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

BaSkA_9x2

Blip wrote: »

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

This comment is also very relevant. I'm already aware of the possibility of Ashes being forced to cater more towards carebears for financial reasons down the road, but now it starts to make more sense. I hope @Blip is wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but I can already imagine a scenario where Ashes' open sea (and maybe a few other zones) is the low sec/PvP zone and the rest of the world is virtually PvP free/high sec.

Xefjord wrote: »

People talk about how getting autoflagged destroys the whole safety net created by the corruption system, but simply put, there isn't enough stuff IN the open sea for that argument to hold any ground. The most that it will encompass is the occasional cross continental travel and *maybe* some fishing here or there. It sounds like there will also be underwater world bosses, which would be getting tackled by large guilds and groups anyway, not everyday folks who wouldn't be able to hold their own against pirates. A solid 95% of all the games content will still very much be on land, and fishers can still fish along both the coasts, rivers, and lakes with little consequence.

Add on top of this that the game is designed that you don't really need to travel far from your home node, much less off continent. Unless you are just hyper dedicated to exploration there is no need to even cross the sea, but if you ARE hyper dedicated to exploration, it should be way more exciting to explore your continent then have to endure a (whopping what 10 minutes of?) hardship to travel to a new continent and explore there next. The open sea is going to be a lot like the wilds in Runescape, almost completely unnecessary to visit unless you are looking for PvP. Just in this case it splits two continents that probably won't be interacting heavily that much anyway. Especially not for normal players. Ironically, Sea trade may actually be more safe than land trade because both get flagged for PvP, but routes are much more set for land as opposed to Sea.

Unlike the open sea in Ashes, the Wilderness in RuneScape connects nothing to nothing, but even still it's definitely not unnecessary to visit. If you think the only reason to go to the Wilderness is for PvP you either have never played RuneScape or have forgotten about a few things: 8 different bosses, clue steps, quests, recharge jewelry, Abyss and Slayer.

In my opinion, it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare RS and the Wildy to Ashes, simply because there's no PvP outside of the Wilderness in that game (besides duel arena, soul wars, LMS, etc.). Ashes is becoming similar to EVE, so really that's the only other current game you should compare it to.

Now, to say that "there's not enough stuff" in the open sea with what we know so far it's at the very least disingenuous. It's also quite hilarious to use ocean bosses and large guilds and groups as a reason to not have corruption, when that's one of the reasons why corruption would help smaller groups of people that randomly find a sea boss to kill it. Ironically enough, saying that players don't really need to cross the sea, saying it's unnecessary to go there and saying that fishers can fish elsewhere with little consequence are all false statements, because there is content in the ocean and because this is a game with PvP enabled everywhere, but if they were true, they would all actually be reasons why the open sea should have corruption.

Last but not least, personally I don't think that the issue is "getting auto flagged destroys the safety net created by the corruption system", I see two problems: First, why make this change? If this change is to reflect the great rewards the open sea holds, then surely places in land with great rewards also need to have auto flag PvP, right? Second, wasn't the sea already dangerous enough even with corruption? Before this change, based on the information we had, if you wanted to go red the best place to do it would be the open sea in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, if this idea actually goes through, I'll enjoy hunting down weaker players and smaller groups in the ocean, making alliances with other PKing groups and virtually controlling the ocean without any penalties. Regardless of how I'm going to play, though, I just don't think that it makes sense to add this and I personally don't think it makes Ashes a better game.

But hey, if you're against this idea fuck you, you're a carebear; if you're in favor of this idea, you're a chad. Am I right?

Voxtrium wrote: »

It has taken me awhile to form my opinion regarding this but I lean away from auto flagging for PVP.
There are a ton of risks for auto flagging in regards to abuse from other players. Right now it doesn't matter how powerful your guild is, if you constantly corrupt your players to bully a guild you are risking a lot of gear and time, however adding auto PVP flagging on the sea means that abuse of sea transportation may be the best option for any guild.

The worst part about any of this in my head is that with this system in place the most logical solution is to abuse the naval content in ashes. It does not seem like all naval content will be avoidable and there is no/less punishment if you control the waters, you remove/mitigate the risk for your guild, and while doing so open up endless opportunity that has been stated will be better than land based opportunity.

