Nobody ever said it was an obstacle.
They just redesigned it. That's all.
In the open-sea now, with the auto-flagging, what is the risk for the attackers?
Not sure what you mean, but with people being able to deck everybody, you also increase the risk of being decked by anybody.
Gping into the open sea to pursue that content is a risk in itself, as the liklihood of being attacked is far greater.
Bounty hunters aren't affected at all, they'll be able to do the same they always did?
Open Sea Auto flags you. Corrupted are already auto flagged, so nothing should theoretically change.
I think its a great addition even for a pacifist style of player I've grown into.
Will I partake in forced PvP? No, prolly not. But if I have goods that need to be transported across the sea you bet your tail I'll be hiring Mercs to help transport it for me.
...
PvE and PvP is intertwined. You cant just do PvE without the threat of being interrupted by PvP.
You wont do much PvP if there wasnt any (PVE) reason for people to travel into the open ocean in the first place.
That you have to contend with PvP when you do PvE is not and was never the issue (at least for me). That was always part of the design of AoC. Moving goods across the open sea for example was always going to be a risk, since caravans and I assume merchant ships as well were always open for PvP (like caravans on land).
The problem is the other stuff that is now possible as well (i.e. griefing in its variaous form) because the griefers have no longer anything thats holding them back.
So people who want to grief move into a completely optional area of the map rather than the zones where the general population spends a majority of their tine ? Sounds indeed like a huge loss for the part of the community, that is very PvP averse. /s
We don't know if it's 'completely optional' yet. It could be a requirement for end game crafting and gear. We'll just have to wait for them to clarify that part of the design change. Most games that do this type of pvp zone tend to also gate top mats for crafting and gear in such zones. So without further clarification I expect a lot of people to assume that it will for now.
A: If Endgame mats are exclusively obtained there, then its indeed PvX and the entire argument they brought (it not being PvX crumbles).
B: Its still completely optional even with rare endgame materials dropping there as you can still just make money otherwise and buy what you need.
Ah yes, from all those people who will grant you access to those high level materials before they and their group have farmed it to the point where they have nearly absolute control because they need the money for something other than the best materials in the game which they already have.
Economics 101.
And how's that different from the land based rare materials? Guilds will be trying to monopolize those as well. Whether they trade those or not is exactly the same story. Its in no way different.
So people who want to grief move into a completely optional area of the map rather than the zones where the general population spends a majority of their tine ? Sounds indeed like a huge loss for the part of the community, that is very PvP averse. /s
To be honest. I don't want them to move to any area. I want them to not do it anywhere. Since I cannot make them, I want the game to punish them if they do. Ergo, the corruption system should stay
But If that is not possible, I agree that it is better they move to their own zone and stay there.
Edit: to make sure we understand each other. For me griefing is PvP with the sole intend to ruin the other players game experience for the sake of the griefers own enjoyment alone, without any other benefit. Normal PvP, killing anoying kill-stealer or loud-mouths etc. or preventing access to resources etc. is not griefing.
I think its a great addition even for a pacifist style of player I've grown into.
Will I partake in forced PvP? No, prolly not. But if I have goods that need to be transported across the sea you bet your tail I'll be hiring Mercs to help transport it for me.
...
PvE and PvP is intertwined. You cant just do PvE without the threat of being interrupted by PvP.
You wont do much PvP if there wasnt any (PVE) reason for people to travel into the open ocean in the first place.
That you have to contend with PvP when you do PvE is not and was never the issue (at least for me). That was always part of the design of AoC. Moving goods across the open sea for example was always going to be a risk, since caravans and I assume merchant ships as well were always open for PvP (like caravans on land).
The problem is the other stuff that is now possible as well (i.e. griefing in its variaous form) because the griefers have no longer anything thats holding them back.
