Why are pirates exempt from corruption?

Whats going to happen to the bounty hunter system, if most of the open world pvp takes place on the sea? Will bounty hunters have anyone to hunt? Does no corruption on the sea, turn the corruption system into partial corruption system?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

BHs would be a very weak system even w/o open sea pvp, because corruption is so punishing that it would already decrease the amount of PKers in the game to absolutely miniscule amounts.

Pirates are exempt because, allegedly, the rewards in the sea are so damn good that the risk for getting them is supposed to be the highest in the game. Though we have no damn clue what those rewards are.

We also don't know what'll be the extent of sea travel and overall gameplay, so it's difficult to say if the corruption system becomes "partial" or not.

If you can only enter open seas on a boat - the system would already be very different from anything corruption related, which would make somewhat of a sense to have its own risk/reward balancing system.

But if you can cross them on a mount or even just with your character, and especially if you can dive at any time to avoid majority of the combat - now that would definitely put an even bigger dent in Steven's decision to make seas a ffa pvp location.

Aszkalon

Krakhun wrote: »

Why are pirates exempt from corruption ?

They bribed the Gods (lol) - they said they share parts of their Loot with the Gods if they protect them from getting corrupted on the Sea's.

Kidding.

If this isn't already explained Lore-wise, maybe it will be in the Future. Or maybe Sir Steven and the remaining Developers will simply shrug their Shoulders and say because they don't want it to happen on the Oceans.

CROW3

Why are pirates exempt from corruption?

Me:

Mag7spy

So either this is a bad take and someone is suggesting most content takes place on the sea for wild reasons that don't make sense.

So the person acknowledges corruption will stop (corruption style) pvp and also wants pvp on sea around corruption to be reduced down closer to 0.

Eventually there comes to a point where if you need to accept AoC has PvP in the game. People keep forgetting corruption is the least amount pvp that will be happening in game and other types of pvp are going to be main points. So there is no reasoning why you will see more pvp on sea than on land unless you are purposely ignoring all other pvp except for corruption.

Dripyula

Pirates are imun to corruption cause they pray to Umberlee.

Why is PK'ing different in general when you attack a caravan?
It appears if you attack and kill players who defend one, than nothing happens to you?
Maybe I'm wrong but until now no one even ever said anything refuting back to me on that matter.

Even though lorewise it doesn't make sense. Not even gameplaywise.
You PK someone to steal his loot while he gathered something alone in the world. No matter how little.
If you assault a caravan you are doing the exact same thing and for bigger rewards even.
Yet... this is not seen as "PK'ing"?

Krakhun

Mag7spy wrote: »

So either this is a bad take and someone is suggesting most content takes place on the sea for wild reasons that don't make sense.

So the person acknowledges corruption will stop (corruption style) pvp and also wants pvp on sea around corruption to be reduced down closer to 0.

Eventually there comes to a point where if you need to accept AoC has PvP in the game. People keep forgetting corruption is the least amount pvp that will be happening in game and other types of pvp are going to be main points. So there is no reasoning why you will see more pvp on sea than on land unless you are purposely ignoring all other pvp except for corruption.

pvp is going to happen all over the world (and rightfully so, its an enjoyable part of the game). The corruption system is in place to just keep it from becoming a toxic element in the game. Which is why I am curious as to why the sea is exempt. NOT why is there pvp.

Krakhun

Let me try to explain myself better. The way I see it, we are going to have 3/4 of the world with little to no pvp, due to the corruption system, which is going to be much less exciting. Then we are going to have 1/4 of the world (the sea), were everyone who wants to pvp will go. Making that area a much bigger pain in the ass to do anything else in the area. I think we would be better off with no corruption system than a partial one. Then the pvp is spread out more evenly, and no one area is swamped with pvper's.
I think It needs to be all or nothing as far as the corruption system is concerned, this partial stuff is a bad idea. IMO

blat

Krakhun wrote: »

Let me try to explain myself better. The way I see it, we are going to have 3/4 of the world with little to no pvp, due to the corruption system, which is going to be much less exciting. Then we are going to have 1/4 of the world (the sea), were everyone who wants to pvp will go. Making that area a much bigger pain in the ass to do anything else in the area. I think we would be better off with no corruption system than a partial one. Then the pvp is spread out more evenly, and no one area is swamped with pvper's.
I think It needs to be all or nothing as far as the corruption system is concerned, this partial stuff is a bad idea. IMO

Well corruption is only punishing non-consensual PvP, but I do agree that there's a good chance of it being too much. It's very much a balance issue though (and a test to see if Intrepid can weather the inevitable whinging from those who primarily exist to whinge).

