DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 8
I think I already answered that.
We don't need to agree on the usages we prefer.
If it's a player who typically plays Arena on PvE servers because they don't enjoy non-consensual PvP - it doesn't really matter whether we call them a PvPer or a PvEer - that player most likely will not be playting Ashes because they don't like to play MMORPGs on PvP servers or PvP-Optional servers.
So, they are basically going to be in the same category as players who play on PvE-Only servers - even if they sometimes like to PvP.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
If you want to come up with a label for players who like consensual PvP sometimes but hate non-consensual PvP - go for it.
I don't like the NW toggle system.
And having separate servers is like a permanent toggle you choose when you make a character. Is somewhat better but I still have doubts about that. Not from player base size but from developers ability to stay true to the PvP side of game while the majority of players might be on the PvE side.
I prefer some players who would go to PvE servers to actually try to play and become PvX players.
And some to not come at all.
Of course, you don't like the NW toggle system. Why did you think needed to tell me that?
Will it be logarithmic or exponential?
Logarithmic means the added corruption becomes smaller with each additional kill.
I’m hoping logarithmic. That curve accelerates faster than a linear scale, but begins to flatten out at some threshold - it could be 100 kills or 10, but at some point there’s a diminishing return on punishment. Particularly if you need to pay it down.
Will it be logarithmic or exponential?
Logarithmic means the added corruption becomes smaller with each additional kill.
I’m hoping logarithmic. That curve accelerates faster than a linear scale, but begins to flatten out at some threshold - it could be 100 kills or 10, but at some point there’s a diminishing return on punishment. Particularly if you need to pay it down.
I am not against a logarithmic curve but I always assumed wiki implies an exponential one and staying red long time will not be possible. But if being red brings risk, and risk is a core pillar, maybe those reds will ensure bounty hunters are always busy.
I think I already answered that.
We don't need to agree on the usages we prefer.
If it's a player who typically plays Arena on PvE servers because they don't enjoy non-consensual PvP - it doesn't really matter whether we call them a PvPer or a PvEer - that player most likely will not be playting Ashes because they don't like to play MMORPGs on PvP servers or PvP-Optional servers.
So, they are basically going to be in the same category as players who play on PvE-Only servers - even if they sometimes like to PvP.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
If you want to come up with a label for players who like consensual PvP sometimes but hate non-consensual PvP - go for it.
well, you have a good point there. someone who likes arena and pvp events but doesnt like open world pvp probably wont play ashes because of their experience in wow just getting killed left and right in ow pvp...unless we had something like a penalty of some sort, or deterrent or just consequences when you kill someone in open world pvp...hmm i wonder if ashes had that? i mean ther ewasnt any consequence for killing someone of the opposing faction in wow...maybe ahses should have some deterrent...
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 9
It's not really even about being killed.
Rather it's about wanting to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't.
Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat.
Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals.
It's not really even about being killed.
Rather it's about want to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't.
Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat.
Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals.
Ashes has The Open Seas. With no deterrents.
does it bother you if you want to farm a mob to finish a quest, but there are people killing the mob and you cant finish your quest? do you feel like you don't have control because some random gamers wont let you finish your quest? in pve servers I mean.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 9
Nope. I play hardcore hours, so I can usually complete that kind of quest fairly quickly when there is low server population. On PvE servers, other players cannot disrupt my play session goals.
That only ever occurs with non-consensual PvP.
Nope. I play hardcore hours, so I can usually complete that kind of quest fairly quickly when there is low server population. On PvE servers, other players cannot disrupt my play session goals.
That only ever occurs with non-consensual PvP.
well, I envy you, because when I've played games with no open world PVP (combat) I used to rage pretty often because of people farming where I am, etc. and that's back then when I used to play 10-15 hours a day...i rather finish something in 30 mins than in 1 or 2 hours, even if I play all day.
I've always found that other players disrupt my play session and I cant just kill them (no owpvp). if anything, best I can do is mob drop them xD but some of them also try to do that to me >_>
I've always found that other players disrupt my play session and I cant just kill them (no owpvp). if anything, best I can do is mob drop them xD but some of them also try to do that to me >_>
Yep, I had the same feeling when I tried wow. Couldn't stand that someone else was taking mobs near me and I couldn't do shit about it.
I categorize by the server type the player plays on - so, for me, PvP players who play on PvE servers in WoW because they don't like "Open World PvP" would be PvEers.