[...]

TL:DR
The potential power imbalance is the problem. I can decrease risk by controlling naval content and I can reap better than average rewards in doing so. It is not in line with Ashes goals.

Nice comment, many good examples. And in my opinion, it gets worse: even with the corruption system in the open sea this was already going to happen, maybe to a lesser degree as reds would need to lose corruption before they're able to PvP again, but still. Now with the new corruptionless ocean the best place to PK got even better.

CROW3

Here’s what bugs me:

Bob: Is this a PvE game?
Steven: No, it’s a PvX game.
Bob: Oh, so it’s a PvP game?
Steven: No, it’s a P-v-X game.
Bob: Ohhhh, it’s a PvX game.
Steven: Yes!
Bob: Got it!
Steven: Weeeeelll, except here, here, here, here, here, annnnd here.

Xefjord

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

I also do not understand why they changed this. What is the goal here? What was the problem that this change in design tries to fix? I would really like an explanation of their thought process for this.

By effectively removing the flagging system, they remove what the flagging system was desigend to do: curb the PvP excesses (i.e. griefers). At least that is what they said. So the only conclusion I can draw is that either they do not believe that the flagging system will work (i.e. there is too little PvP because of it and they want more PvP) or they want to encourage griefing. If the first is the case, then they should tell us. I hope it is not the latter.

I am looking at this purely from the PvE <-> PvP perspective:
Until now I thought the world was designed in a way to balance PvE and PvP. The PvPer had to swallow the flagging system which prevents them from doing everything they want. They run the risk of going red when (keep) attacking someone that does not fight back. The PvEers had to swallow the always on PvP without safe zones. Even in most dungeons and with world bosses. Additionally they might loose their investment in housing and nodes due to PvP. And now, they even have to contend with griefers in some areas if they want to challange all the PvE content. As someone stated before, where is the risk for the PvPers in this scenario?
If you look simply in the PvE player, the reward is the great dungeon content and the risk are the PvP griefers (not normal PvP players, because the restraints are removed and they will dominate the OpenSea as it is the only place they can do their thing).
If you look from the PvP griefer perspective, the reward is the fun (and the loot) and the risk is not existent (there my be risks due to other PvP players, but not by game design. Nor does the game design incentivises other players to threaten them; e.g. bounty hunters).

If they wanted to divide the player base along the PvP/PvE line, they certainly succeeded. You could now, of course argue, that to balace this, they introduce PvP free zones... but that would further divide the player base because the PvPer would stick to the open Sea and PvEers to the safe zones.

Steven always says the game is not for everyone. Thats nice, but at this point, I would like him to explain who the target player base is for this game actually is? Because whatever it is, it certainly just shifted.

What is also sad is that there is no good way to come back from this. If they keep the auto-flagging they will antagonize the PvE players and if they remove it they will do the same with the PvP players...additionally both will cry out that the developer bent under pressure from either the hardcore PvP crowd or from the carebears respectively.

Have you ever played archeage? This feels rather overdramatic. Its worded as though all good content happens at sea or that corruption is now going to be removed from land.

To be rather blunt: the vast majority of people who like water content PERIOD tend to be people who already idolize pirates as the primary form of seafaring fun. Fishing is perfectly enjoyable outside of the open sea in this arrangement so its not hurting fishermen in any way. This gives PvPers an open PvP outlet in a zone that is going to attract the most PvPers anyway, and will also potentially lighten up on some of the intensity of world PvP in land zones (where PvE players may be trying to avoid PvP) if all the most egregious griefers want to go sit on the water all day and harass folks far from civilization. Let them.

There is risks to Oceanfaring PvP as well. Ships (like in Archeage) are probably going to be high investment, and if those get destroyed, they won't simply be easy to rebuild. Dedicated guilds with supply lines and economic infrastructure tied to metropolises on the mainland will have much more capability to organize and protect important waterways, destroying pirates and rebuilding their own ships. Pirates might get their own node, but they will never be able to compete with the efficiency of nodes with large dedicated PvE playerbases.