Personally I think an (incentivised) option to pre-flag would actually solve a lot of problems, including this one.

Mag7spy

Krakhun wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So either this is a bad take and someone is suggesting most content takes place on the sea for wild reasons that don't make sense.

So the person acknowledges corruption will stop (corruption style) pvp and also wants pvp on sea around corruption to be reduced down closer to 0.

Eventually there comes to a point where if you need to accept AoC has PvP in the game. People keep forgetting corruption is the least amount pvp that will be happening in game and other types of pvp are going to be main points. So there is no reasoning why you will see more pvp on sea than on land unless you are purposely ignoring all other pvp except for corruption.

pvp is going to happen all over the world (and rightfully so, its an enjoyable part of the game). The corruption system is in place to just keep it from becoming a toxic element in the game. Which is why I am curious as to why the sea is exempt. NOT why is there pvp.

Corruption is there to reduce the chaotic element of pvp, I'm unsure where you are getting this toxic angle from. You are going to get pvped plenty it just won't be around corruption but guild / node decs and pvp events through the world.

So I'd say you are missing the point of the pvp in general. The sea would have been a place where less pvp happened with less traffic, the sea if a different element of pvp and higher risk put back in, even if you see less general people around.

Overall its a different gameplay loops, looking at pvp reduction as "toxic" is really not the right way to look at things.

Hence you trying to suggest most pvp happens on the ocean which very well most likely won't be the case with the cost associated to it. If you die on the ocean and you are on a boat you need to repair the boat (which who knows the amount of mats that will cost) nor the frequency of it being worth to go out there constantly. Compared to if you were on land with a guild war up and constantly fighting people. One piece of content you will have most of a cost and set up, than being on land and just running back into the pvp.

Because you missed my point again im going to say this with the bold. There is more PvP than corruption PvP. Guild / node wars between nodes, and OW pvp events will carry more pvp than on the sea.

You trying to use corruption as the sole PvP is where you are missing the point. If that was the case i wouldn't call AoC a PvX game with corrupting being the only OWpvp.

IMO what makes a good game is having layers to it when it comes to PvP. That means you have different kinds of PVP with different rule sets. It helps make things less static and more interesting. IE Corruption pvp, guild / dec pvp, siege pvp, Full pvp (no corruption), ETC. It helps create a different sense of feeling around the world and gives people CONTENT to do involving pvp. Which is very important because that content is what keeps the game alive and interesting.

Imo its only a bad idea to people that don't want pvp. And won't accept different kinds of pvp types of content. Which again would lead toa issue of something being PvX but any kind of pvp is not considered and the only pvp you do is very restricted. Which again wouldn't be a a game with pvp content.

My question to you would be why are you against other kinds of pvp type of content?

Dygz

Dripyula wrote: »

Why is PK'ing different in general when you attack a caravan?
It appears if you attack and kill players who defend one, than nothing happens to you?
Maybe I'm wrong but until now no one even ever said anything refuting back to me on that matter.

Even though lorewise it doesn't make sense. Not even gameplaywise.
You PK someone to steal his loot while he gathered something alone in the world. No matter how little.
If you assault a caravan you are doing the exact same thing and for bigger rewards even.
Yet... this is not seen as "PK'ing"?

It’s not PKing because Caravan Defense/Attack is Purple/Combatant.
Half-Normal Death penalties.
Which incentivizes PvP combat.

Krakhun

@Mag7spy
Wow, you just twisted all my words.
1. I did not say pvp was toxic, I said the corruption system is there to prevent pvp from becoming toxic. What is "the chaotic element of pvp"?
2. If there is no corruption in the sea you will have far more pvp there than areas with the corruption system. Thats just common since.
3. I said "pvp is going to happen all over the world (and rightfully so, its an enjoyable part of the game)." meaning I am well aware there are multiple forms of pvp in the game, and I am looking forward to them. So I didn't "miss the point" I just wasn't talking about them. I am concerned about a partial corruption system that could be bad for the game.

blat

Mag7spy wrote: »

Corruption is there to reduce the chaotic element of pvp, I'm unsure where you are getting this toxic angle from. You are going to get pvped plenty it just won't be around corruption but guild / node decs and pvp events through the world.

So I'd say you are missing the point of the pvp in general. The sea would have been a place where less pvp happened with less traffic, the sea if a different element of pvp and higher risk put back in, even if you see less general people around.

Overall its a different gameplay loops, looking at pvp reduction as "toxic" is really not the right way to look at things.

Fairly sure this is an innocent misunderstanding.
@Krakhun's "toxic" line was just saying "The corruption system is in place to <deter griefing>", basically.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

Dripyula wrote: »

Why is PK'ing different in general when you attack a caravan?
It appears if you attack and kill players who defend one, than nothing happens to you?
Maybe I'm wrong but until now no one even ever said anything refuting back to me on that matter.

