Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Corruption system in relation to auto-flagging in open sea

1235729

Comments

  • akabear wrote: »
    Will dying at sea effect teleport to the nearest destination, creating fast travel?

    @akabear isnt the same thing that happens on land? You die, you get respawned at the next respawn point (node?). Just that its like 3-5 minutes distance on land and like 10 minute distance on water.

    Not really different at all. Taking Death Penalties in order to save 10 minutes of travel time seems beyond stupid to me.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited August 2022
    WHIT3ROS3 wrote: »
    Objective-based, opt-in PvP combat for Caravans and Sieges.
    Corruption as the compromise for random, non-consensual PvP combat in the open world.
    That's what has been stated for the 5 years the game has been in development.

    Which is still the case.

    The world is large, no need to have 100% of it dedicated to what you consider to be optimal. Seems a bit extreme to approach it as "Yeah, the entirety of the land mass is how I want it, but the fact that it isn't 100% of the game is a dealbreaker for me" that doesn't seem reasonable. In fact, it comes across as pretty petulant considering we haven't even seen a single piece of Naval gameplay as of yet.

    But you do you.
    Um. No. It's not "still the case".
    There are now areas in the open world that do not have the compromise of the Corruption mechanic.


    Doesn't matter how large the world is.
    And... yes. I will not play what I don't like.
    That's OK.
  • I guess i'll avoid the open sea as much as possible.

    so, the open sea is going to be a shitzone. Full Pvp are often for a-holes. People that likes to corpse camp others, so they have no option but to log off. If they really liked Pvp, why not do arenas or battlegrounds. Because they proberly aren't that good at pvp. They need all the advangates they can get. Being higher level. Being more people. Attacking someone in the back. Attacking them while the opponent is fighting a mob. etc
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    insomnia wrote: »
    I guess i'll avoid the open sea as much as possible.

    so, the open sea is going to be a shitzone. Full Pvp are often for a-holes. People that likes to corpse camp others, so they have no option but to log off. If they really liked Pvp, why not do arenas or battlegrounds. Because they proberly aren't that good at pvp. They need all the advangates they can get. Being higher level. Being more people. Attacking someone in the back. Attacking them while the opponent is fighting a mob. etc

    What a sore loser.
  • insomnia wrote: »
    I guess i'll avoid the open sea as much as possible.

    so, the open sea is going to be a shitzone. Full Pvp are often for a-holes. People that likes to corpse camp others, so they have no option but to log off. If they really liked Pvp, why not do arenas or battlegrounds. Because they proberly aren't that good at pvp. They need all the advangates they can get. Being higher level. Being more people. Attacking someone in the back. Attacking them while the opponent is fighting a mob. etc

    What a sore loser.

    That comment makes no sence at all. But i get what type of person you are now. You are only happy when you can ruin things for other. Those who can't create, destroy
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member
    edited August 2022
    Iffithy wrote: »
    I’m going to have to agree with Dygz on this one. It’s a disappointing change. Not because I am against the pvp but because it changes the balance that I was hoping for in a pvx game.

    But the thing I really don’t understand is why do this? I mean the vast majority of people traveling across the ocean would likely be caravans, which are mobile pvp zones already. So what does this accomplish other than discourage exploration?

    Allows them to make deep sea fishing more profitable due to added inherit risk. here the thing though what do u risk traveling across the sea to the other continent if your taking resources then your basicly a caravan if your travelling to get to other continent dont carry any resources then u got no risk either sooo i dont see an issue.
    Also adds makes boss encounter in the ocean much more interesting like archages kraken kills and so on had to keep an eye out for enemy vessels too.

  • If Steven is intending to go for the "Archeage style"(as i believe he is) I expect that the Sea will be the place with possible the highest rewards in the game, considering Archeage's golden age as a base, Across the Sea trading would have the most valuable trading routes; Fishing, seafloor gathering and deep dive treasure hunting possible some of the most rewarding professions and Sea World Bosses to be some of the most rewarding .

    It's all about the Higher Risk for the Higher Reward.

    pretty certain your right here. I bet you resources on the islands will be different from eachother or there be unique resources on each island for example the better plank of wood might need wood that is unique to each continent in its combination so taking said wood across the islands could be rather profitable
  • My prediction is that, you are going to have a group of people, who reach max level, in the fastest possible time, and they are going to roam the open sea, to attack other people. Proberly not on all servers, but they will be there. Perhaps even entire guilds dedicated for this
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    My response to this mechanic really has nothing to do with resources gained or resources lost.
  • I'm skeptical.