Agreed for the sake of discussion.
Would the PvEers out there be opposed to PvPers receiving a small (but not insignificant) buff to exp gained in return for perma-flagging?
Personally I'd be willing to perma flag, or at least play under firmer flagging rules, as long as the game rewards / compensates for it.
I'd also argue that me perma-flagging makes non-consensual PvP less likely for PvEers.
EDIT: to add to this, ideally corruption would still be incurred when killing combatants that are significantly lower in level.
I've always found that other players disrupt my play session and I cant just kill them (no owpvp). if anything, best I can do is mob drop them xD but some of them also try to do that to me >_>
Yep, I had the same feeling when I tried wow. Couldn't stand that someone else was taking mobs near me and I couldn't do shit about it.
Yeah I can't even imagine this gameplay. I'd have quit decades ago.
These are games that revolve around combat; in general the most consequential choice you make for your character is class (primary archetype) which is all about combat.
The story, lore, environment etc is also all centred around conflict (factions/nodes/religions/resources etc etc)
Then, you are standing next to your "sworn enemy".. and all you can do is engage in /emote warfare.
It's not really even about being killed.
Rather it's about want to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't.
Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat.
Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals.
Ashes has The Open Seas. With no deterrents.
does it bother you if you want to farm a mob to finish a quest, but there are people killing the mob and you cant finish your quest? do you feel like you don't have control because some random gamers wont let you finish your quest? in pve servers I mean.
That's called 'bad quest design' though.
It applies both ways, I've brought this up to them recently.
That Minotaur Stormcaller thing is set up to be miserable in ANY game.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
well, I envy you, because when I've played games with no open world PVP (combat) I used to rage pretty often because of people farming where I am, etc. and that's back then when I used to play 10-15 hours a day...i rather finish something in 30 mins than in 1 or 2 hours, even if I play all day.
I've always found that other players disrupt my play session and I cant just kill them (no owpvp). if anything, best I can do is mob drop them xD but some of them also try to do that to me >_>
I am a commie/hippie non-competitive Carebear.
My bartle score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
Which means I am also highly social.
So, sharing farm spots with other players is always welcome.
I imagine the opposite is true for competitive gamers who enjoy defeating and killing other gamers.
Yes.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yeah I can't even imagine this gameplay. I'd have quit decades ago.
These are games that revolve around combat; in general the most consequential choice you make for your character is class (primary archetype) which is all about combat.
The story, lore, environment etc is also all centred around conflict (factions/nodes/religions/resources etc etc)
Then, you are standing next to your "sworn enemy".. and all you can do is engage in /emote warfare.
In RPGs -including MMORPGs- my Class choices will revolve around movement, Stealth and/or Healing; not combat.
RPG Classes are not really intended to be all about combat.
That MMORPGs rely so heavily on combat is a detriment to the RPG aspect of MMO RPG.
So instead of tripling-down on Class (Primary Archetype) being all about combat - as tech improves, MMORPG Classes should provide more Skills and abilities that are non-combat.
Seems like project Ghost by Fantastic Pixel Castle is heading in that direction.
And I expect to be playing that most of the time - if it releases.
Also because I am a commie/hippie non-competitive Carebear, I'm unlikely to have "sworn enemy" - especially not another player.
Yeah I can't even imagine this gameplay. I'd have quit decades ago.
These are games that revolve around combat; in general the most consequential choice you make for your character is class (primary archetype) which is all about combat.
The story, lore, environment etc is also all centred around conflict (factions/nodes/religions/resources etc etc)
Then, you are standing next to your "sworn enemy".. and all you can do is engage in /emote warfare.
That MMORPGs rely so heavily on combat is a detriment to the RPG aspect of MMO RPG.
RPG classes are not really intended to be all about combat.
So instead of tripling-down on Class (Primary Archetype) being all about combat - as tech improves, MMORPG classes should provide more Skills and abilities that are non-combat.
Seems like project Ghost by Fantastic Pixel Castle is heading in that direction.
And I expect to be playing that most of the time - if it releases.
Also because I am a commie/hippie non-competitive Carebear, I'm unlikely to have "sworn enemy" - especially not another player.
Niche opinions/dreams aside a sec, you have to admit that until now that is generally the case. Class selection (IE combat abilities) are core.
