Corruption system in relation to auto-flagging in open sea

This is not a post about if auto-flagging is good or not, or about preference between the two.
It is about the corruption system and the logic inconsistency of applying this system.
(for transparency, I would prefer the complete removal of this system, but what irks me more is the logic inconsistency)

The corruption system was presented as a tool that complies with the risk-vs-reward philosophy.

E.g. an attacker risks becoming corrupted if he kills a player that doesn't fight back and the defender risks losing much more loot if he doesn't fight back.
Both sides are risking in order to get rewarded.

In the open-sea, as Steven mentioned in the stream, the rewards will be grater and the risk needs to be higher.
Is the corruption system unable to handle that?
If the reward is more valuable, wouldn't that make the attacker more willing to become corrupted and the defender more willing to fight back to minimize his loses?

Why is now the corruption system presented as an obstacle to the risk-vs-reward philosophy for open-sea content?

In the open-sea now, with the auto-flagging, what is the risk for the attackers? E.g. if let's say 3 ships that are co-operating spot 1 ship, why wouldn't they attack? Where is the risk?
How are the bounty hunters affected by this change? Would they be able to hunt corrupted players in the open-sea?
Contrary to what Steven said, this change is actually going against the risk-vs-reward philosophy. If you outnumber the enemy, there is no risk in attacking.

You cannot treat the corruption system as a helpful tool for land content and as an obstacle for open-sea content.. those things cannot be true at the same time, just because the ground changes!

When you need to add exceptions to a system, in order to make the content fun, then maybe that system is not good enough.
If it is good enough, use it everywhere.. if it is not, remove it from everywhere!

The approach Intrepid is taking makes no sense.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Iffithy

I’m going to have to agree with Dygz on this one. It’s a disappointing change. Not because I am against the pvp but because it changes the balance that I was hoping for in a pvx game.

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

Azherae

Iffithy wrote: »

I’m going to have to agree with Dygz on this one. It’s a disappointing change. Not because I am against the pvp but because it changes the balance that I was hoping for in a pvx game.

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

That's what was bothering me! Thanks for putting it into words.

I could assume that 'people who just want to explore' can stay near coastlines, but then, if the point of going out to sea is to take a risk (of combat?) to get a reward (of what, good items?), is the naval content going to be 'better' in terms of drops to justify this?

It seems like it may create a level-striation in content that my group felt Ashes was specifically planning to 'avoid'.

Not that I hate this particularly, it just seems to moreso be 'denying Dygz and similar players an option for no reason that we currently know', and the 'obvious' reason that comes to mind doesn't seem 'great' relative to the rest of design at the moment, but who knows.

Dygz

Voxtrium wrote: »

Seems to me like they aren't changing the corruption system and based on their verbage the areas that auto flag you for combat will not be filled with dungeons and other content but most likely open water for traversing on ships.

I think I agree that they have not changed the “verbiage” of Corruption.
Rather what they have done is create a Corruption free zone between continents and islands.

Also, Steven said the reason for this is because there are especially lucrative rewards to be gained on the open seas (and likely beneath the seas). Better rewards means higher risk for those rewards.
(Whatever Steven means by unique NPCs and treasure-finding opportunities.)

Voxtrium wrote: »

There is potential that this does not affect you in any way if you so choose. Currently to cross water you could fast travel to-from scientific nodes, use citizenship to go from vassal to parent, family summons to alts or guild mates, follow the cost to cross and traverse very small areas of PVP enabled sea where the odds of being attacked are extremely low due purely to the duration, lastly there is a very real possibility the underworld encompasses multiple routes to cross the continent without ever flagging for PVP.

Pretty sure I already said that work arounds are possible: teleports and family summons.
However, there is also a high probability that exploration will be hindered. And, access to those “lucrative items” will be in areas that are auto-flagged.

