a player or a few on another ship with many players, it could entail possibly corrupting the entirety of the ships crew when they didn't want it to happen.

I don't see how. I admit I have not finished my research into the minutiae of ArcheAge's mechanics.

Is the person on the target ship killed by a cannon fired by someone? Cannon firer gets corruption, ship turns purple, if they want to be green they boot the cannon firer.

Is the person on the target ship killed by a magic attack? Magic attacker gets corruption. Same thing.

Is it 'worrying about being corrupted for attacking the ship because you happen to kill the green player'? Also easily solved in my mind. Green ship has all Green crew, captain can flag ship purple or not. Green ship can't fire back. Etc.

Is this above the thing we are considering 'awkward'? I just don't see it as very different from Group Land Combat corruption rules.

Honestly I don't know, that was just my guess. But as I said to @XiraelAcaron , I feel like the real reason is they made a judgement call on the ganeplay

Azherae

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

I know this change does not change how corruption works on land, but the univerality of the the corruption system is considered part of it by many PvE players.

Edit: I meant PvE players, of course.

You can add me to 'Definitely PvP' for whom the corruption system is very important.

I don't care about blatantly unfair fights because the Corruption system handles them.

If I am in ur Node, stealin' ur mats, and your 'patrol' kills me and one person gets Corrupted as a result, the outcome is good.

If I am in ur Node for exploration or travel, and your 'patrol' kills me, Corruption still works.

If I am going somewhere and a random pile of griefers kills me, Corruption still works.

The more people I have with me, the higher chance of more Corruption. If I am being attacked on my way somewhere and the attackers just 'attack on sight', I would like to be able to tell them 'no we're just passing through' and they weigh whether or not the Corruption is worth 'making sure I'm not tricking them'.

In any situation where no Corruption exists, there is no longer a reason to not just kill if they can. This now applies to the open ocean. (defenders, please do not bother responding to this by going back to the same 'well the Ocean is supposed to be dangerous, I get it, if you consider that a 'win' for your perspective, I yield).

XiraelAcaron

Dolyem wrote: »

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me.

I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay

Then they should tell us that. And I already have a first idea of the top of my head of how you can make corruption work with ships. We can discuss it if you like, but it would turn this discussion in a totally different direction.

Mag7spy

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid.

For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me.

mcstackerson wrote: »

There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?

Very many. And very many never considered Ashes because of these mechanics (I am not saying they should be removed). And now they are doubling down deesign-wise without a good reasoning apart from the almighty 'risk-vs-reward' where many cannot see what this has to do with corruption. So for many that stuck around and swallowed all these lemons, this will be the last drop. That is what I fear.
You have to remember that the corruption system is kind of the holy grail of the PvE player. Touch it at your own peril.

Their reason is a mix of game play concepts their designed are planning and working on revolving around PvP and PvE that might be akin to EvE as that is inspiration for the game. And the other is this is their game they are developing creating it in the way they want the gameplay they are designing to be made. People really be out here like this is a released game and now what they were doing before is suddenly changed. When they have no clue how the game is actually going to play for them when all systems are in place and working.

Azherae

Dolyem wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?

I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call.

There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid.

There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?

I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'?

Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three.

I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding?

I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness?

In regards to corruption and ship pvp, I think he means if there is someone on a ship killed by a player or a few on another ship with many players, it could entail possibly corrupting the entirety of the ships crew when they didn't want it to happen.

I don't see how. I admit I have not finished my research into the minutiae of ArcheAge's mechanics.

Is the person on the target ship killed by a cannon fired by someone? Cannon firer gets corruption, ship turns purple, if they want to be green they boot the cannon firer.

Is the person on the target ship killed by a magic attack? Magic attacker gets corruption. Same thing.

Is it 'worrying about being corrupted for attacking the ship because you happen to kill the green player'? Also easily solved in my mind. Green ship has all Green crew, captain can flag ship purple or not. Green ship can't fire back. Etc.

Is this above the thing we are considering 'awkward'? I just don't see it as very different from Group Land Combat corruption rules.

Honestly I don't know, that was just my guess. But as I said to @XiraelAcaron , I feel like the real reason is they made a judgement call on the ganeplay

I understand, you were somewhat speaking for @mcstackerson in that, and in good faith relative to Ashes' development, and I agree that the voice of reason in that regard must be heard. I only ask that you accept that 'I just felt like it because I like ArcheAge' could be a reason too, from Steven's side, with no technical backing.

I would much appreciate being enlightened as to a scenario where Corruption would be awkward at sea. Also, I wonder if ship battles will be allowed in Coastal waters?

Will they just not develop any systems for that either? It seems to me that they would have to come up with a working Corruption system for that scenario anyway?

Smork1

Dygz wrote: »

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

Oh wow, you won't be playing really? thanks for the new input man

Dolyem

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me.

