Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Explanation of open seas pvp auto-flag
DarkTides
Member
Initially, it appeared as though players would be running around as non-combatants, with the exception of triggered opt-in PVP events, such as caravan escorts and node sieges. Then we have the corruption system to penalize players who decided to plant the face of others in the dirt, outside of those events.
That, if untouched, would result in too many non-combatants running amuck, able to influence PVP outcomes without any means of recourse.
Following live streams, and much discussion, it has become apparent that, unless nodes decide to develop friendly relations towards one another, there will certainly be additional PVP enabling systems, that interact with affiliations, to provide much needed "risk" to offset the well-fed, over achieving, and under-challenged PVE only players.
How does this relate to open seas pvp, and why is it auto-flag?
With the lack of nearby nodes in the open seas to establish PVP rulesets, and thus the lack of "risk" for PVE players; the severity of corruption penalties would be too great to bring balance, and therefore open seas PVP enabled combat is required. If not, the further from nodes you are, the less risk you would encounter, where the goal would be the opposite.
Discuss.
That, if untouched, would result in too many non-combatants running amuck, able to influence PVP outcomes without any means of recourse.
Following live streams, and much discussion, it has become apparent that, unless nodes decide to develop friendly relations towards one another, there will certainly be additional PVP enabling systems, that interact with affiliations, to provide much needed "risk" to offset the well-fed, over achieving, and under-challenged PVE only players.
How does this relate to open seas pvp, and why is it auto-flag?
With the lack of nearby nodes in the open seas to establish PVP rulesets, and thus the lack of "risk" for PVE players; the severity of corruption penalties would be too great to bring balance, and therefore open seas PVP enabled combat is required. If not, the further from nodes you are, the less risk you would encounter, where the goal would be the opposite.
Discuss.
1
Comments
In this reply I will address just the Corruption system
I don't think the Corruption system will be a thing and I don't think we will see a lot of corrupted players. Just to begin with it's not even because the debuffs the corrupted will suffer, it's just that AoC has barely no loot and on top of it there's debuffs. So the green targets will be cherry picked, people will kill the most toxic green carebears and pve griefers and that's about it. People will kill greens when things get too personal and nobody will be doing a killing spree of greens.
Intrepid is pretty much fear mongering and creating prejudice because how the Corruption system is advertised, as if it was the plank of salvation for all the "good" people against the "evil" people. From the bottom of my heart, I hope the PvE griefing in AoC becomes the most toxic and alarming as possible while having the Corruption system as shelter, because this will bright light on the problem of rampant PvE griefing among all games.
I think there will be barely no corrupted players in AoC and advertising this system as "anti griefing" is just misinformation and paranoia.
We won't see a red horde, but maybe we will see a green horde and I will root for the green horde for it to be impossible to deal with and the most toxic group among all games, I hope it creates such an outcry that people will finally understand the matter
Sounds amazing and I am greatly interested in this.
This is just sensible and there will be ship destruction too, so having a crew of competent and fight able seamen will be a thing in AoC.
I believe that PvE carebears who want no risk in any game will go to the seas too and will take risks, then they will fail and then they will understand the importance of having PvP friends who can fight.
The seas will be an interesting melting pot where people will finally learn why we play MMOs, its for working together with people against other people.
For sure the seas won't be toxic because of it and will be super fun
For sure the AoC experience at the seas will be very different than the AoC experience at the woods or dungeons
There's only griefing if the guy has a wall of game mechanics and systems protecting him while he can hurt others in many ways, when there's open PvP there's a fight and the guy spawns far away and they won't see each other so soon if the spawns are done correctly
My post was intended to outline what I believe we will see in the future, and why they decided to have open seas flagged for PVP. I do not believe we have to worry about griefing from either PVP or PVE with current ruleset and upcoming and not blatantly said, though apparent rulesets.
So, I disagree with this as a premise.
However, I agree with the notion that the ocean should be free from the corruption system (I always assumed it would be). Steven clearly wants to create Archeages naval content in Ashes, and that would require it be free from corruption.
The reason I disagree with you above is basically because it makes no real sense. It is assuming far too many things would happen far too often to be a viable conclusion.
The only way non-combatants can influence PvP is if that PvP is against corrupt players. The o ly way players can gain corruption is if they fight and kill someone that doesnt fight back.
Since rewards in ocean content are said to be better than land based content, people will fight back in order to preserve what they have.
As such, fewer people will gain corruption in the ocean (assuming it was tired of on). This in turn is obviouy meaning the number of times a group of non-combatant comes across a group if corrupt players that they are able to kill while out in the ocean will be significantly less, due purely to the fact that more PvP would be contested than it will be on land where the rewards (and thus motivation to fight back) will be less.
As such, your comments of non-combatants running amuck just doesn't ring true to me.
If corruption were enabled in the ocean, the only people that wouldn't fight back are the few people out there like Dygz - everyone else would fight back.
And truth be told, if you are attacking someone that is clearly just out exploring, you deserve corruption and all that it entails.
I didn't thought much on this but makes sense.