”There’s a lot of opportunities in the open seas. And because there’s lots of opportunities that’s unique to that content, that’s unique to that sea, that’s treasure-finding, that’s NPCs, that’s a lot of stuff, there needs to be risk associated with opportunity. We’ve always said that risk and reward. Opportunity and risk. That’s how you weigh actions. And, players now know, when they move into the open seas, they’re doing so in a method that requires them to be cognizant of their surroundings. Who is near me? Who can mess with me?”
—Steven

Voxtrium wrote: »

This may be a problem for a player of your type, however seems to me to not playtest it would be silly, to look at this situation in black and white, yes i will test it or no i won't based purely on their decision regarding this system is folley, not only that but the likelihood that these systems changes is high, every single thing they introduce to us in the alpha is subject to change based on player feedback. It is very possible that ganking is so bad they make any attack on a non combatant flag you for corruption. There are just so many options and possibilities here that to say no RIGHT NOW seems silly.

Um. I said I would not be playing.
I did not say I would not be testing.

Dygz

Elleandrias wrote: »

You know what you did dygz, stop trying to play victim when all you do on the forums is complain and argue :yawn: its becoming a meme, a funny meme, but a meme nonetheless

I know precisely what I did.
It’s not what you claim I did.
You just believe the things you make up in your head.

BaSkA_9x2

Iffithy wrote: »

But the thing I really don’t understand is why do this? So what does this accomplish other than discourage exploration?

Right around the 2:00:00 mark in the August development update Twitch stream, Steven mentions that you'll now have to worry about risk vs. reward in the open sea. I'm also honestly confused:

Was there not going to be open world PvP in the open sea before this change?
Was there a problem with the corruption system in the open sea?
What was the difference between the open sea and the dry land, PvP/corruption wise?
Was this decision made to ensure "risk vs. reward" (whatever Steven meant by that in today's stream) in the open sea or really to please "PvP players"?
Does that mean there's no risk vs. reward on land?
Does that mean the corruption system is dogshit and too harsh on PvPers/PKers so the game needs to have a place to actually PvP?
As someone who plans to attack people for fun both on land and on the ocean, why not forget about all that corruption bullshit risky land PvP and only focus on open sea PvP?

Dolyem

BaSkA13 wrote: »

Iffithy wrote: »

But the thing I really don’t understand is why do this? So what does this accomplish other than discourage exploration?

Right around the 2:00:00 mark in the August development update Twitch stream, Steven mentions that you'll now have to worry about risk vs. reward in the open sea. I'm also honestly confused:

Was there not going to be open world PvP in the open sea before this change?
Was there a problem with the corruption system in the open sea?
What was the difference between the open sea and the dry land, PvP/corruption wise?
Was this decision made to ensure "risk vs. reward" (whatever Steven meant by that in today's stream) in the open sea or really to please "PvP players"?
Does that mean there's no risk vs. reward on land?
Does that mean the corruption system is dogshit and too harsh on PvPers/PKers so the game needs to have a place to actually PvP?
As someone who plans to attack people for fun both on land and on the ocean, why not forget about all that corruption bullshit risky land PvP and only focus on open sea PvP?

Luckily we get to test all of your concerns in the alpha 2. I think it honestly adds flavor.

Part of what I would do is require a harbor to spawn a ship into play, that way you don't just have a bunch of players hiding underwater just so they can spawn a ship when someone gets close. This bit alone would make it so players not looking to be involved in PVP at sea would be able to spot other ships at a distance and maneuver accordingly to avoid getting attacked.
Ibwould say to also make it difficult, not impossible, to board an enemy ship while not on a ship yourself.

Mag7spy

SongRune wrote: »

akabear wrote: »

If there is a ferry system to commute between areas, would this also be pvp flagged?

The Wiki wrote:

Players can provide water-based transportation services (ferry services) but there won't be automated boats.[34]

(ref: Ferry Services)

akabear wrote: »

Will dying at sea effect teleport to the nearest destination, creating fast travel?