So people who want to grief move into a completely optional area of the map rather than the zones where the general population spends a majority of their tine ? Sounds indeed like a huge loss for the part of the community, that is very PvP averse. /s
We don't know if it's 'completely optional' yet. It could be a requirement for end game crafting and gear. We'll just have to wait for them to clarify that part of the design change. Most games that do this type of pvp zone tend to also gate top mats for crafting and gear in such zones. So without further clarification I expect a lot of people to assume that it will for now.
A: If Endgame mats are exclusively obtained there, then its indeed PvX and the entire argument they brought (it not being PvX crumbles).
B: Its still completely optional even with rare endgame materials dropping there as you can still just make money otherwise and buy what you need.
Ah yes, from all those people who will grant you access to those high level materials before they and their group have farmed it to the point where they have nearly absolute control because they need the money for something other than the best materials in the game which they already have.
Economics 101.
And how's that different from the land based rare materials? Guilds will be trying to monopolize those as well. Whether they trade those or not is exactly the same story. Its in no way different.
Didn't say it was, it's one of those situations where the entire base premise is so off, that you can't use it as a defense in either case.
I'm definitely not saying that 'it's different in the water'. I'm saying that it shouldn't technically work in any situation. If your point is 'well it's the same', then great. As long as it's what Intrepid wants the game to be, I'm all for it.
Ah yes, from all those people who will grant you access to those high level materials before they and their group have farmed it to the point where they have nearly absolute control because they need the money for something other than the best materials in the game which they already have.
Economics 101.
This is actually not a bad point. And opens the door to a broader topic that I imagine Intrepid already has had many internal discussions about. The importance of end game gear mats versus....everything else. In other words, why would someone sell end game gear mats if end game gear mats are all that matters?
There also should be many multiple types of end game gear mats spread all over the world, to force guilds that mostly monopolize a certain mat to trade with other guilds that mostly monopolize a different end game mat.
More than all of that, there needs to be gold sinks. We know of some, the cost of declaring a siege for instance. But yes this is Econ 101. And Intrepid needs to get it right. End game gear mats should be one of, if not the most valuable thing to control. But there needs to be balance, and countervailing forces in the economy that encourage trade.
Edit: All of that said, I'm pretty confident they're already doing this and have it under control lol
I think its a great addition even for a pacifist style of player I've grown into.
Will I partake in forced PvP? No, prolly not. But if I have goods that need to be transported across the sea you bet your tail I'll be hiring Mercs to help transport it for me.
...
PvE and PvP is intertwined. You cant just do PvE without the threat of being interrupted by PvP.
You wont do much PvP if there wasnt any (PVE) reason for people to travel into the open ocean in the first place.
That you have to contend with PvP when you do PvE is not and was never the issue (at least for me). That was always part of the design of AoC. Moving goods across the open sea for example was always going to be a risk, since caravans and I assume merchant ships as well were always open for PvP (like caravans on land).
The problem is the other stuff that is now possible as well (i.e. griefing in its variaous form) because the griefers have no longer anything thats holding them back.
So people who want to grief move into a completely optional area of the map rather than the zones where the general population spends a majority of their tine ? Sounds indeed like a huge loss for the part of the community, that is very PvP averse. /s
We don't know if it's 'completely optional' yet. It could be a requirement for end game crafting and gear. We'll just have to wait for them to clarify that part of the design change. Most games that do this type of pvp zone tend to also gate top mats for crafting and gear in such zones. So without further clarification I expect a lot of people to assume that it will for now.
A: If Endgame mats are exclusively obtained there, then its indeed PvX and the entire argument they brought (it not being PvX crumbles).
B: Its still completely optional even with rare endgame materials dropping there as you can still just make money otherwise and buy what you need.
Ah yes, from all those people who will grant you access to those high level materials before they and their group have farmed it to the point where they have nearly absolute control because they need the money for something other than the best materials in the game which they already have.
Economics 101.
And how's that different from the land based rare materials? Guilds will be trying to monopolize those as well. Whether they trade those or not is exactly the same story. Its in no way different.
Didn't say it was, it's one of those situations where the entire base premise is so off, that you can't use it as a defense in either case.
