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

darthaden

It'll have little to no impact. Given the size of the open ocean it doesn't seem practical to just sit out there and wait for people to kill.

Dolyem

darthaden wrote: »

It'll have little to no impact. Given the size of the open ocean it doesn't seem practical to just sit out there and wait for people to kill.

Untrue if there are underwater dungeons, gathering zones, and points of interest in the open ocean.

Warth

darthaden wrote: »

It'll have little to no impact. Given the size of the open ocean it doesn't seem practical to just sit out there and wait for people to kill.

Also untrue considering that you know the points of interest where 90% of the sea travels will start from (Harbors, Nodes along the cost line)

George_Black

Dygz wrote: »

LMFAO
It's a dealbreaker.
Like EvE and ArcheAge, that's too PvP-centric for me.
I won't be playing.
Unless we can use the Divine Gateways to port to starting areas on other continents.

I dont believe that you wont play. I am sure I will see you posting even after the game is launched.

Asgerr

Dolyem wrote: »

darthaden wrote: »

It'll have little to no impact. Given the size of the open ocean it doesn't seem practical to just sit out there and wait for people to kill.

Untrue if there are underwater dungeons, gathering zones, and points of interest in the open ocean.

Considering that they are linked to Nodes, it's more likely that they'll be in territorial waters rather than the open PvP seas.

Warth

@George_Black i cant imagine a forum without Dygz either.

George_Black

Warth wrote: »

@George_Black i cant imagine a forum without Dygz either.

I can. It will help my anger issues. I wish he finally comes to terms with the fact that AoC isn't an RP mmo like ff14. It's competitive and guild centered. You dont see me in ff14s forums asking for open world pvp, nor do you see me in bdos forums asking for no p2w servers.
Each company has their vision clearly stated. If people choose to delude themselves, I wish at least they didn't flood the forums with fluff. Anyway, as said in todays Dev Up date regarding feedback: "all feedback is welcome" but also... "we won't pursue that direction".

Dygz

George_Black wrote: »

I dont believe that you wont play. I am sure I will see you posting even after the game is launched.

Posting is not the same thing as playing.

Dygz

George_Black wrote: »

I wish he finally comes to terms with the fact that AoC isn't an RP mmo like ff14. It's competitive and guild centered. You dont see me in ff14s forums asking for open world pvp, nor do you see me in bdos forums asking for no p2w servers.
Each company has their vision clearly stated. If people choose to delude themselves, I wish at least they didn't flood the forums with fluff. Anyway, as said in todays Dev Up date regarding feedback: "all feedback is welcome" but also... "we won't pursue that direction".

If exploring the world auto-flags players as Combatant, it’s a PvP-centric game.
Yes. We agree.

I don’t think I’ve asked for stuff that’s not in the game design.

George_Black

Anyway, those news can't be pleasant for you. I'll give you a break.

Moving on. Some said that naval content will remove gankers from the mainland areas. First of all, what gangers? How many times do we have to say that people will have a valid reason to kill, and looting a a few raw materials isn't worth the risk of going red. Claiming an area or RB with your group/guild isn't ganking.

I don't think that pvp will be moved away from mainland to the see, since the sea doesn't have the flagging system. If crafting and the economy are done correctly, building competitive ships to provide confidence and security will take a huge effort for a group of players. I dont think that all this energy will go to "hey let's go pvp in the sea". I am pretty sure that whatever players come together to build and equip a ship will have in mind certain quests, certain locations with raw materials, and certain raids that they want to take down, as well as transporting their goods to another node. And from the details we heard about preparing/building/allocating attributes to a caravan, as well as the design of the caravan building, you can tell that making a caravan or a ships won't be a 10 minute activity.

Just like in the land, same with the sea, people hopeful of stealing materials from a ship or a caravan will have to camp areas and also win the fight. And then they have to carry the loot back to their node. or housing. It won't be "hey let's go have some non flagging, free pvp."

I am opposed to pvp zones in the land because they would dilute the PvX dynamic of the game, removing the conflict of interest, fragmenting the playerbase to those that have goals (gather, xp, quest) and those that want to just relax and have meaningless pvp). But building a ship? manning it properly? It will take effort. It won't be for trigger happy kids that just want to gank, like they do in ESO in cyrodiil or other games without meaningful pvp.

Dygz

It is now.