The example of WoW was given earlier; a game literally called World of Warcraft, players split into two warring factions.. and you can't attack the enemy stood next to you (on a PvE server)... is totally absurd.
and you can't attack the enemy stood next to you (on a PvE server)... is totally absurd.
Oh, and just to make it clear, I wasn't talking about pve servers or enemies. I was annoyed that another dude being of my faction was preventing me from removing him from the location. This is why I always disliked faction-based games.
I would never under any circumstances perma-flag for PvP combat.
Yeah thanks for clearing that up.
I'm obviously talking about PvPers having the option to perma flag and being incentivised to do so, via say a buff to exp gained
and you can't attack the enemy stood next to you (on a PvE server)... is totally absurd.
Oh, and just to make it clear, I wasn't talking about pve servers or enemies. I was annoyed that another dude being of my faction was preventing me from removing him from the location. This is why I always disliked faction-based games.
Ah fair. Misunderstood. I hate that too. But at least it's not quite as absurd as being unable to attack an enemy faction (or node/whatever).
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm obviously talking about PvPers having the option to perma flag and being incentivised to do so, via say a buff to exp gained
LMAO
Not as obvious as you think. I had to read that 5+ times to finally figure out what you meant.
I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.
I'm also not sure why I would have any interest in playing an MMORPG that is so PvP-centric that it's giving bonuses for flagging for PvP combat.
I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.
It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!
I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)
Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?
It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!
I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)
Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?
A. I can imagine it would make the types of groups (people similar to me) that overlap with PvEr's who are less benevolent than I to push the larger PvE community to 'flag always on to optimize XP' while not giving any real incentive to the more hardcore PvE onlies to actually engage.
B. As a PvP enjoyer exp doesn't effect me. The whole point of PvEvP 'open flagging' to me is so that we can properly contest hunting grounds.
I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.
It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!
I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)
Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?
A. It depends on the multiplier, doesn't it? I'm not opposed to the idea, but it's very easy to come up with a number that leads to PvE becoming a second class citizen unless other compensation is provided.
B. If you mean flag at all times forever from account creation, I wouldn't do it. Some days I just want to go pick some herbs undisturbed and would find it really annoying to have to be subjected at all times to it, in a game that *claims* to be PvX. If you're locked in to flagging permanently I would just play something else more clearly designed to be PvP only.
Grilled cheese always tastes better when you eat it together!
It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!
You're actually attempting to satisfy a half-acknowledged personal need by having people reassure you we will all want the same thing so it's ok for you to get invested into Ashes.
Ah sorry, this one wasn't a question, I gotta kick that habit.
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?
As a PvP enjoyer (yes I know it's all hip and cool on these forums to pretend people are one or the other lol) I would find this system insulting on multiple levels. I would probably dismiss such a game as bad and never even give it a fair chance because the people who could make such a system fair are maybe like 5 in the entire world IMO. Like above, hit me up if you want me to break it down.
Bow before the Emperor and your lives shall be spared. Refuse to bow and your lives shall be speared.
I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.
It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!
I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)
Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?
A: I don't think that I understand what the XP bonus would be meant to accomplish. I guess incentivizing a larger population of the playerbase to remain flagged, so that PvP players are more likely to be able to find someone to fight? I don't think I'd object to it if the XP bonus was relatively small.
B: I wouldn't consider doing this, bonus XP isn't worth being unable to do PvE content undisturbed when I want to. If I wanted that kind of experience, I'd play a MOBA or fighting game instead.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!
I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)
You are being very constructive. No worries, there.
PvP is not the foundation of RPGs. That is trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.
Which is why PvPers typically find a great deal of dissatisfaction with PvP design in MMORPGs.
Always-on PvP is going to be pretty niche for RPGs - MMORPGs included.
If the suggested mechanic does not negate the non-consensual PvP in The Open Seas, it's mostly moot.
And very possibly unnecessary if the Corruption-free Open Seas did not exist and Corruption worked as intended.
Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?
I would not play an MMORPG that is so PvP-centric that PvPers gain a bonus for perma-flagging for PvP unless I could perma-flag PvE and always ignore PvP combat - like I do in New World.
Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?
What's the point? The goal seems to be giving the PvP players an advantage over PvE players in PvE progression for... being PvP players? What does a PvE player get out of this, or is it just a strict disadvantage? I don't really like the idea of "flag up or lose out", personally.