I didn't find anything on this. I'd appreciate a citation if you do.

I wouldn't be surprised if this changed, game is in active development, they will most likely give people a safe ride around as long as their mount is carrying tons of loot and the player as well. Prob will be added into the system of something players can build.

Dygz

akabear wrote: »

Will dying at sea effect teleport to the nearest destination, creating fast travel?

My understanding is that if your ship is destroyed, you have to swim for shore.
Dying seems to send you to a respawn spot? I'm kinda expecting that to be at the nearest shoreline.
Doesn’t seem to truly provide fast travel.

I’ll look for the quote so we can see the exact phrasing.

https://youtu.be/qYuL-GrMmRM?t=4122
mark 1:08:42

Q: If a ship is destroyed whilst out at sea, Will the player need to slowly swim back to shore? Or get a ride? Are they just stranded out there?
A: There's a real fast ride they could take. Typically that would involve them just swimming under the water and letting life just, you know... take 'em away...
(I do not advise anyone doing that in real lif, by the way...)
I'm just saying... in the game world... there's a fast way and a slower way, but those are kind of your options at that point.
No. We don't have a recall. There's a consequence for losing the means of your mobility. And if you lost the means of that mobility, then those consequences are it's going to take you longer to get to where you need to go or you're going to have to suffere some experience debt.
---Steven

CROW3

Well this is a disappointing decision. I thought naval content would open ship-based combat & exploration options using the same PvX rules as anywhere else (with maybe the exception of naval caravans).

I hear you, @Dygz on the deal-breaker. Sad we won’t play together in Verra, but I understand & respect your perspective. Glad you’re still testing with us.

Anonymous332

Love the decisionmaking of autoflag ocean. Its like runescapes wilderness if they did it right

Liniker

I absolutely love this change! big props to Steven for the balls, it goes to show they don't care about the majority of players that want a WoW or a FF14 2.0

Good to see all the carebears that for years tried to change the game, getting a good reality check

JamesSunderland

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

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

WHIT3ROS3

Is my understanding correct, that there will be a "safe" area around ports and shorelines so those who just want to chill on a little fishing boat can? Or will those safe "bubbles" only apply to Caravans? I'm curious about what the situation will be regarding inland bodies of water, such as lakes and rivers as well.

Will all water be auto-flagged?

I have no problem with full loot areas, I enjoy them, I spend most of my time solo roaming and exploring in the Outlands (full loot zones) in Albion Online and have become pretty good at escaping and avoiding.

I think it is a bit hasty to call this a deal breaker unless you are against the idea of PvP in general. In which case, I kinda wonder why you would be interested in Ashes when it's clear that it will be a central component of the game.

It was interesting to hear more about the Under realm and when hearing the little we did, it reminded me a bit of the Roads of Avalon in Albion Online, a shifting network of tunnels that allow faster and relatively safer travel throughout the world. Could be really cool.

Having a large, auto-flagged open sea sounds great, but it will honestly be made or broken by the different systems that surround it. Will they facilitate fun and dynamic encounters? What will the catch and escape mechanics of ships be like? Will ships get invisibility cloaks? Or perhaps weather effects such as heavy fog or storms provide routes where it would be very hard to be detected.

There are just so many variables that it is impossible to say whether this will be good or not. We haven't even really seen any naval content or mechanics as of yet. There are so many possibilities when it comes to oceanic content. There are just so many questions. But I'm excited.

"Take what you can and give nothing back! Yaaar"

Blip

Perfect, but am afraid Intrepid can use it as a excuse to change flaging on land when CeerBears start screaming.

Hinotori

Dolyem wrote: »

I totally recommended this in several threads. AND NOW ITS REAL! How does everyone feel about this? Its a pirates life for me!

IM SO HYPED!

I'm glad there's a pvp autoflag for the ocean as it's a dangerous area in my mind, the ocean is always full of the unexpected.