    Having spent years in Archeage, I know firsthand what happens out on the open seas. It can be super exciting, but in the blink of an eye it can easily devolve into an mass of toxicity and unchecked griefing. How this pans out will largely depend on how its balanced from a design point of view, in addition to how the community rallies around this. So I'm looking forward to how this will look in Alpha 2 play testing.

    Balance = How many harbors are there? If there are only a couple harbors across the world like Archeage, that probably won't cut it. How hard is it to build/upgrade ships? How widespread are the really good fishing spots/hot spots for quests/etc? Hopefully more than just a few, or ideally they're dynamic. What's the ship to ship combat really going to be like?

    Community = How will a server treat unfettered douchebaggery? Will they be able to transfer/name change and can people run away from their reputation? What's the servers appetite weeding out people that bully lower level/lower skill players?

    I'm still skeptical. But there are too many variables for me to have a real opinion.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I think there won't be enough people in Alpha 2 to make a meaningful decision about how chaotic it might once it's open to everyone.
  • I mean things are worth more from the ocean sounds good and all.
    But in an open world pvp game, you already run the risk of loosing stuff to getting attacked and killed.

    At least the corruption mechanic creates a give and take element and gives the player an option in a fight.

  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited August 2022
    Well, it was said to be an open world PvX game.
    I now consider it to be an open world PvP-centric game. Which is why I won't be playing it.
    I don't really care about losing a portion of resources. I'm also not particulary concerned about losing the PvP battle.
    I don't want to participate in a PvP battle when I'm not in the mood...and would prefer to be doing something else, like exploring and gathering. Which includes exploring the Open Sea and its unique NPCs.
  • That’s why I agree with you Dygz. This imo pushes the game away from pvx to pvp. Which is fine for a lot of people but not what I thought I was signing up for. It’s just disappointing
  • When it comes to just wanting to explore things in the ocean, not the biggest fan of knowing people can take me out with zero penalty whatsoever as I was quite content with the corruption system.. but won't be a deal breaker.

    I am curious if naval caravans will be like land ones where you teleport out randomly when it launches to prevent people from waiting by harbors to gank.
  • That's great news. Although the flagging system works great it's important in a pvp game to have areas in the world that you can freely kill anybody w/o consequences
    3hmamy1ekfqy.gif
  • 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.

    Just move on man. I've seen you complaining many many times in this forums. This game is not for you.
    3hmamy1ekfqy.gif
  • 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.

    Just move on man. I've seen you complaining many many times in this forums. This game is not for you.

    PvE players just gotta complain till somone changes the game to PvE just for them :P new world tried this and we all know how well that went :P haha
  • Bearheart wrote: »
    How this pans out will largely depend on how its balanced from a design point of view, in addition to how the community rallies around this. So I'm looking forward to how this will look in Alpha 2 play testing.

    I'm still skeptical. But there are too many variables for me to have a real opinion.

    I personally don't mind the change because it won't affect my gameplay style, I used to be a resident of the Wildy in RS and Rust is currently my main game, however I'm also skeptical and cannot stay quiet when I see something that doesn't make sense to me or that feels like it contradicts what was said in the past. And I'm not sure a big change like this is simple enough to test and to just toggle on and off during Alpha 2.

    If naval gameplay in Ashes works similar to Sea of Thieves', which I hope it will because that game can be quite fun, when all members of a crew die the winning crew will more often than not sunk the other ship, for any number of reasons. So unlike open world PvP in land, you probably won't be able to go back to the fight in the open sea and get revenge because you don't have a ship in your inventory and swimming/aquatic mount is probably not going to get you (and your group) back there quick enough.

    For the reason above (and probably other reasons too), in my opinion, even with corruption the open sea would already be one of the most dangerous places PvP wise, which is the reason why I fail to understand their decision from a game design perspective.

    This change might turn out to be extremely fun, a great addition to the game and the majority of the community might love it, but I genuinely still can't see a logical explanation to do it, especially because this change somewhat contradicts quotes like these:
    Just because our flagging system gives corruption to pkers, doesn't mean PvP won't happen. There is plenty of reason for PvP to occur open-world. Scarce resources, open world hunting grounds, caravans, sieges, guild wars etc.[7] – Steven Sharif
    [...] the reason for that is our current PvP systems already allow for material risk essentially that's either through the flagging system or through other event-based pvp opt-in systems as well.[11] – Steven Sharif
    One of the interesting components of Ashes of Creation and our flagging system is that it presents the potential for two conflicting parties to have open conflict in the open world over pretty much anything that they may want or disagree with;... [99] – Steven Sharif
    [...] Our PvP is designed to offer the players a well-balanced and fair world to shape through the pen, or sword should they choose.[100]
    You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. [...] It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[65] – Steven Sharif
    Reward without risk is meaningless. Corruption is just another word for risk.[138] – Steven Sharif