Do you think the wish to offer better rewards is the main cause of the change?
To me it feels that the map will be more interesting, having two continents with a more dangerous hard to cross area inbetween.
But, yes, also Steven probably wants the Open Seas to feel similar to ArcheAge.
If you increase the risk, you have to increase the reward - just as if you increase the reward you have to increase the risk. The above statement requires both to be true, yet it doesnt say which one is the case in any given situation.
Since we have literally no reward structure in place for Ashes as yet (there wont be even a single item finalized), it seems a bit too early to say that the rewards for ocean content dictate it be PvP.
However, it is perfectly viable to say that they want the ocean to be PvP, and so when they get around to creating the rewards, they will factor that PvP in, making them better.
So, since Ashes isnt exactly trying to be original as an MMORPG, my assumptiong is still that the idea is to copy Archeages ocean content, and the rewards will just be what they need to be.
Slightly hypocritical post.
It sounds like you believe that crafting, along with resource acquisition, which is required to advance nodes or develop siege equipment and gear up allies, as an indirect contribution to achieving victory conditions, has no impact on PVP, although I'm sure that can't be so.
Would you please confirm whether you think that direct PVP is the only way to influence PVP outcomes, thanks.
Literally no idea at all.
To answer your question though, yes, I do believe aspects such as crafting, the economy, PvE progression and social aspects of the game will and should have an impact on PvP outcomes.
My reply to you was based on the assumption that you were talking about such players influencing things in an untoward manner - but you are now suggesting they are participating in the game in literally the manner in which the game is designed for them to participate.
The question I then have for you is - why is your OP now coming across as if you think this is a bad thing? If non-combatants are running amuck influencing PvP outcomes via crafting gear, or via offering support, why are you suggesting that is a bad thing? Why are these people "running amuck" rather than "participating in the game as it was intended"?
No idea at all eh?
I think you are skimming over a lot of what was written, such as when I specifically said with no recourse. You think that's normal? Fund a group of players against another and those players cant touch you? That's equivalent to something called "immortal healing".
If nobody quotes the guy I dont even notice he insisting in messing up the discussions just with poor logic and ill intent. His logic is odd and disturbbing, I'm not sure what kind of person we are dealing here.
For sure PvE activities will directly influence PvP, because the PvE will bring better economical outcomes for everybody around it and gear availability, this works in all games.
In AoC there's the forced slavery through upgrading the node too that can put your guild on top of others by having better conditions in the node.
I liked the seas a lot because everybody is flagged for PvP and we will have an adventure there.
Yeah, that sounds like bad game design.
What game is it from?
Because it sure isn't Ashes.
Lets say you have a crafter that literally never leaves their freehold. They are indirectly influencing your enemies via supplying them with gear, and you can't attack them directly because you can't attack people on their own freehold.
So, what you do is you prevent them from getting materials.
They are attacking you indirectly, you attack them indirectly.
I literally don't see your point here at all - unless your point is that some players may be able to indirectly influence things and you only want to retaliate in a direct manner. However, what you have now is a topic that is completely and totally removed from the title of the thread.
Even if this is what you are saying, directly attacking that player would be of no point to you. You kill them, they die, they go back to their freehold where all their materials are stored and just craft harder. In order to attack them in any meaningful way, your only option is to cut their supplies or their services. Nothing else will stop them.
My original reply to you was keeping within the scope of the change to oceans (which imo wasn't a change - just a clarification). If you want a discussion as to the scope of the over all game and when the corruption system is and is not in operation, the title of the thread needs to be changed.
I realize you don't see my point, and it sounds like you don't understand most points that people make. Get angrier next time, please, and make 20k comments. Super Saiyan those comments up.
Who's angry?
You asked for discussion, I am discussing.
If I have taken the wrong thing from your OP, or any subsequent post, clarify.
Your OP inferred that without the current understanding for ocean combat, non-combatants would be running amuck, influencing PvP outcomes. You then subsequently stated that you may have been talking about crafters (you didn't say you were talking about them, you hinted that you might be).
What I don't see is how crafters crafting gear and handing it to PvP players would in any way be impacted by the current understanding of ocean content. Nor do I see how crafters crafting gear for PvP players to use in PvP is anything other than how the game is designed to be played.
So sure, perhaps I am not understanding your points - but that is because your points are not overly clear. They are DEFINATELY not concisely stated in the OP.
Clarification is always welcome.
Must...have....more....comments....must....reply...to....every..thing
So... you don't want discussion now?
Despite being able to reply as I have thus far, I do not have time to search through hours of videos and read over wiki's, combine everything together to paint a picture (oh and link it all for you on a silver platter). If you did not hear Steven mention risk in the open seas, as Dygz pointed out, then I would point you in that general direction.
We know nothing of that. The only thing we know is just a vague justification of why the open seas have suddenly become always-on pvp. Having seen the uncontested farm of the AA's Kraken, I sure as hell hope that's not the type of content Steven considers "rewarding".