Mag7spy

Dolyem wrote: »

darthaden wrote: »

It'll have little to no impact. Given the size of the open ocean it doesn't seem practical to just sit out there and wait for people to kill.

Untrue if there are underwater dungeons, gathering zones, and points of interest in the open ocean.

Underground areas might not count as sea, which also would be fine. But it would mean when you are trying to get back to land with your loot you will need to keep a eye open.

Okeydoke

Mag7spy wrote: »

Corruption system is already really harsh, up to extremely harsh based on how dense the server is with seeing people around. If you are red and walking by 20 people, there is a high chance they flag on you causing you to lose more progress than you gain and gear drops.

It's subjective and somewhat unknown, but yeah I'd agree on paper with what we know right now, the corruption system is harsh. Intrepid still has a lot of leeway to make it more or less harsh though depending on the final numbers they use.

I was just trying to throw Dygz a bone, saying that the ocean being lawless may open the door in Intrepid's mind to make the corruption system harsher than they originally intended. And as other people have pointed out, the oceans could draw more of the pvp minded players out from the land, making the land safer than it otherwise would have been.

But Dygz aint having any of it lol. I hope you still play though Dygz.

tautau

Yes, I very hope you play @Dygz . Be a dwarf who doesn't like the water, explore the land first, which will take quite a while.

Also, I would not be surprised if the Underworld didn't allow one to walk to some of the islands, perhaps from continent to continent, and perhaps to all the islands.

I'm sure you noticed Steven emphasizing that we will be clearly warned prior to getting into PvP territory. Therefore, it won't be the shoreline, it will be out a bit. So costal fishing and (perhaps) costal boats won't be in the PvP zone. Some islands might be reached safely, or after a very short run across the PvP zone, which could be done during non-peak hours.

In other words, I think there will be ways to minimize the risk so not to have it a significant factor.

Dygz

Warning is irrelevant. I am unconcerned about the shoreline.
If we can use the Divine Portals to teleport to the starting areas on distant continents - that might work.
Family Summons with alts also might work.
There has to be a bypass for auto-flagging Combatant while exploring.

Again... because auto-flagging as Combatant for exploring a zone means we are auto-consenting to random PvP just by playing the game. And if that's the case, I will choose not to play the game.

(We'll have to see how I would then feel about missing out on underwater content, but, Steven's current concept of risk v reward doesn't really work the way he thinks it does. Or maybe it does, but... my choice would be to just not play the game rather than deal with the "risk" of being forced into PvP combat when I'm not in the mood with no Corruption penalties just because I want to explore the world. That's a PvP-centric game; not a PvX game.)

Hartwell

I'm very interested in this subject, as it does shake up the importance of certain ships and trade routes. It brings up questions.

The Northern part of the sea has a rather large island, so can we skim along the coast to remain in a non-PvP area?
Does the Underrealm have a safer, but longer, passage between the two main continents?
Will airships fly over the sea and prevent flagging for PvP automatically?
Bounty hunters rely upon corruption, so it might not be useful in this new design. Will there be a way to identify pirates using navigation skills as an alternative?

mcstackerson

Dygz wrote: »

Again... because auto-flagging as Combatant for exploring a zone means we are auto-consenting to random PvP just by playing the game. And if that's the case, I will choose not to play the game.

All the auto-flagging is doing is making it so people don't suffer penalties for killing you. You aren't consenting any more to pvp then you are when you log into the game.

Vyril

Overthrow wrote: »

Games that are gank boxes ALWAYS fail.

Albion Online says hello.

Elleandria

Dygz wrote: »

LMFAO
It's a dealbreaker.
Like EvE and ArcheAge, that's too PvP-centric for me.
I won't be playing.
Unless we can use the Divine Gateways to port to starting areas on other continents.

Ah yes, another casual crying because they aren't good enough to play the game and just want to be hand-held

Don't play the game then kiddo, stop crying on the forums and having your alt accounts like your posts lol its very pathetic

Dygz

mcstackerson wrote: »

All the auto-flagging is doing is making it so people don't suffer penalties for killing you. You aren't consenting any more to pvp then you are when you log into the game.

It's significantly different because players who kill me are not punished with 4x the death penalties if they kill me. That is auto-consent because they will not be punished for ganking me while I'm exploring. And... that is not a game I will play.

Child Item