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

Okeydoke

Warth wrote: »

Pretty sure they indicated this in one of the past livestreams and in the past

Yeah, exactly. I'm sure they've considered all of this and have it under control. It's their job. There's people literally being paid to figure all of this out.

There seems to be this disconnect between people that have played Lineage 2 and/or Archeage and people who have not. With the people who have not viewing so many of Ashes concepts as completely foreign.

I think the only reason why Nooani isn't in here saying the entire ocean should be an instance is because he did play Archeage and understands the systems conceptually. (lol)

Anyway, your posts have been pretty on point lately Warth. I've enjoyed reading them for the most part. Think there was one a few days ago that I disagreed with heh, but kudos

Warth

@Okeydoke

which one you disagreed with out of ciriosity or rather what wad the topic?

Okeydoke

I honestly don't remember. I don't think it was on anything major. Don't think I feel like looking for it, then I'd just have to read something I disagree with again lol

NaughtyBrute

Risk of corruption lowers the risk of being attacked.

That's exactly the reason they introduced the corruption system.

The risk you take merely shifted from one to another

The 'shift' of risk you mention is exactly the inconsistency I am talking about.

XiraelAcaron

The difference is that the removal of the corruption system does not increase the risk of attack equally for everyone. Basically you get more corruption the less risk you have when attacking a player (e.g. killing a low level player and doing so repeatedly gives you much more corruption than killing a player of the same level or higher). If you remove the corruption system, the risk of attack rises disproportionally for those players that are less risky to attack. Since they present a much more tempting target. So it is not simple a shift of risk, It also increases the risk for those that would normally be protected by the corruption system. I admit that this is a kind of academic argument

XiraelAcaron

I played L2 a long time ago. But I actually do not remember if there were places/situations in L2 where you were forced to get purple? Were there?

Okeydoke

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

I played L2 a long time ago. But I actually do not remember if there were places/situations in L2 where you were forced to get purple? Were there?

No idea, I didn't play Lineage 2. I played Archeage though and the open sea was that way there if I remember correctly. Been a long time.

Dygz

George_Black wrote: »

Stop attacking the design and claiming that AoC is misleading regarding PvX, based on your biast understanding of pvx and what pve should be in an mmo.

The design is fine. It's great for players who like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
It's just not a game I will play.

Dygz

Ramirez wrote: »

Why are you acting like the Open sea is an fucking arena, where you can't Run?
Is AN OPEN GIANT SEA, Build an fast ship and go and explore, you can see other players in miles just avoid, and believe me, no one Will follow you on Open sea if you start avoiding from a far distance, even more if they see you are not an caravan, they Will just lose time and never reach you.

Why would I run? I just won't play.

Ramirez wrote: »

You never player sea of thieves or archeage? This is even worst for gankers because now they can't Stay in the sea afk waiting for caravan other ganker Will kill then...

Nope. I haven't played Sea of Thieves.
I chose not to play ArcheAge specifically because of its PvP naval content.

BaSkA_9x2

I'm not a fan of segregating PvE from PvP in any way in the open world, and that's what a null sec zone does and what the corruptionless open sea will do, in my opinion. I personally disliked it but I don't expect Steven to read this and to convince him, at the end of the day I just want the game to thrive and to have a healthy population.

For the people who liked the removal of Corruption from the open sea I have a few questions:

If the corruption system works as intended, what are the reasons to have zones without it? Can these reasons be distorted by big zers, alliances, etc. abusing them?
The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general, even before yesterday's announcement. From a game design perspective why make one of the best places to PK even better, as in less risk for PKers? From a game design perspective, will that make the ocean content better or worse?
If, for whatever reason, Intrepid backpedals on this decision and the open sea goes back to having corruption, will the number of potential sailing victims increase? Will the number of pirates decrease? Will there be less PvP in the ocean?

I was going to participate in ocean PKing regardless of yesterday's news, now I have even more reasons to. But I can't understand why I needed more reasons to do it.