Even though lorewise it doesn't make sense. Not even gameplaywise.
You PK someone to steal his loot while he gathered something alone in the world. No matter how little.
If you assault a caravan you are doing the exact same thing and for bigger rewards even.
Yet... this is not seen as "PK'ing"?

It’s not PKing because Caravan Defense/Attack is Purple/Combatant.
Half-Normal Death penalties.
Which incentivizes PvP combat.

I think @Dygz is taking PKing to mean killing greens (punishable by corruption).
So yeah caravan PvP is not punishable by corruption.
The reason? I guess it's "just business" right, rather than the killing of innocents.

Mag7spy

Krakhun wrote: »

@Mag7spy
Wow, you just twisted all my words.
1. I did not say pvp was toxic, I said the corruption system is there to prevent pvp from becoming toxic. What is "the chaotic element of pvp"?
2. If there is no corruption in the sea you will have far more pvp there than areas with the corruption system. Thats just common since.
3. I said "pvp is going to happen all over the world (and rightfully so, its an enjoyable part of the game)." meaning I am well aware there are multiple forms of pvp in the game, and I am looking forward to them. So I didn't "miss the point" I just wasn't talking about them. I am concerned about a partial corruption system that could be bad for the game.

No words are twisted its just the truth and to the point.

1.

I know what you said and i can simply repeat PvP is PvP you can't judge some PvP is suddenly toxic. I will group Blat in this singe he chimed in and you liked your post. Griefing is subjective, so any element of pvp can be counted as toxic for someone. Hence you can broadly say pvp is toxic in general if you aren't getting your way. And the reason why this pvp toxic angle is trash.

Get the the point on your issue do not try to use pvp is toxic as a subjective statement that has no actual guidelines to reference and everyone can take it differently based on also 100 other different situations and types of pvp.

Chaotic element of pvp is more clear if you look at games like shadow bane for example with 0 pvp rule sets and you can kill as many people as you want. Compared to a game like Rift for example where you can only kill people of the other faction. The more rules in place prevent more elements of pvp.

Long story short on it, you reduce smaller smaller pvp engagements in favor of larger scale pvp Ie Node / Guild wars, OW pvp events, etc. Lsss smaller scale means less chaotic pvp of randomly being attacked as often, and knowing more so the dangers of what you are getting into more clearly.

2.

That isn't true and this is why I feel you understanding of different elements of pvp are not exactly strong, or if you have a lack of experience with it.

While it is true there is a higher chance to be attacked by people as it is free to attack, there are going to be generally less people around on the ocean. And people will be more cautious of others avoiding people in general (minus the ones that are actively trying to attack people of course).

The chance you run into someone and get pvped and killed means the loss of the boat, damage to your gear, and whatever else might happen. You don't just spawn back in your boat near in the area where you died, you would have to first off repair your boat (which can most likely be a significant cost based off the tidbits we hear). And then you need to head back off wherever you want to go in the ocean (however that content is going to work).

There is going to be clear gaps in that kind of journey out into the sea with a lot of down time.

NOW

If you are out at land in the middle f multiple node / guild wars trying to get resources or do some kind of content out there. And engaging in pvp your down time is going to be MUCH lower than the whole boat and sea process having you go back into the fight actively and killing or being killed. That is going to be a lot more pvp based around the loop compared to the open seas.

If your goal is to avoid all pvp avoiding guilds that are pvping or nodes that are pvping by leaving them as a citizen. Sure you can make the argument there is more pvp out on the sea with the few times you head out there before the cost slows you down from continuing. But if you are actively avoiding PvP than id say you are not playing AoC the way the general player would be playing it,.

3.

Sounds like no words were twisted again if anything you would be trying to twist the angle to fit your narrative. ALL PVP should be considered within context you can't just talk about corruption as use that as your example. Your point should be also includer guild / node wars between nodes and some element of a guess how it can function in effecting the amount of pvp in the game.

Saying sea has more pvp but you are going to ignore other elements of pvp and pick on the system meant to reduce chaotic elements of pvp is not really a honest take.

Open seas will have more of a threat no one is going to say it doesn't but it doesn't mean most pvp will happen out there. Even more so if those boat repair cost add up quite a bit (unless you decide to go out there with a really bad boat that is just a easy target with little defenses and weapons). Your boat might get destroyed a good amount of times out there but those 3-5 deaths are nothing compared to a guild war where someone dies like 15 times. Or even a caravan fight where its back and forth between people trying to steal it lol.

Mag7spy

Since this was missed ill ask it again

My question to you would be why are you against other kinds of pvp type of content?