I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.
It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!
I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)
Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?
A. It depends on the multiplier, doesn't it? I'm not opposed to the idea, but it's very easy to come up with a number that leads to PvE becoming a second class citizen unless other compensation is provided.
B. If you mean flag at all times forever from account creation, I wouldn't do it. Some days I just want to go pick some herbs undisturbed and would find it really annoying to have to be subjected at all times to it, in a game that *claims* to be PvX. If you're locked in to flagging permanently I would just play something else more clearly designed to be PvP only.
A: it does def depend on the multiplier. I guess the reason I've gone with an exp gain specifically is to offset for the increased downtime that comes with PvP, exp loss from deaths etc. Seems to me like a reasonable balance could be found that could give everyone what they want.
B: yeah fair. Those details could be debated though. IE: a toggle that can be set in town / your home node etc.
Comments
We don't need to agree on the usages we prefer.
If it's a player who typically plays Arena on PvE servers because they don't enjoy non-consensual PvP - it doesn't really matter whether we call them a PvPer or a PvEer - that player most likely will not be playting Ashes because they don't like to play MMORPGs on PvP servers or PvP-Optional servers.
So, they are basically going to be in the same category as players who play on PvE-Only servers - even if they sometimes like to PvP.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
If you want to come up with a label for players who like consensual PvP sometimes but hate non-consensual PvP - go for it.
I’m hoping logarithmic. That curve accelerates faster than a linear scale, but begins to flatten out at some threshold - it could be 100 kills or 10, but at some point there’s a diminishing return on punishment. Particularly if you need to pay it down.
well, you have a good point there. someone who likes arena and pvp events but doesnt like open world pvp probably wont play ashes because of their experience in wow just getting killed left and right in ow pvp...unless we had something like a penalty of some sort, or deterrent or just consequences when you kill someone in open world pvp...hmm i wonder if ashes had that? i mean ther ewasnt any consequence for killing someone of the opposing faction in wow...maybe ahses should have some deterrent...
Rather it's about wanting to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't.
Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat.
Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals.
Ashes has The Open Seas. With no deterrents.
does it bother you if you want to farm a mob to finish a quest, but there are people killing the mob and you cant finish your quest? do you feel like you don't have control because some random gamers wont let you finish your quest? in pve servers I mean.
That only ever occurs with non-consensual PvP.
well, I envy you, because when I've played games with no open world PVP (combat) I used to rage pretty often because of people farming where I am, etc. and that's back then when I used to play 10-15 hours a day...i rather finish something in 30 mins than in 1 or 2 hours, even if I play all day.
I've always found that other players disrupt my play session and I cant just kill them (no owpvp). if anything, best I can do is mob drop them xD but some of them also try to do that to me >_>
Would the PvEers out there be opposed to PvPers receiving a small (but not insignificant) buff to exp gained in return for perma-flagging?
Personally I'd be willing to perma flag, or at least play under firmer flagging rules, as long as the game rewards / compensates for it.
I'd also argue that me perma-flagging makes non-consensual PvP less likely for PvEers.
EDIT: to add to this, ideally corruption would still be incurred when killing combatants that are significantly lower in level.
Yeah I can't even imagine this gameplay. I'd have quit decades ago.
These are games that revolve around combat; in general the most consequential choice you make for your character is class (primary archetype) which is all about combat.
The story, lore, environment etc is also all centred around conflict (factions/nodes/religions/resources etc etc)
Then, you are standing next to your "sworn enemy".. and all you can do is engage in /emote warfare.
Ridiculous. Totally beyond immersion-breaking. Game-breaking IMO.
That's called 'bad quest design' though.
It applies both ways, I've brought this up to them recently.
That Minotaur Stormcaller thing is set up to be miserable in ANY game.
My bartle score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
Which means I am also highly social.
So, sharing farm spots with other players is always welcome.
I imagine the opposite is true for competitive gamers who enjoy defeating and killing other gamers.
Yes.
RPG Classes are not really intended to be all about combat.
That MMORPGs rely so heavily on combat is a detriment to the RPG aspect of MMO RPG.
So instead of tripling-down on Class (Primary Archetype) being all about combat - as tech improves, MMORPG Classes should provide more Skills and abilities that are non-combat.
Seems like project Ghost by Fantastic Pixel Castle is heading in that direction.