I'm definitely not saying that 'it's different in the water'. I'm saying that it shouldn't technically work in any situation. If your point is 'well it's the same', then great. As long as it's what Intrepid wants the game to be, I'm all for it.
It is exactly what they want it to be. They have stated that dozens of time of the past 5 years.
Certain People just didn't want to hear it.
Sorry i assumed you were saying that, but since the entire post is based on the premise of "its different in the water", it kinda was the logical assumption
Not sure what you mean, but with people being able to deck everybody, you also increase the risk of being decked by anybody.
I am not talking about the risk of being attacked.. this applies to the whole map, in land or open sea.
I am specifically talking about the risk of being corrupted.
If I decide to kill a player in land because I know he has something valuable, I accept that there is a risk of gaining corruption if he doesn't fight back. This is in addition to all other risks that exist, e.g. being attacked or whatever else.
If I do the same in the open sea, there is no such risk. Doesn't the mean that the overall risk is reduced?
There also should be many multiple types of end game gear mats spread all over the world, to force guilds that mostly monopolize a certain mat to trade with other guilds that mostly monopolize a different end game mat.
Pretty sure they indicated this in one of the past livestreams and in the past
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Pretty sure they indicated this in one of the past livestreams and in the past
Yeah, exactly. I'm sure they've considered all of this and have it under control. It's their job. There's people literally being paid to figure all of this out.
There seems to be this disconnect between people that have played Lineage 2 and/or Archeage and people who have not. With the people who have not viewing so many of Ashes concepts as completely foreign.
I think the only reason why Nooani isn't in here saying the entire ocean should be an instance is because he did play Archeage and understands the systems conceptually. (lol)
Anyway, your posts have been pretty on point lately Warth. I've enjoyed reading them for the most part. Think there was one a few days ago that I disagreed with heh, but kudos
I honestly don't remember. I don't think it was on anything major. Don't think I feel like looking for it, then I'd just have to read something I disagree with again lol
The difference is that the removal of the corruption system does not increase the risk of attack equally for everyone. Basically you get more corruption the less risk you have when attacking a player (e.g. killing a low level player and doing so repeatedly gives you much more corruption than killing a player of the same level or higher). If you remove the corruption system, the risk of attack rises disproportionally for those players that are less risky to attack. Since they present a much more tempting target. So it is not simple a shift of risk, It also increases the risk for those that would normally be protected by the corruption system. I admit that this is a kind of academic argument
Stop attacking the design and claiming that AoC is misleading regarding PvX, based on your biast understanding of pvx and what pve should be in an mmo.
The design is fine. It's great for players who like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
It's just not a game I will play.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Why are you acting like the Open sea is an fucking arena, where you can't Run?
Is AN OPEN GIANT SEA, Build an fast ship and go and explore, you can see other players in miles just avoid, and believe me, no one Will follow you on Open sea if you start avoiding from a far distance, even more if they see you are not an caravan, they Will just lose time and never reach you.
You never player sea of thieves or archeage? This is even worst for gankers because now they can't Stay in the sea afk waiting for caravan other ganker Will kill then...
Nope. I haven't played Sea of Thieves.
I chose not to play ArcheAge specifically because of its PvP naval content.
I'm not a fan of segregating PvE from PvP in any way in the open world, and that's what a null sec zone does and what the corruptionless open sea will do, in my opinion. I personally disliked it but I don't expect Steven to read this and to convince him, at the end of the day I just want the game to thrive and to have a healthy population.
For the people who liked the removal of Corruption from the open sea I have a few questions:
If the corruption system works as intended, what are the reasons to have zones without it? Can these reasons be distorted by big zers, alliances, etc. abusing them?
The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general, even before yesterday's announcement. From a game design perspective why make one of the best places to PK even better, as in less risk for PKers? From a game design perspective, will that make the ocean content better or worse?
If, for whatever reason, Intrepid backpedals on this decision and the open sea goes back to having corruption, will the number of potential sailing victims increase? Will the number of pirates decrease? Will there be less PvP in the ocean?