And if open seas' bosses require always-on pvp to justify their rewards, I'd assume land-based bosses in dungeons will also have pvp zones around them, cause it'd be a bad design to have high rewards in the seas with huge risks linked to them, but then have huuuge risk of PKing around land bosses w/o the same lvl of rewards. And if the rewards on land are the same as the seas' one, then why da hell one has a pvp zone for it while the other doesn't.
There's ship loss too, ammo consuption and repairs, makes sense being rewarding enough so you can replace lost ships
Rather, it's better to talk about your understanding. If there are aspects with how you think things will be in the game that I disagree with, that is when we can start discussing specifics of those things.
As it stands right now though, I have no real idea how you think the things we are talking about will go.
I still dont even know who these players you talk about in the OP that are running amuck actually even are.
The clarification I asked for in my previous posts is about your thoughts, bot about sources or anything (I make a point of not linking sources, people can look things up themselves - as such, I dont expect or require it from others unless they are saying something outlandish).
I mean, if all you want to do is discuss the last paragraph if your OP, I can still find a few things in there that I disagree with.
The penalty of corruption is associated with being killed while corrupt. It isnt all that much of a penalty if you do not die.
In order to be killed while corrupt, you need other players to attack you. This means that the area you are in realistically needs to have a fairly dense player population. If players are sparse, there simply wont be people around to attack you, and thus you can work off any corruption gains in relative peace.
You likely dont even need to worry about the people you just killed. Respawns around the ocean are likely to be few and far between. It is most likely that players killed in the open ocean will spawn at the nearest harbor. If you do kill someone and gain corruption, in order for them to retaliate, they need to resummon a ship (probably not their best ship, as you just destroyed it and it likely needs to be repaired). Then they need to sail across the ocean back to where you killed them. This is plenty of time for you to go elsewhere to work off your corruption - and indeed it may even be long enough to work it off.
As such, if corruption were present in the open ocean, it would be significantly less effective than it will be on land. This is why I always assumed the ocean would be free from the corruption system - it just wouldn't make sense to have it there, as it would be nearly effectiveless - the exact opposite of your assumption that it would be to harsh.
Great addition to the discussion.
Just adds to my theory that people asking for discussion on forums are actually only really after validation of their ideas. They only want people to agree with them - they aren't interested in actual discussion at all.
You can't have a proper conversation with someone who ignores what people have said, selectively chooses to only engage in one thing and, in doing so, takes it out of context to actually give them some small piece of ground to stand on. You believe people can't engage in discussion and need a safe space, but it's the way you engage in the discussion that is the issue. When caught, you put your own spin on it to try and save your internet ego. Seems like you do this a lot.
I'm not the only person that sees what you're doing. You either do it intentionally or there's another reason.
In either case, the foundation of our beliefs is completely different, which results in opposing design philosophy. We could go into our gaming histories to find out why that is, but that's not what this post is about.
The thing with discussion is that before it can happen, both sides need to understand each others baseline perspective.
This requires a reasonable amount of back and forth - and is what I have been trying to do here. The further apart the initial baseline of each person in the discussion, thenlonger this process will take.
If you and I attempt to have a discussion where we have not come to an understanding of each others baseline, then that conversation wont be of much use to anyone.
What many people on these forums do is just assume that they have given enough information in their OP, and blatantly refuse to answer questions or clarify things so that people that are coming in to the discussion from a different perspective can establish that baseline, and thus can then begin to participate in the discussion.
Basically, anyone not interested in clarifying themselves is proving that they are only interested in hearing opinions from people with the same baseline that they themselves have - literally only interested in hearing from people that share their opinion.
When I look at entering an actual discussion with someone that has a different perspective than I do, I will kot go in and attempt to discuss every nuance of what they are talking about to start. The first thing I will do is attempt to establish that baseline - and the easiest way to do that is to pick a statement that I blatantly disagree with, and attempt to discuss that (basically, starting off hu trying to talk about the biggest gaps in our perspectives).
If the person I am replying to wants actual discussion (and understands how to have discussion with people holding a different perspective), they will engage, clarify and discuss. Once that initial point has been cleared up, we then move on to other points. @NiKr is the best at this on these forums right now, and him and I have had a number of good discussions due to this.
Most poster though, they aren't good at it. What they do is they basically refuse to answer questions, refuse to clarify what they have said. They think that all the information anyone should need on their opinion has been provided, and simply dont understand that someone coming from a different perspective may want different information, or may take things differently than intended.
While refusing to engage in this pre-discussion, these people often accuse the person looking for clarification as not wanting to talk about the topic they want to talk about, they often post memes, and sometimes also subtly attack the person wanting to engage in that pre-discussion. Either thisnperson has literally never had a discussion with someone that has a different perspective to their own and thus doesnt know how to have that discussion, or they simply do not want to have it.
I'm not going to make assumptions as to which of the above is the case here, but one of them is.
What you often see me doing on these forums is attempting to get that process started, only to find the same attitude displayed in this thread. Generally, since that poster has demonstrated their unwillingness to actually have a discussion, I then just continue in that thread for my own amusement. You may take that as being any number of things, but if you actually look through my post history, you will see - without fail - a willingness to start discussion with others every time.