And I expect to be playing that most of the time - if it releases.
Also because I am a commie/hippie non-competitive Carebear, I'm unlikely to have "sworn enemy" - especially not another player.
Niche opinions/dreams aside a sec, you have to admit that until now that is generally the case. Class selection (IE combat abilities) are core.
The example of WoW was given earlier; a game literally called World of Warcraft, players split into two warring factions.. and you can't attack the enemy stood next to you (on a PvE server)... is totally absurd.
Btw @Dygz, intrigued as to your thoughts on this suggestion. And any other PvEers out there.
Also, fellow PvPers, would you take such a deal?
Yeah thanks for clearing that up.
I'm obviously talking about PvPers having the option to perma flag and being incentivised to do so, via say a buff to exp gained
Ah fair. Misunderstood. I hate that too. But at least it's not quite as absurd as being unable to attack an enemy faction (or node/whatever).
Not as obvious as you think. I had to read that 5+ times to finally figure out what you meant.
I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.
I'm also not sure why I would have any interest in playing an MMORPG that is so PvP-centric that it's giving bonuses for flagging for PvP combat.
Pretty clear no?
It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!
I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)
Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?
A. I can imagine it would make the types of groups (people similar to me) that overlap with PvEr's who are less benevolent than I to push the larger PvE community to 'flag always on to optimize XP' while not giving any real incentive to the more hardcore PvE onlies to actually engage.
B. As a PvP enjoyer exp doesn't effect me. The whole point of PvEvP 'open flagging' to me is so that we can properly contest hunting grounds.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
A. It depends on the multiplier, doesn't it? I'm not opposed to the idea, but it's very easy to come up with a number that leads to PvE becoming a second class citizen unless other compensation is provided.
B. If you mean flag at all times forever from account creation, I wouldn't do it. Some days I just want to go pick some herbs undisturbed and would find it really annoying to have to be subjected at all times to it, in a game that *claims* to be PvX. If you're locked in to flagging permanently I would just play something else more clearly designed to be PvP only.
It's terrible design on multiple levels, so yes I am opposed. Let me know if you would like me to break down the whys.
You're actually attempting to satisfy a half-acknowledged personal need by having people reassure you we will all want the same thing so it's ok for you to get invested into Ashes.
Ah sorry, this one wasn't a question, I gotta kick that habit.
Ah, I believe I already answered above.
As a PvP enjoyer (yes I know it's all hip and cool on these forums to pretend people are one or the other lol) I would find this system insulting on multiple levels. I would probably dismiss such a game as bad and never even give it a fair chance because the people who could make such a system fair are maybe like 5 in the entire world IMO. Like above, hit me up if you want me to break it down.
A: I don't think that I understand what the XP bonus would be meant to accomplish. I guess incentivizing a larger population of the playerbase to remain flagged, so that PvP players are more likely to be able to find someone to fight? I don't think I'd object to it if the XP bonus was relatively small.
B: I wouldn't consider doing this, bonus XP isn't worth being unable to do PvE content undisturbed when I want to. If I wanted that kind of experience, I'd play a MOBA or fighting game instead.
No worries.
You are being very constructive. No worries, there.
PvP is not the foundation of RPGs. That is trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.
Which is why PvPers typically find a great deal of dissatisfaction with PvP design in MMORPGs.
Always-on PvP is going to be pretty niche for RPGs - MMORPGs included.
If the suggested mechanic does not negate the non-consensual PvP in The Open Seas, it's mostly moot.
And very possibly unnecessary if the Corruption-free Open Seas did not exist and Corruption worked as intended.
I would not play an MMORPG that is so PvP-centric that PvPers gain a bonus for perma-flagging for PvP unless I could perma-flag PvE and always ignore PvP combat - like I do in New World.
What's the point? The goal seems to be giving the PvP players an advantage over PvE players in PvE progression for... being PvP players? What does a PvE player get out of this, or is it just a strict disadvantage? I don't really like the idea of "flag up or lose out", personally.
Reasonable, similar to @JustVine's point above.
A: it does def depend on the multiplier. I guess the reason I've gone with an exp gain specifically is to offset for the increased downtime that comes with PvP, exp loss from deaths etc. Seems to me like a reasonable balance could be found that could give everyone what they want.
B: yeah fair. Those details could be debated though. IE: a toggle that can be set in town / your home node etc.