I was going to participate in ocean PKing regardless of yesterday's news, now I have even more reasons to. But I can't understand why I needed more reasons to do it.
🎶Galo é Galo o resto é bosta🎶
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There seems to be this disconnect between people that have played Lineage 2 and/or Archeage and people who have not. With the people who have not viewing so many of Ashes concepts as completely foreign.
These concepts are not foreign. I don't play games where PvPers and people who normally play on PvE-Only servers play on the same server.
I was already skeptical about how well Corruption would work as a deterrent for unwanted PvP.
People who have played Lineage II stated that since Corruption is even harsher than Karma, Corruption should act as a sufficient deterrent for unwanted PvP combat. So, that was a wait until we test it in Alpha 2 scenario.
I specifically chose not to play ArcheAge due to the PvP for their naval content.
Free-for-all PvP on the Open Seas is a great addition for players who like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
But...I don't enjoy playing games where I have to play on a server that has 24/7, auto-flag, free-for-all PvP zones.
I haven't seen anyone suggest it's a "foreign concept".
I played L2 a long time ago. But I actually do not remember if there were places/situations in L2 where you were forced to get purple? Were there?
Lineage 2 had no perma purple zones, but some places like Seed of Destruction(after Tiat's death for the farm of Elemental crystals) and Enchanted Megaliths(During Stage 6 Hellbound) would make you insta purple for a while when first entering it.
The difference is that the removal of the corruption system does not increase the risk of attack equally for everyone. Basically you get more corruption the less risk you have when attacking a player (e.g. killing a low level player and doing so repeatedly gives you much more corruption than killing a player of the same level or higher). If you remove the corruption system, the risk of attack rises disproportionally for those players that are less risky to attack. Since they present a much more tempting target. So it is not simple a shift of risk, It also increases the risk for those that would normally be protected by the corruption system. I admit that this is a kind of academic argument
Yeah, you are right. The corruption system was mostly introduced to deter high level players from killing low level ones. However, it is still in effect for all on land, so even a max player can chose not to fight back and you still have the risk gaining corruption when killing him.
However, this is not my initial point. Steven mentioned on stream that everyone will be auto-flagged in open sea, because the rewards will be greater so the risk needs to be higher, essentially saying that gaining corruption is an obstacle for the risk-vs-reward system in open-sea, otherwise why effectively disable it?
How is this consistent with what was said before about the corruption system?
So, killing low level players in the open sea is fine but on land it is not?!
Why create this separation of zones?
What's next? PvE only zones, like dungeons or world bosses?
I don't think that this is a good approach.
But...I don't enjoy playing games where I have to play on a server that has 24/7, auto-flag, free-for-all PvP zones.
I haven't seen anyone suggest it's a "foreign concept".
It's not just that. I'm talking in totality. There is a large amount of posts I read on this forum where it's just abundantly clear that the person doesn't understand basic concepts of Ashes and the games it's inspired from.
Which is understandable, if people haven't experienced those concepts and systems. I've never played a game with a flagging system like this. Took me a little while to fully understand it, and more specifically what the ramifications were for gameplay.
But anyway, I'm not just talking about the flagging system or the open sea autoflagging. It's all kinds of stuff man, economic aspects, political etc. There are mmos where you level up and then you do dungeons. I'm simplifying it some, but in a nutshell that's it. Level up, do dungeons. For people that that's all they've experienced, some of Ashes concepts probably seem foreign.
For the people who liked the removal of Corruption from the open sea I have a few questions
Q: If the corruption system works as intended, what are the reasons to have zones without it?
A: To Increase the Zone Risk alongside its rewards
Q: Can these reasons be distorted by big zers, alliances, etc. abusing them?
A: Possible, but mostly depends on what you define by "abuse" if by "Abuse" you mean total control over, i believe it to be extremely unlikely due to the sheer size of the open seas.
The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general, even before yesterday's announcement. From a game design perspective why make one of the best places to PK even better, as in less risk for PKers?