I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay

Then they should tell us that. And I already have a first idea of the top of my head of how you can make corruption work with ships. We can discuss it if you like, but it would turn this discussion in a totally different direction.

Go for it, it's more info for devs

Enigmatic Sage

@Azherae why would you want corruption to play a role in international waters which have no laws or jurisdiction?

Coastal waters before the open sea... maybe because that's part of the node as the seaside node would have to be part of other wise people could just camp them?

Dolyem

Azherae wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?

I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call.

There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid.

There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?

I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'?

Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three.

I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding?

I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness?

In regards to corruption and ship pvp, I think he means if there is someone on a ship killed by a player or a few on another ship with many players, it could entail possibly corrupting the entirety of the ships crew when they didn't want it to happen.

I don't see how. I admit I have not finished my research into the minutiae of ArcheAge's mechanics.

Is the person on the target ship killed by a cannon fired by someone? Cannon firer gets corruption, ship turns purple, if they want to be green they boot the cannon firer.

Is the person on the target ship killed by a magic attack? Magic attacker gets corruption. Same thing.

Is it 'worrying about being corrupted for attacking the ship because you happen to kill the green player'? Also easily solved in my mind. Green ship has all Green crew, captain can flag ship purple or not. Green ship can't fire back. Etc.

Is this above the thing we are considering 'awkward'? I just don't see it as very different from Group Land Combat corruption rules.

Honestly I don't know, that was just my guess. But as I said to @XiraelAcaron , I feel like the real reason is they made a judgement call on the ganeplay

I understand, you were somewhat speaking for @mcstackerson in that, and in good faith relative to Ashes' development, and I agree that the voice of reason in that regard must be heard. I only ask that you accept that 'I just felt like it because I like ArcheAge' could be a reason too, from Steven's side, with no technical backing.

I would much appreciate being enlightened as to a scenario where Corruption would be awkward at sea. Also, I wonder if ship battles will be allowed in Coastal waters?

Will they just not develop any systems for that either? It seems to me that they would have to come up with a working Corruption system for that scenario anyway?

I agree with everything you just said hahaha. Could totally see Steven adding it just because he likes it. And also you are correct in regards to ZOI water, although if it had to do with technicalnissues, it could be as easy as having guards/patrols protecting those areas. Unsure though, but that definitely makes me lean more towards the whole "it's added because it was the desired gameplay" and less for technical issues

Edit: if that's the case at least we can expect corruption to work properly

Azherae

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

@Azherae why would you want corruption to play a role in international waters which have no laws or jurisdiction?

Coastal waters before the open sea... maybe because that's part of the node as the seaside node would have to be part of other wise people could just camp them?

To be clear, I'm not interested in this part at all.

This whole post is about the reasoning for the change, and whether or not it would affect the gameplay or population in a way that would lead to specific shifts.

If Steven's reason is just 'I don't feel like it, some parts of my game can just be pure PvP all the time because I like it that way', that's absolutely fine.

I feel it would diminish my experience by changing the game's population demographics, and if I am right, I'll stop playing. Other people might 'make a harder assumption than me based on their experiences' and never start. This might be exactly what Intrepid wants. It's all good.

Goalid

I don't think making the seas auto-flagged means that the corruption system is designed to be too harsh. But I don't understand the point of a zone where you're getting rewards without risk. I want there to be a ton of PvP in Ashes, but I really love the idea of incurring some actual risk and having to make a decision to PvP.

mcstackerson

Azherae wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?

I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call.

There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid.

There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?

I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'?

Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three.

I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding?

I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness?

I wasn't meaning to separate you out like that but i can see how you got that idea.

My first paragraph boils down to a better experience for people who like this content possibly and indirect positive affect on players who don't like pvp because of where pvpers will now be.

The second paragraph which i guess is where you got your first statement was asking how many of the players in "you and dygz" group are already turned off by other pvp features of the game. You are in a group of people who don't like the open pvp on the sea but are fine with being attacked while farming, having your caravans raided, being war dec'ed, and having your node raised by a siege.

Archeage's ocean is also a prominent war zone so people can always attack each other. We don't know how prominent boarding will be. I kind of hope it's not that easy so ship v ship is different then zerg v zerg.

To me, the main source of awkwardness I was thinking is from none combat activities on the ship like repairing and driving. Are players engaging in those activities safe unless people want to get corrupted? I already see some awkwardness in large scale fights where people need to attack each other to become combatant. Normally you want to engage hard on a group but with corruption, you are going to want to be careful you don't kill someone before they have had a chance to fight back.

XiraelAcaron

Dolyem wrote: »

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me.

I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay

Then they should tell us that. And I already have a first idea of the top of my head of how you can make corruption work with ships. We can discuss it if you like, but it would turn this discussion in a totally different direction.