This will make naval content much more exciting as we'll probably see more roving fleets of corsairs, buccaneers, privateers and pirates which can only be a good thing in a now even more vast ocean.

I'm excited to cast off and get underway on this new avenue of adventure for ashes. It's certainly a pirates life for me.

https://youtu.be/Aizsj_Yk8M8

itwashear

I only have one major concern with this. if me and friend are on different land masses and we are trying to team up this can make it very annoying to do so it can already take up to an hour of travel to meet up but if half way there you have to go threw a no flag pvp area and die that's a problem. I don't think playing with a friend should be a reward that should have extra risk involved. the only outcome I can see from this is once I have a "home" area is to never go super far away so if a friend logs in we can meet up.

WHIT3ROS3

itwashear wrote: »

I only have one major concern with this. if me and friend are on different land masses and we are trying to team up this can make it very annoying to do so it can already take up to an hour of travel to meet up but if half way there you have to go threw a no flag pvp area and die that's a problem..

Surely in that scenario, you would just use the "Family summon" option and insta-port to your friend?

Dygz

WHIT3ROS3 wrote: »

Will all water be auto-flagged?

Just the open seas are auto-flag as Combatant areas.
There will be major warning messages alerting players that they are approaching such areas.

WHIT3ROS3 wrote: »

I think it is a bit hasty to call this a deal breaker unless you are against the idea of PvP in general. In which case, I kinda wonder why you would be interested in Ashes when it's clear that it will be a central component of the game.

Objective-based, opt-in PvP combat for Caravans and Sieges.
Corruption as the compromise for random, non-consensual PvP combat in the open world.
That's what has been stated for the 5 years the game has been in development.

I enjoy objective-based, opt-in PvP combat - sometimes. When I'm in the mood for PvP combat - that's what I enjoy.
I've been skeptical about all playstyles on the same server because, even though I would typically begin with characters on PvP-Optional servers, I would always eventually rage-quit to PvE-Only servers.
When I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I want to be free to explore and gather without being pushed into PvP combat.
Playing the game with the Corruption mechanic was always at the edge of my comfort zone - but testing would determine whether Corruption works well enough as a deterrent for unwanted PvP for me to be willing to play.
Lineage II players assured me that Corruption would be sufficient because it's harsher than Karma and Karma works well in Lineage II, so... it's really just been, "Sure. Let's test it and see."

The change to having Corruption free zones with unique NPCs and treasure-finding opportunities is a deal-breaker for me. It's too close to EvE online and ArcheAge. I didn't like the naval combat in ArcheAge - too cutthroat - so I chose not to play it.
Don't like what you don't play. If I recall correctly, I asked Steven when he was first on the Ashen Forge if the PvP in Ashes was similar to EvE Online and ArcheAge, knowing that if it were, it would be a dealbreaker for me.
So, no, it's not a hasty decision. It's just the natural response for someone who doesn't like the naval combat of ArcheAge when learning that Ashes will have naval combat similar to ArcheAge.

People who enjoy the PvP in EvE Online and ArcheAge should love this gameplay addition. That's great.
There should be no surprise if it's a dealbreaker for people who do not enjoy the PvP in EvE Online and ArcheAge.

Dygz

itwashear wrote: »

I only have one major concern with this. if me and friend are on different land masses and we are trying to team up this can make it very annoying to do so it can already take up to an hour of travel to meet up but if half way there you have to go threw a no flag pvp area and die that's a problem. I don't think playing with a friend should be a reward that should have extra risk involved. the only outcome I can see from this is once I have a "home" area is to never go super far away so if a friend logs in we can meet up.

If that friend is Family, you should be able to use Family Summons to reach them.

WHIT3ROS3

Objective-based, opt-in PvP combat for Caravans and Sieges.
Corruption as the compromise for random, non-consensual PvP combat in the open world.
That's what has been stated for the 5 years the game has been in development.

Which is still the case.

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

But you do you.

Child Item