A: This one i would like to require you to elaborate on why "The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general", and would like to ask you how it is less risk for PKers if it will be flooded by other PKers.
Q: From a game design perspective, will that make the ocean content better or worse?
A: Certainly better as it created a variation and a new Tier of Risk vs Reward
If, for whatever reason, Intrepid backpedals on this decision and the open sea goes back to having corruption, will the number of potential sailing victims increase? Will the number of pirates decrease? Will there be less PvP in the ocean?
A: If Intrepid backpedals on both the extra risk and extra rewards of the open seas, the number of "sailing victims" will certainly decrease alongside the number of pirates and that would indeed result in less PvP in the ocean.
Aren't we all sinners?
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It's not just that. I'm talking in totality. There is a large amount of posts I read on this forum where it's just abundantly clear that the person doesn't understand basic concepts of Ashes and the games it's inspired from.
Which is understandable, if people haven't experienced those concepts and systems. I've never played a game with a flagging system like this. Took me a little while to fully understand it, and more specifically what the ramifications were for gameplay.
But anyway, I'm not just talking about the flagging system or the open sea autoflagging. It's all kinds of stuff man, economic aspects, political etc. There are mmos where you level up and then you do dungeons. I'm simplifying it some, but in a nutshell that's it. Level up, do dungeons. For people that that's all they've experienced, some of Ashes concepts probably seem foreign.
That may just be what some people like to focus on when they play MMORPGs.
Hasn't been my take on people in the forums, but... okeydoke....
I'm not a fan of segregating PvE from PvP in any way in the open world, and that's what a null sec zone does and what the corruptionless open sea will do, in my opinion. I personally disliked it but I don't expect Steven to read this and to convince him, at the end of the day I just want the game to thrive and to have a healthy population.
For the people who liked the removal of Corruption from the open sea I have a few questions:
If the corruption system works as intended, what are the reasons to have zones without it? Can these reasons be distorted by big zers, alliances, etc. abusing them?
The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general, even before yesterday's announcement. From a game design perspective why make one of the best places to PK even better, as in less risk for PKers? From a game design perspective, will that make the ocean content better or worse?
If, for whatever reason, Intrepid backpedals on this decision and the open sea goes back to having corruption, will the number of potential sailing victims increase? Will the number of pirates decrease? Will there be less PvP in the ocean?
I was going to participate in ocean PKing regardless of yesterday's news, now I have even more reasons to. But I can't understand why I needed more reasons to do it.
1- You can add more value to the zone for the additional risk of more PvP, For example deep sea fishing can yield more reward for lake fishing, Cross continent trade can yield more cash reward than just trading on your continent. Resource diversity/supply and demand having important resources for end game crafting require a resource from each island makes demand for this cross continent trade. basicly the more risk you have being in a zone the more reward they can add to it for participating in these additional risks
2- Why would you think that in the first place? in Archage majority of pvp happened on the mainlands dispite no reward and just a penalty for doing so, PvP in the ocean still cause penalty in archage because people would spite boat out to where they were killed just to report the bloodstains so realy it didnt change much from PvPing on the land
3- There be less PvP in the ocean because if your gonna have a penalty either way you may aswell stay round the more target rich enviroment of the land than the ocean where players are usualy far between espeicaly with the size of the ocean.
Tbh they main reason they made ocean open PvP is to allow more value/return for crossing it and participating in the ocean, deep sea fishing in the ocean will now yield more gold then land counterpart. Regionalise resources will make taking those resources over the ocean more profitable due to the added risk.
I guarantee end game crafting is gonna require items unique to both continents and atleast 1 smaller island so you will either need to transport these mats back to your island or buy them on your continent for higher price. This will allow for the merchant type players to thrive who have no issues buying resources from east continent and risk traveling them across the ocean to sell for a profit on the east continent. Now yes this would come under a caravan run/system for pvp flagging but people can just carry inventory loads to bypass this and this change now changes that so there always a larger risk to transporting goods across the ocean. tbh this change adds more content to the game for both pvp and merchant/traders type of players.
it also adds a social element to the game for people to try and band together for transporting goods and a place for mercenaries.