Go for it, it's more info for devs

OK, its simple. But please remember its a first shot. I did not think about every last aspect. The main ocean content is done by ships, yes? Then why not have ship owners have a ship corruption status that applies to every ship that is summoned by them and is independent from the players corruption state (or from the other occupants). So you summon a ship and the ship gets corruption (or however you want to call it. Lorewise it is of course total crap) and reduces corruption if it does normal naval gameplay or is sunk. Basically the same as on land, only for ships. You still have auto-flagging zones around caravans/merchant ships/world bosses etc. As a drawback fot going back, red ships cannot go to harbors to be repaired or improved until purple.
Of course, if the reason was to increase the risk on the ocean that will not help. You have to think about something other there.

Okeydoke

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me.

I think what essentially happened is Steven decided, ok we're making this naval combat system (pretty rare in games). We're making a good one (even rarer). I want an area where this system can really stretch it's legs, where it can really rev it's engines. Where it can be itself in all of it's glory. "This type of change creates a very compelling type of gameplay." - Steven.

And the area they chose fits perfectly with the game's core philosophies and systems, the open sea.

All of the talk of awkwardness in corruption system naval combat, if you use your imagination, as you begin to game out scenarios in your mind, you should be able to see it too. But it's just speculation on our part if that's one of the reasons why he made the change. As we all know, corruption system naval combat will still exist. So by that fact alone, it has to be functional, it has to work as good as possible, even if kind of awkward.

Azherae

mcstackerson wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?

I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call.

There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid.

There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?

I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'?

Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three.

I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding?

I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness?

I wasn't meaning to separate you out like that but i can see how you got that idea.

My first paragraph boils down to a better experience for people who like this content possibly and indirect positive affect on players who don't like pvp because of where pvpers will now be.

The second paragraph which i guess is where you got your first statement was asking how many of the players in "you and dygz" group are already turned off by other pvp features of the game. You are in a group of people who don't like the open pvp on the sea but are fine with being attacked while farming, having your caravans raided, being war dec'ed, and having your node raised by a siege.

Archeage's ocean is also a prominent war zone so people can always attack each other. We don't know how prominent boarding will be. I kind of hope it's not that easy so ship v ship is different then zerg v zerg.

To me, the main source of awkwardness I was thinking is from none combat activities on the ship like repairing and driving. Are players engaging in those activities safe unless people want to get corrupted? I already see some awkwardness in large scale fights where people need to attack each other to become combatant. Normally you want to engage hard on a group but with corruption, you are going to want to be careful you don't kill someone before they have had a chance to fight back.

I believe I was singling myself out in an abstract way, which I shouldn't have done due to our communication issues.

So in your case I'll just ask the other question.

"If Corruption is complex in Open Seas, is it also too complex in coastal ship battles?"

Enigmatic Sage

Azherae wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

@Azherae why would you want corruption to play a role in international waters which have no laws or jurisdiction?

Coastal waters before the open sea... maybe because that's part of the node as the seaside node would have to be part of other wise people could just camp them?

To be clear, I'm not interested in this part at all.

This whole post is about the reasoning for the change, and whether or not it would affect the gameplay or population in a way that would lead to specific shifts.

If Steven's reason is just 'I don't feel like it, some parts of my game can just be pure PvP all the time because I like it that way', that's absolutely fine.

I feel it would diminish my experience by changing the game's population demographics, and if I am right, I'll stop playing. Other people might 'make a harder assumption than me based on their experiences' and never start. This might be exactly what Intrepid wants. It's all good.

oh, I see what you mean. I'm fine with the "open seas" being open PvP, no need for a corruption/flagging system out there in my opinion. Seems pointless plus this allows people to fill that pirate itch

Not going to deter me from wanting to play it. I understand what kind of game it is

And, if there is eventually special land zones that are open conflict/pvp, im cool that too. Hopefully there is some cool lore or reason for why it exists and more importantly, what reason would one want the risk vs reward for traversing such zones

Dolyem

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me.

I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay

Then they should tell us that. And I already have a first idea of the top of my head of how you can make corruption work with ships. We can discuss it if you like, but it would turn this discussion in a totally different direction.

Go for it, it's more info for devs

OK, its simple. But please remember its a first shot. I did not think about every last aspect. The main ocean content is done by ships, yes? Then why not have ship owners have a ship corruption status that applies to every ship that is summoned by them and is independent from the players corruption state (or from the other occupants). So you summon a ship and the ship gets corruption (or however you want to call it. Lorewise it is of course total crap) and reduces corruption if it does normal naval gameplay or is sunk. Basically the same as on land, only for ships. You still have auto-flagging zones around caravans/merchant ships/world bosses etc. As a drawback fot going back, red ships cannot go to harbors to be repaired or improved until purple.
Of course, if the reason was to increase the risk on the ocean that will not help. You have to think about something other there.

Interesting take, how would that negatively affect the players on the ship then? And if it got too corrupted, wouldn't it be as simple as making another?

Child Item