To make it clear im asking this because you said its BAD

"I think It needs to be all or nothing as far as the corruption system is concerned, this partial stuff is a bad idea. IMO"

blat

Mag7spy wrote: »

I know what you said and i can simply repeat PvP is PvP you can't judge some PvP is suddenly toxic. I will group Blat in this singe he chimed in and you liked your post. Griefing is subjective, so any element of pvp can be counted as toxic for someone. Hence you can broadly say pvp is toxic in general if you aren't getting your way. And the reason why this pvp toxic angle is trash.

Nah this is bonkers.
Why not go one step further and label all gaming as toxic, just because someone out there subjectively experienced gameplay they consider to be toxic?

Yes there is an element of subjectivity to "toxic" here but the point itself is pretty simple and absurd to argue: he was saying corruption exists to deter toxic gameplay. That much is obvious.

How well it achieves that goal, we'll find out, but that is obviously the intent.

Mag7spy

blat wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I know what you said and i can simply repeat PvP is PvP you can't judge some PvP is suddenly toxic. I will group Blat in this singe he chimed in and you liked your post. Griefing is subjective, so any element of pvp can be counted as toxic for someone. Hence you can broadly say pvp is toxic in general if you aren't getting your way. And the reason why this pvp toxic angle is trash.

Nah this is bonkers.
Why not go one step further and label all gaming as toxic, just because someone out there subjectively experienced gameplay they consider to be toxic?

Yes there is an element of subjectivity to "toxic" here but the point itself is pretty simple and absurd to argue: he was saying corruption exists to deter toxic gameplay. That much is obvious.

How well it achieves that goal, we'll find out, but that is obviously the intent.

You are missing the point, but we can derail and go further on this if you want to argue this point.

In a game where people are concerned about PvP to different varying degrees and bringing u the point about PvP being toxic when everyone has their own perspective on what that is. Nothing is defined and we tend to end up arguing on points that are not set in stone. Because it is based on how one feels in relation to PvP.

Ie you trying to argue the point about PvP is toxic and saying the point is simple when anyone could ask why is it toxic and everyone has their own answers. Is is such a type of comment that there was a whole dev discussion on What is griefing with everyone having different view points.

The same way you argue with dygz with his perspective on things both you would have wildly different perspectives on what you would define as "toxic" pvp. Using it a a blanket statement only makes conversation more difficult that clearly outlining what comments you find to be toxic.

This gets even more complicated when you are talking about different gameplay loops between PvP. Ie someone finding if you kill them and stop them doing content to be griefing, yet in arena you are doing the same kind of element killing someone on repeat. Or even if you talk about a OW event in relation to pvp. The standard set for griefing can chance and not really apply to all types of modes based on how they are designed.

To me using a statement like toxic pvp angle is bad because it is subjective and not to the point on what they find as toxic and the exact issues they have. I would need to look at PvP and what is toxic based on what they think (which leads to assumptions) but also based on the different rule sets of pvp. Even more so when the OP is questioning Open seas which is the one place that kind of thing works as its a different gameplay loop. Making me feel this person is more on the side wanting pvp involvement reduced in the game.

Adding to this on "label all games" Yes people can view all pvp games as toxic and not enjoy them generally. This is the thing when we are using broad statements and I have a strong reaction to wanting it to be reduced so we can get to the actual point of the issue. And then talk about the potential design of how things could be based on the information we know even if it is small.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

It’s not PKing because Caravan Defense/Attack is Purple/Combatant.
Half-Normal Death penalties.
Which incentivizes PvP combat.

Cravans are pvp events, not purple pvp, so the only penalty is gear decay (at least for now).

Mag7spy wrote: »

Saying sea has more pvp but you are going to ignore other elements of pvp and pick on the system meant to reduce chaotic elements of pvp is not really a honest take.

The cost of wars is probably magnitudes bigger than a cost of a ship (at least the smallest one). And we don't know if ships are the only way to traverse the seas. And with caravans being quite a small, and also unreliable thing - the sea will most likely have more pvp than land, because the seas will supposedly be valuable enough to draw people into themselves (which is the entire point of them being ffa pvp).

PvP events will be comparatively rare, while the seas are permanently pvp.

Azherae

I'd just like to say, OP, that I appreciate your name, relative to the focus of the thread.

I'm easily amused by anything close to a pun, so I thank you.

You are, yourself, the answer to the question.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

You are, yourself, the answer to the question.

I sure hope Kraken is not the only reason for seas being pvp

Cause that would be utter bullshit. Or am I missing another pun here? Cause I'm a takodachi, hence an avid enjoyer of puns as well.

Child Item