PvE players are less likely to be murdered to while farming if there more PvP players out in the ocean than running around there continents so there also that tbh :P
So people who want to grief move into a completely optional area of the map rather than the zones where the general population spends a majority of their tine ? Sounds indeed like a huge loss for the part of the community, that is very PvP averse. /s
To be honest. I don't want them to move to any area. I want them to not do it anywhere. Since I cannot make them, I want the game to punish them if they do. Ergo, the corruption system should stay
But If that is not possible, I agree that it is better they move to their own zone and stay there.
Edit: to make sure we understand each other. For me griefing is PvP with the sole intend to ruin the other players game experience for the sake of the griefers own enjoyment alone, without any other benefit. Normal PvP, killing anoying kill-stealer or loud-mouths etc. or preventing access to resources etc. is not griefing.
Griefing different for everyone, For me im similiar to you in what griefing is, Killing somone and moving on to me is not griefing its pvp, now camping them thats griefing. However killing players in an area to deny resources is PvP and not griefing either you want those resources or you dont want an opponent to have it and so on.
but for PvE players any kinda of inconvience is griefing.
For me i general killed somone once and leave them alone after that unless they attack me. Unless there a goal like in Crowfall there was an objective to kill gryphons for a win condition and i killed everyone who tried to kill them because i needed the item for guild win condition for a campaign it got to the point for that season i had entire guild kill squads going after me in there zone the moment i killed one of them :P and all i was doing was playing the onjectives of that season
This type of open flagging is fantastic. There are clearly defined safe areas, and clearly defined auto-flag areas so everyone will know what they are getting into.
Comments
They just redesigned it. That's all.
Not sure what you mean, but with people being able to deck everybody, you also increase the risk of being decked by anybody.
Gping into the open sea to pursue that content is a risk in itself, as the liklihood of being attacked is far greater.
Bounty hunters aren't affected at all, they'll be able to do the same they always did?
Open Sea Auto flags you. Corrupted are already auto flagged, so nothing should theoretically change.
And how's that different from the land based rare materials? Guilds will be trying to monopolize those as well. Whether they trade those or not is exactly the same story. Its in no way different.
To be honest. I don't want them to move to any area. I want them to not do it anywhere. Since I cannot make them, I want the game to punish them if they do. Ergo, the corruption system should stay
But If that is not possible, I agree that it is better they move to their own zone and stay there.
Edit: to make sure we understand each other. For me griefing is PvP with the sole intend to ruin the other players game experience for the sake of the griefers own enjoyment alone, without any other benefit. Normal PvP, killing anoying kill-stealer or loud-mouths etc. or preventing access to resources etc. is not griefing.
Didn't say it was, it's one of those situations where the entire base premise is so off, that you can't use it as a defense in either case.
I'm definitely not saying that 'it's different in the water'. I'm saying that it shouldn't technically work in any situation. If your point is 'well it's the same', then great. As long as it's what Intrepid wants the game to be, I'm all for it.
This is actually not a bad point. And opens the door to a broader topic that I imagine Intrepid already has had many internal discussions about. The importance of end game gear mats versus....everything else. In other words, why would someone sell end game gear mats if end game gear mats are all that matters?
There also should be many multiple types of end game gear mats spread all over the world, to force guilds that mostly monopolize a certain mat to trade with other guilds that mostly monopolize a different end game mat.
More than all of that, there needs to be gold sinks. We know of some, the cost of declaring a siege for instance. But yes this is Econ 101. And Intrepid needs to get it right. End game gear mats should be one of, if not the most valuable thing to control. But there needs to be balance, and countervailing forces in the economy that encourage trade.
Edit: All of that said, I'm pretty confident they're already doing this and have it under control lol
It is exactly what they want it to be. They have stated that dozens of time of the past 5 years.
Certain People just didn't want to hear it.