Pirates will be an annoyance at best. but this change really does help segregate some of the PvP away from the places players would feel most annoyed to get griefed in, appeals to what would be the majority of the seafaring enthusiasts, all while creating larger risk for PvPers than landlubbers in PvX areas because of the economic costs of losing endgame PvP tools such as ships that can't be easily replaced.

Solmyr

Steven Sharif clarified some stuff in the comments of the livestream on YouTube:

I would like to point out that while the open seas will be open-pvp zones, there are still alternate methods of traveling between the two continents, including flight paths between coastal nodes, air ships between metropolises-ai and also a scientific node's vassal network's teleportation options (should that network extend across the seas or to nodes on islands), although none of these methods will allow the transit of materials or gatherables. Additionally, there will be healthy amounts of sea content within the coastlines of the continents that does not fall into the "open sea" area. It is important that the open seas represent the rewards and opportunity that cross continental trade provides, but also the riches of treasure that the seas offer, all come with risk and danger... Ashes will always double down on the core philosophy of risk vs reward. Hope you enjoy much love to you all.

I think this is a pretty good compromise.

Dolyem

CROW3 wrote: »

Here’s what bugs me:

Bob: Is this a PvE game?
Steven: No, it’s a PvX game.
Bob: Oh, so it’s a PvP game?
Steven: No, it’s a P-v-X game.
Bob: Ohhhh, it’s a PvX game.
Steven: Yes!
Bob: Got it!
Steven: Weeeeelll, except here, here, here, here, here, annnnd here.

Technically you are pvping in the ocean to access the ocean PvE content

Dygz

Hehe. Doubled down.
Mmmm. hmmmn.

XiraelAcaron

Xefjord wrote: »

Have you ever played archeage? This feels rather overdramatic. Its worded as though all good content happens at sea or that corruption is now going to be removed from land.

I have not. And I also have no idea whether this change leads to the ocean being a griefer paradise or just slightly more dangerous than everywhere else. However, removing corruption from the OpenSee is the removal of the only constraint on PvP that the game has and that until now kept the more PvP averse PvEers from abandoning the game. This might sound dramatic, but it is a reality. That is why I want to know what the intended player base is.
Regarding the content: Steven specifically stated that the ocean content will be the most rewarding. I assume this content also take the form of high-end PvE content. However, the guilds that typically target this content are highly competative PvE guilds for which it may be much easier to handle the PvP battles, so this may not be so bad as it sounds. We will see.

Xefjord wrote: »

To be rather blunt: the vast majority of people who like water content PERIOD tend to be people who already idolize pirates as the primary form of seafaring fun. Fishing is perfectly enjoyable outside of the open sea in this arrangement so its not hurting fishermen in any way. This gives PvPers an open PvP outlet in a zone that is going to attract the most PvPers anyway, and will also potentially lighten up on some of the intensity of world PvP in land zones (where PvE players may be trying to avoid PvP) if all the most egregious griefers want to go sit on the water all day and harass folks far from civilization. Let them.

The pirate gameplay would also be possible with the corruption system. I assume that the merchant ships also has a moving PvP zone around it. So to accomodiate this gameplay, no changes would be required. There may be valid reasons for the change to accomodate some type of gameplay that they want. That is why I would like them to explain. You might very well be right about the reduction in world PvP on land due to the ocean. It might even be benefitial to the PvEers. But is it really good for the game to separate the two parts?

Xefjord wrote: »

There is risks to Oceanfaring PvP as well. Ships (like in Archeage) are probably going to be high investment, and if those get destroyed, they won't simply be easy to rebuild. Dedicated guilds with supply lines and economic infrastructure tied to metropolises on the mainland will have much more capability to organize and protect important waterways, destroying pirates and rebuilding their own ships. Pirates might get their own node, but they will never be able to compete with the efficiency of nodes with large dedicated PvE playerbases.

I understand that. And you may be right that this all balaces out. But that most likely depends very much on the particular server and its population. I question on whether the game design puts too much responsibility for server balance on the players. However, that may always have been a problem for Ashes, even before the change.