    TL;DR: the more I think about it, the more it feels like Intrepid is just catering to those who enjoy this style of gameplay and/or the corruption system is bad, which I don't think it is. If they want to say risk vs. reward was the reason for this change, then why aren't open world dungeons, land world bosses and other high tier/rewarding land content also free PvP/corruptionless?
    🎶Galo é Galo o resto é bosta🎶
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited August 2022
    Just move on man. I've seen you complaining many many times in this forums. This game is not for you.
    LMFAO
    That's what I said.
  • VoxtriumVoxtrium Member
    edited August 2022
    I changed my mind.
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited August 2022
    BaSkA13 wrote: »
    Bearheart wrote: »
    How this pans out will largely depend on how its balanced from a design point of view, in addition to how the community rallies around this. So I'm looking forward to how this will look in Alpha 2 play testing.

    I'm still skeptical. But there are too many variables for me to have a real opinion.

    I personally don't mind the change because it won't affect my gameplay style, I used to be a resident of the Wildy in RS and Rust is currently my main game, however I'm also skeptical and cannot stay quiet when I see something that doesn't make sense to me or that feels like it contradicts what was said in the past. And I'm not sure a big change like this is simple enough to test and to just toggle on and off during Alpha 2.

    If naval gameplay in Ashes works similar to Sea of Thieves', which I hope it will because that game can be quite fun, when all members of a crew die the winning crew will more often than not sunk the other ship, for any number of reasons. So unlike open world PvP in land, you probably won't be able to go back to the fight in the open sea and get revenge because you don't have a ship in your inventory and swimming/aquatic mount is probably not going to get you (and your group) back there quick enough.

    For the reason above (and probably other reasons too), in my opinion, even with corruption the open sea would already be one of the most dangerous places PvP wise, which is the reason why I fail to understand their decision from a game design perspective.

    This change might turn out to be extremely fun, a great addition to the game and the majority of the community might love it, but I genuinely still can't see a logical explanation to do it, especially because this change somewhat contradicts quotes like these:
    Just because our flagging system gives corruption to pkers, doesn't mean PvP won't happen. There is plenty of reason for PvP to occur open-world. Scarce resources, open world hunting grounds, caravans, sieges, guild wars etc.[7] – Steven Sharif
    [...] the reason for that is our current PvP systems already allow for material risk essentially that's either through the flagging system or through other event-based pvp opt-in systems as well.[11] – Steven Sharif
    One of the interesting components of Ashes of Creation and our flagging system is that it presents the potential for two conflicting parties to have open conflict in the open world over pretty much anything that they may want or disagree with;... [99] – Steven Sharif
    [...] Our PvP is designed to offer the players a well-balanced and fair world to shape through the pen, or sword should they choose.[100]
    You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. [...] It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[65] – Steven Sharif
    Reward without risk is meaningless. Corruption is just another word for risk.[138] – Steven Sharif

    TL;DR: the more I think about it, the more it feels like Intrepid is just catering to those who enjoy this style of gameplay and/or the corruption system is bad, which I don't think it is. If they want to say risk vs. reward was the reason for this change, then why aren't open world dungeons, land world bosses and other high tier/rewarding land content also free PvP/corruptionless?

    Not only would it be extremely difficult to retrieve most of your loot on death in the ocean even before this change, but like...

    Bounty hunters aren't going to just swim on up to your pirate ship and attack all your reds. In any zone with a barrier to entry like a boat or aquatic mount there is going to be less bounty hunting. The open ocean was inherently going to have pirates and it was going to be much easier for reds to live in.

    On top of that, you have IS leaning more towards having mobs in the open ocean before this announcement... So a low bounty hunter zone with mobs you can use to wash your corruption off of? The old model was already going to be pretty risky. It just required that red pirates did some like, you know, work and planning to reduce their risk.

    So I kind of wish Steven explained what the risk calculation he and the team was basing this on. Because even if the loot is 'too good', I'm not understanding the justification for this change and I've played the section over and over just to make sure I didn't miss something.

    Why is this an unexpected move to me? There were more ways to increase risk from a PvP perspective and a PvE perspective without making this change. Mob density, encounter design, and even geographical layout (which in my opinion they absolutely just did along with this change but that's speculation.) Flagging everyone is a pretty blunt instrument. There are a couple reasons I could guess as to why they wanted to do this specific move, but I'd rather just wait for Steven to actually explain it.