Sorry i assumed you were saying that, but since the entire post is based on the premise of "its different in the water", it kinda was the logical assumption
I am not talking about the risk of being attacked.. this applies to the whole map, in land or open sea.
I am specifically talking about the risk of being corrupted.
If I decide to kill a player in land because I know he has something valuable, I accept that there is a risk of gaining corruption if he doesn't fight back. This is in addition to all other risks that exist, e.g. being attacked or whatever else.
If I do the same in the open sea, there is no such risk. Doesn't the mean that the overall risk is reduced?
Pretty sure they indicated this in one of the past livestreams and in the past
Risk of corruption lowers the risk of being attacked.
With the absence of corruption, your risk of being attacked is inherently higher.
The risk you take merely shifted from one to another
Yeah, exactly. I'm sure they've considered all of this and have it under control. It's their job. There's people literally being paid to figure all of this out.
There seems to be this disconnect between people that have played Lineage 2 and/or Archeage and people who have not. With the people who have not viewing so many of Ashes concepts as completely foreign.
I think the only reason why Nooani isn't in here saying the entire ocean should be an instance is because he did play Archeage and understands the systems conceptually. (lol)
Anyway, your posts have been pretty on point lately Warth. I've enjoyed reading them for the most part. Think there was one a few days ago that I disagreed with heh, but kudos
which one you disagreed with out of ciriosity or rather what wad the topic?
That's exactly the reason they introduced the corruption system.
The 'shift' of risk you mention is exactly the inconsistency I am talking about.
No idea, I didn't play Lineage 2. I played Archeage though and the open sea was that way there if I remember correctly. Been a long time.
It's just not a game I will play.
Nope. I haven't played Sea of Thieves.
I chose not to play ArcheAge specifically because of its PvP naval content.
For the people who liked the removal of Corruption from the open sea I have a few questions:
I was going to participate in ocean PKing regardless of yesterday's news, now I have even more reasons to. But I can't understand why I needed more reasons to do it.
I was already skeptical about how well Corruption would work as a deterrent for unwanted PvP.
People who have played Lineage II stated that since Corruption is even harsher than Karma, Corruption should act as a sufficient deterrent for unwanted PvP combat. So, that was a wait until we test it in Alpha 2 scenario.
I specifically chose not to play ArcheAge due to the PvP for their naval content.
Free-for-all PvP on the Open Seas is a great addition for players who like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
But...I don't enjoy playing games where I have to play on a server that has 24/7, auto-flag, free-for-all PvP zones.
I haven't seen anyone suggest it's a "foreign concept".
Lineage 2 had no perma purple zones, but some places like Seed of Destruction(after Tiat's death for the farm of Elemental crystals) and Enchanted Megaliths(During Stage 6 Hellbound) would make you insta purple for a while when first entering it.
Aren't we all sinners?
Yeah, you are right. The corruption system was mostly introduced to deter high level players from killing low level ones. However, it is still in effect for all on land, so even a max player can chose not to fight back and you still have the risk gaining corruption when killing him.
However, this is not my initial point. Steven mentioned on stream that everyone will be auto-flagged in open sea, because the rewards will be greater so the risk needs to be higher, essentially saying that gaining corruption is an obstacle for the risk-vs-reward system in open-sea, otherwise why effectively disable it?
How is this consistent with what was said before about the corruption system?
So, killing low level players in the open sea is fine but on land it is not?!
Why create this separation of zones?
What's next? PvE only zones, like dungeons or world bosses?
I don't think that this is a good approach.
It's not just that. I'm talking in totality. There is a large amount of posts I read on this forum where it's just abundantly clear that the person doesn't understand basic concepts of Ashes and the games it's inspired from.
Which is understandable, if people haven't experienced those concepts and systems. I've never played a game with a flagging system like this. Took me a little while to fully understand it, and more specifically what the ramifications were for gameplay.