Xefjord wrote: »

Pirates will be an annoyance at best. but this change really does help segregate some of the PvP away from the places players would feel most annoyed to get griefed in, appeals to what would be the majority of the seafaring enthusiasts, all while creating larger risk for PvPers than landlubbers in PvX areas because of the economic costs of losing endgame PvP tools such as ships that can't be easily replaced.

I have no problems with pirate game play...as stated the corruption system would not affect them anyway.
I have a general problem with removal of the flagging system without a real need to do so . If the flagging system is too restrictive, then we should talk about that. Otherwise I do not see any reason to remove it apart from providing more 'prey' for the 'predators'.

CROW3

Dolyem wrote: »

Technically you are pvping in the ocean to access the ocean PvE content

It's just open PvP, in the vein of MO2. Which is fine, I love PvP. However, if Ashes is being developed to push the greater draw of PvX it needs to be consistent with its systems. With PvX the governance system is ubiquitous not compartmentalized. You can have continuous, you can have discrete, but you can't have both.

This seems like another example of attempting to please everyone.

Dygz

Xefjord wrote: »

Have you ever played archeage? This feels rather overdramatic. Its worded as though all good content happens at sea or that corruption is now going to be removed from land.

I chose not to play ArcheAge primarily because of the naval content, so...
This is same difference for me.

Xefjord wrote: »

To be rather blunt: the vast majority of people who like water content PERIOD tend to be people who already idolize pirates as the primary form of seafaring fun. This gives PvPers an open PvP outlet in a zone that is going to attract the most PvPers anyway, and will also potentially lighten up on some of the intensity of world PvP in land zones (where PvE players may be trying to avoid PvP) if all the most egregious griefers want to go sit on the water all day and harass folks far from civilization. Let them.

Makes some sense. People who enjoyed the naval content in ArcheAge should enjoy this addition.
Easy enough to let them. Just as I did with ArcheAge.

Xefjord wrote: »

There is risks to Oceanfaring PvP as well. Ships (like in Archeage) are probably going to be high investment, and if those get destroyed, they won't simply be easy to rebuild. Dedicated guilds with supply lines and economic infrastructure tied to metropolises on the mainland will have much more capability to organize and protect important waterways, destroying pirates and rebuilding their own ships. Pirates might get their own node, but they will never be able to compete with the efficiency of nodes with large dedicated PvE playerbases.

There would still be risks with Corruption.

Xefjord wrote: »

Pirates will be an annoyance at best. but this change really does help segregate some of the PvP away from the places players would feel most annoyed to get griefed in, appeals to what would be the majority of the seafaring enthusiasts, all while creating larger risk for PvPers than landlubbers in PvX areas because of the economic costs of losing endgame PvP tools such as ships that can't be easily replaced.

It doesn't because the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding and raid bosses.

Elleandria

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to cope on the forums again bud lol that's why you're the meme of Ashes along with all of the other copium farmers

Its funny to watch but so pathetic at the same time honestly

Cat Quiver

Elleandrias wrote: »

Elleandrias wrote: »

pathetic

Funny coming from an annoying twat whose posts are basically "lol casul xD"

Okeydoke

I fully agree with this change. Steven gave a reason for it in the stream. "This type of change creates a very compelling type of gameplay." Which it does. I think he could give more reasons, and he probably will.

Intrepid's JOB is to go multiple layers deep in gaming out possible scenarios when designing systems. Now that I've had a day to go a few layers deep into this change, it's hard to imagine how they would NOT make this change.

And I'm ashamed of myself for not having been asking for this on forums this whole time. I go cut off finger now.

Warth

CROW3 wrote: »

Here’s what bugs me:

Bob: Is this a PvE game?
Steven: No, it’s a PvX game.
Bob: Oh, so it’s a PvP game?
Steven: No, it’s a P-v-X game.
Bob: Ohhhh, it’s a PvX game.
Steven: Yes!
Bob: Got it!
Steven: Weeeeelll, except here, here, here, here, here, annnnd here.

@CROW3 this change doesnt make it any else PVX. Why do you think it does?