    Until then I'll remain surprised at 'QoL buff for red pirates' since it'd be very hard to guess that's a QoL buff Steven was willing to make up until now. I just hope Dygz isn't a sign of something deeper given Ashes is a game that needs as large of a population to work.
    🔦🔱⚔️Selling pro pain and pro pain accessories. ⚔️🔱🔦
  • tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I had always planned on using an expendable alt for exploring particularly dangerous land areas.

    Now I will use that same low level, expendable alt for my exploration of the seas and thus preserving my main.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited August 2022
    Voxtrium wrote: »
    I think it is because open ocean will be just open ocean and not an area where there is significant content, there may be npc raiders but i dont think this is an area where you will ever go to just farm a dungeon or complete a raid. Seems like they are going for a sea of thieves vibe.
    Steven says there will be unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding in the Open Seas. Greater rewards, which is why it requires greater risk. There will be raid bosses in the oceans. There are ships designed specifically for that.
  • VoxtriumVoxtrium Member
    edited August 2022
    It has taken me awhile to form my opinion regarding this but I lean away from auto flagging for PVP.
    There are a ton of risks for auto flagging in regards to abuse from other players. Right now it doesn't matter how powerful your guild is, if you constantly corrupt your players to bully a guild you are risking a lot of gear and time, however adding auto PVP flagging on the sea means that abuse of sea transportation may be the best option for any guild.

    The worst part about any of this in my head is that with this system in place the most logical solution is to abuse the naval content in ashes. It does not seem like all naval content will be avoidable and there is no/less punishment if you control the waters, you remove/mitigate the risk for your guild, and while doing so open up endless opportunity that has been stated will be better than land based opportunity.

    Rare resources will likely be on those islands requiring players to get there. In this current system a guild or alliance may be able to have a massive impact through naval control effectively giving them more profits than any land based operation. This could create a system where there is no real reason to farm land objectives and guilds/alliances can exist almost solely out on the sea. Also this provides a huge opportunity for guilds to gatekeep content easier than ever before.

    We have been told ships will be difficult to build and upgrade and assuming that is true, the barrier to entry combined with a more skilled player already achieving the upgraded ship will provide almost no avenue for a player to stand against those that stop them from traveling across the sea/ocean.

    If everyone flags for PVP on the sea and valuable resources from npc's reside on/in the sea then a seafaring guild can farm both players and npc's for the gold/resources they need to buy the gear they need. Furthermore gatekeeping rare resources that would be exclusive to that island provides an additional revenue stream. Why would a guild not do this? You basically prove your PVP prowess, earn what on paper seems like an infinite revenue stream that is provided both by NPCs and players AND you remove the highest risk portion of the server as risk.

    Example:
    Alliance 1 controls most of the naval content. Alliance 2 is a patron of a metro and monarch of a castle.

    Alliance 1 - They make money by raiding players, they make money by raiding NPC's, they make money by gatekeeping island ports where valuable resources are held effectively controlling the supply which == Infinite money stream

    Alliance 2 - Has an infinite money sink in defending each of the 3 castle vassal nodes getting monthly sieges.
    The metro will likely provide a number of benefits and be much more balanced in terms of give and take but will require significant time to gather needed resources and generate the needed gold.

    Alliance 1 has 2 cost, building ships, and manning those ships, alliance 2 has to manage the castle, manage their metro, has massive resource sinks, significant political struggles. There are so many issues alliance 2 needs to deal with. But alliance 1 doesn't need a metro to reside in, only 1 they can launch from and I doubt a mayor can make hundreds of players enemy of the state and even if they can there are options for said guild.

    Players will need to cross the ocean for content/raids/bosses/loot. If alliance 1 establishes control over naval content then they can easily have a rotating roster of players on ships looting npcs in there free time and PVPing players when they see them. Even if 1 ship loses to an enemy guild the travel time for ships on water will be less than on land and the likelihood that they can have a 2nd ship arrive is likely ESPECIALLY if like IS said ports are the only location you can launch a ship from.

    Build a tank ship? They send a fast ship as interception and whatever the counter to the tank ship
    Build a fast ship? Players are already bottlenecked to launch from node ports, where are you going to escape to?
    Build a fleet and have a coordinated launch for your entire guild or alliance? Do you need to do this every time just to merely cross? Even if you win and temporarily clear the other naval guild as soon as they can they will just do everything in their power to prevent you from ever moving across the ocean again.