But anyway, I'm not just talking about the flagging system or the open sea autoflagging. It's all kinds of stuff man, economic aspects, political etc. There are mmos where you level up and then you do dungeons. I'm simplifying it some, but in a nutshell that's it. Level up, do dungeons. For people that that's all they've experienced, some of Ashes concepts probably seem foreign.
Q: If the corruption system works as intended, what are the reasons to have zones without it?
A: To Increase the Zone Risk alongside its rewards
Q: Can these reasons be distorted by big zers, alliances, etc. abusing them?
A: Possible, but mostly depends on what you define by "abuse" if by "Abuse" you mean total control over, i believe it to be extremely unlikely due to the sheer size of the open seas.
The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general, even before yesterday's announcement. From a game design perspective why make one of the best places to PK even better, as in less risk for PKers?
A: This one i would like to require you to elaborate on why "The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general", and would like to ask you how it is less risk for PKers if it will be flooded by other PKers.
Q: From a game design perspective, will that make the ocean content better or worse?
A: Certainly better as it created a variation and a new Tier of Risk vs Reward
If, for whatever reason, Intrepid backpedals on this decision and the open sea goes back to having corruption, will the number of potential sailing victims increase? Will the number of pirates decrease? Will there be less PvP in the ocean?
A: If Intrepid backpedals on both the extra risk and extra rewards of the open seas, the number of "sailing victims" will certainly decrease alongside the number of pirates and that would indeed result in less PvP in the ocean.
Aren't we all sinners?
Hasn't been my take on people in the forums, but... okeydoke....
1- You can add more value to the zone for the additional risk of more PvP, For example deep sea fishing can yield more reward for lake fishing, Cross continent trade can yield more cash reward than just trading on your continent. Resource diversity/supply and demand having important resources for end game crafting require a resource from each island makes demand for this cross continent trade. basicly the more risk you have being in a zone the more reward they can add to it for participating in these additional risks
2- Why would you think that in the first place? in Archage majority of pvp happened on the mainlands dispite no reward and just a penalty for doing so, PvP in the ocean still cause penalty in archage because people would spite boat out to where they were killed just to report the bloodstains so realy it didnt change much from PvPing on the land
3- There be less PvP in the ocean because if your gonna have a penalty either way you may aswell stay round the more target rich enviroment of the land than the ocean where players are usualy far between espeicaly with the size of the ocean.
Tbh they main reason they made ocean open PvP is to allow more value/return for crossing it and participating in the ocean, deep sea fishing in the ocean will now yield more gold then land counterpart. Regionalise resources will make taking those resources over the ocean more profitable due to the added risk.
I guarantee end game crafting is gonna require items unique to both continents and atleast 1 smaller island so you will either need to transport these mats back to your island or buy them on your continent for higher price. This will allow for the merchant type players to thrive who have no issues buying resources from east continent and risk traveling them across the ocean to sell for a profit on the east continent. Now yes this would come under a caravan run/system for pvp flagging but people can just carry inventory loads to bypass this and this change now changes that so there always a larger risk to transporting goods across the ocean. tbh this change adds more content to the game for both pvp and merchant/traders type of players.
it also adds a social element to the game for people to try and band together for transporting goods and a place for mercenaries.
PvE players are less likely to be murdered to while farming if there more PvP players out in the ocean than running around there continents so there also that tbh :P
Griefing different for everyone, For me im similiar to you in what griefing is, Killing somone and moving on to me is not griefing its pvp, now camping them thats griefing. However killing players in an area to deny resources is PvP and not griefing either you want those resources or you dont want an opponent to have it and so on.
but for PvE players any kinda of inconvience is griefing.
For me i general killed somone once and leave them alone after that unless they attack me. Unless there a goal like in Crowfall there was an objective to kill gryphons for a win condition and i killed everyone who tried to kill them because i needed the item for guild win condition for a campaign it got to the point for that season i had entire guild kill squads going after me in there zone the moment i killed one of them :P and all i was doing was playing the onjectives of that season
I am thankful this is in the game.
Our takes are usually opposite. But it's cool. You're a shit stirrer. I like that. lol shit be cracking me up