Dygz

How does adding24/7, auto-flag Combatant, PvP zones not make the game less PvX??

Warth

Dygz wrote: »

How does adding auto-flag Combatant, PvP-Only zones not make the game less PvX??

Lets look at the definition of PvX by Steven himself:

We like to really refer to ourselves as a PvX game, because in those systems of PvP, PvE, crafting they're all intertwined: They're interdependent on each other... Our system of development really requires some interdependence there between those things.

It doesnt mean that there is seperate PvP and PvE Content. It means that you will naturally encounter both.

You have open sea PvE content, in which you will naturally encounter PvP, which is exactly, what Stevens has defined as PvX from the beginning.

And what do you mean with PvP only zone? Its not, there is tons of PvE Content on the open sea. Just because you are freely attackable doesnt make it a PvP-only zone.

Blip

insomnia wrote: »

I guess i'll avoid the open sea as much as possible.

so, the open sea is going to be a shitzone. Full Pvp are often for a-holes. People that likes to corpse camp others, so they have no option but to log off. If they really liked Pvp, why not do arenas or battlegrounds. Because they proberly aren't that good at pvp. They need all the advangates they can get. Being higher level. Being more people. Attacking someone in the back. Attacking them while the opponent is fighting a mob. etc

You do realize that Ashes always was a PvP heavy game right?
They even encurage PvP within the flaging system.

Maybe AoC is not for you?

Dygz

Warth wrote: »

Lets look at the definition of PvX by Steven himself:
"We like to really refer to ourselves as a PvX game, because in those systems of PvP, PvE, crafting they're all intertwined: They're interdependent on each other... Our system of development really requires some interdependence there between those things.

I'd say that's not true of auto-flag Combatant, PvP zones.
It's not interdependant - it's just a free-for-all PvP zone.

Warth wrote: »

You have open sea PvE content, in which you will naturally encounter PvP, which is exactly, what Stevens has defined as PvX from the beginning.

That would be true of any game with open world, free-for-all PvP combat that includes PvE.
Like Shadowbane and ArcheAge and EvE Online.
So, that is not any kind of unique concept that sets it apart from other PvP-centric MMORPGs.
Open Seas with default flag as Non-Combatant and Corruption...we would still naturally encounter PvP - same as on land.

Warth wrote: »

And what do you mean with PvP only zone? Its not, there is tons of PvE Content on the open sea. Just because you are freely attackable doesnt make it a PvP-only zone.

LOL. I fixed that right before you posted.

Voxtrium

I would like to point out that while the open seas will be open-pvp zones, there are still alternate methods of traveling between the two continents, including flight paths between coastal nodes, air ships between metropolises-ai and also a scientific node's vassal network's teleportation options (should that network extend across the seas or to nodes on islands), although none of these methods will allow the transit of materials or gatherables. Additionally, there will be healthy amounts of sea content within the coastlines of the continents that does not fall into the "open sea" area. It is important that the open seas represent the rewards and opportunity that cross continental trade provides, but also the riches of treasure that the seas offer, all come with risk and danger... Ashes will always double down on the core philosophy of risk vs reward. Hope you enjoy much love to you all.

For me the balance IS will need to figure our is how to prevent mega alliances from dominating a server, it feels like this change provides more opportunity than before for a mega guild to dominate a server, however if they can appropriately balance the risk for a dominate alliance so that they can't gatekeep standard players from enjoying the content, then I think this is fine.

I imagine a lot will depend on the strength and viability of controlling naval content will provide, if IS can prevent node ports from being easily blockaded every server prime time, if they can limit the value of only farming pirate NPC's and ocean content for loot so that the viability of being a sea faring only guild doesn't exist, if they can prevent a mega guild from controlling an entire server by controlling the riches generated from naval content, if they can prevent all of that, it will be fine.

Mag7spy

Warth wrote: »

@Mag7spy the 20 people dont have to flag on you. They can attack you while they are green.

What are you talking about? My comment relates to PvP on ground not on sea. The point being it is harsh is you are red and greens can attack you so there is a high chance of being attacked when you are corrupted.

Child Item