    Even if the guild with primary naval content control occasionally gets whiped most of the time they will be abusing the average player and reaping the rewards of better than average loot, and can relaunch and patrol the naval content again.

    Yes on some servers guilds will duke it out on the open seas... but as soon as there is a victor there will be too much power in the hands of that guild or alliance, the opportunity for that power doesn't lie anywhere else in the game. Its an unbalanced change.

    The last problem I think of off the top of my head is the likelihood that this guild is actually a nice guild. A nice guild that ferries players across for a fee providing safe travel. Destroying those they deem as bullies, the nice guild controls the flow of resources from those islands because they control the flow of players, IE their players always get there first. They come across as the good guys helping everyone out but they make insane money by doing so, mitigate their own risk and reap more rewards, again not in like with proper risk vs reward.

    "Um. I said I would not be playing.
    I did not say I would not be testing."
    Also @Dygz my confusion was that I considered testing the Alpha to be playing, I understand what you are saying now.

    TL:DR
    The potential power imbalance is the problem. I can decrease risk by controlling naval content and I can reap better than average rewards in doing so. It is not in line with Ashes goals.
  • Sathrago wrote: »
    Overthrow wrote: »
    I think it's a very big decision and it's a bad one that will reduce the success of the game.

    The corruption system exists to prevent Ashes from becoming a gank box. Games that are gank boxes ALWAYS fail. [and if you don't agree with that statement, then why not remove corruption entirely?]

    Why then, would you turn all of the ocean content into a gank box by removing the risk of corruption? There are plenty of other opportunities for PvP that are balanced for risk v reward.

    If corruption works well on land then it should also be implemented for the water content. That was the original plan. This makes it seem like ocean is supposed to be some sort of advanced content zone, like EVE null sec.

    Well to be fair they are already adding similar zones to the inland as well. Maybe not as expansive as the entire sea, but its still something they have said they wanted in the game.

    unknown.png


    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Open_world_battlegrounds

    Ok
    But that's certain areas, not the whole ocean.
  • TheMartenTheMarten Member
    edited August 2022
    I am torn. It sound like there will be some waters near shore that can be fished and used to travel. That is good for the PVEers like me.

    I recently played RUST which is an amazing sandbox game and now with some amazing graphics as well, but I have a hard time playing it when all players focus on is gunning each other down. There is SO MUCH in that game, but doing any of it is almost pointless when you are constantly getting gunned down.

    From a Lore perspective, @StevenSharif tell me why corruption stops working in the deep waters vs land.

    Back when I first got into MMOs I almost stopped because in Ultima Online the game turned into this: Mine/Log (lose that material and time by getting pvped), or if I made it to the point that I can get the ore to a master smith and get some armor and a sword... step out of a town and get PVPed... go mine/log (repeat)

    Losing some materials is one thing... it is the time lost that is the other even greater loss. What is the "risk" of the attackers in deep water, what is their "time-sink" investment? They can only lose a ship? Being a pirate should not be easy. Real pirates had to hide and avoid "civilized" places. As it was stated in the Dev Stream, it seems that the attacker is in a win/nothing to lose situation. If that is untrue, then that needs to be better explained.

    I am torn and leaning to avoiding boating if I can.
    ~Marten
    marten.png
    ​“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
  • Mag7spy wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Damnit watching the vod now and you spoiled this news for me Dolyem. Dygz get yur ass in the game. It's fine. I haven't seen the part of the stream yet where they talk about this, but I'd have to imagine if they're going to add a lawless zone like this, they may err on making the corruption system harsher in general.

    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.

    Don't be red then
  • @Mag7spy the 20 people dont have to flag on you. They can attack you while they are green.

  • Sathrago wrote: »
    Overthrow wrote: »
    I think it's a very big decision and it's a bad one that will reduce the success of the game.

    The corruption system exists to prevent Ashes from becoming a gank box. Games that are gank boxes ALWAYS fail. [and if you don't agree with that statement, then why not remove corruption entirely?]

    Why then, would you turn all of the ocean content into a gank box by removing the risk of corruption? There are plenty of other opportunities for PvP that are balanced for risk v reward.

    If corruption works well on land then it should also be implemented for the water content. That was the original plan. This makes it seem like ocean is supposed to be some sort of advanced content zone, like EVE null sec.

    Well to be fair they are already adding similar zones to the inland as well. Maybe not as expansive as the entire sea, but its still something they have said they wanted in the game.

    unknown.png


    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Open_world_battlegrounds

    Ok
    But that's certain areas, not the whole ocean.

    Well, apparently it is the whole ocean. God has spoken.
Sign In or Register to comment.