Dygz

Okeydoke wrote: »

There seems to be this disconnect between people that have played Lineage 2 and/or Archeage and people who have not. With the people who have not viewing so many of Ashes concepts as completely foreign.

These concepts are not foreign. I don't play games where PvPers and people who normally play on PvE-Only servers play on the same server.
I was already skeptical about how well Corruption would work as a deterrent for unwanted PvP.
People who have played Lineage II stated that since Corruption is even harsher than Karma, Corruption should act as a sufficient deterrent for unwanted PvP combat. So, that was a wait until we test it in Alpha 2 scenario.

I specifically chose not to play ArcheAge due to the PvP for their naval content.
Free-for-all PvP on the Open Seas is a great addition for players who like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
But...I don't enjoy playing games where I have to play on a server that has 24/7, auto-flag, free-for-all PvP zones.
I haven't seen anyone suggest it's a "foreign concept".

JamesSunderland

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

I played L2 a long time ago. But I actually do not remember if there were places/situations in L2 where you were forced to get purple? Were there?

Lineage 2 had no perma purple zones, but some places like Seed of Destruction(after Tiat's death for the farm of Elemental crystals) and Enchanted Megaliths(During Stage 6 Hellbound) would make you insta purple for a while when first entering it.

NaughtyBrute

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

The difference is that the removal of the corruption system does not increase the risk of attack equally for everyone. Basically you get more corruption the less risk you have when attacking a player (e.g. killing a low level player and doing so repeatedly gives you much more corruption than killing a player of the same level or higher). If you remove the corruption system, the risk of attack rises disproportionally for those players that are less risky to attack. Since they present a much more tempting target. So it is not simple a shift of risk, It also increases the risk for those that would normally be protected by the corruption system. I admit that this is a kind of academic argument

Yeah, you are right. The corruption system was mostly introduced to deter high level players from killing low level ones. However, it is still in effect for all on land, so even a max player can chose not to fight back and you still have the risk gaining corruption when killing him.

However, this is not my initial point. Steven mentioned on stream that everyone will be auto-flagged in open sea, because the rewards will be greater so the risk needs to be higher, essentially saying that gaining corruption is an obstacle for the risk-vs-reward system in open-sea, otherwise why effectively disable it?
How is this consistent with what was said before about the corruption system?

So, killing low level players in the open sea is fine but on land it is not?!
Why create this separation of zones?
What's next? PvE only zones, like dungeons or world bosses?
I don't think that this is a good approach.

Okeydoke

Dygz wrote: »

But...I don't enjoy playing games where I have to play on a server that has 24/7, auto-flag, free-for-all PvP zones.
I haven't seen anyone suggest it's a "foreign concept".

It's not just that. I'm talking in totality. There is a large amount of posts I read on this forum where it's just abundantly clear that the person doesn't understand basic concepts of Ashes and the games it's inspired from.

Which is understandable, if people haven't experienced those concepts and systems. I've never played a game with a flagging system like this. Took me a little while to fully understand it, and more specifically what the ramifications were for gameplay.

But anyway, I'm not just talking about the flagging system or the open sea autoflagging. It's all kinds of stuff man, economic aspects, political etc. There are mmos where you level up and then you do dungeons. I'm simplifying it some, but in a nutshell that's it. Level up, do dungeons. For people that that's all they've experienced, some of Ashes concepts probably seem foreign.

JamesSunderland

BaSkA13 wrote: »

For the people who liked the removal of Corruption from the open sea I have a few questions

Q: If the corruption system works as intended, what are the reasons to have zones without it?

A: To Increase the Zone Risk alongside its rewards

Q: Can these reasons be distorted by big zers, alliances, etc. abusing them?

A: Possible, but mostly depends on what you define by "abuse" if by "Abuse" you mean total control over, i believe it to be extremely unlikely due to the sheer size of the open seas.

The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general, even before yesterday's announcement. From a game design perspective why make one of the best places to PK even better, as in less risk for PKers?

A: This one i would like to require you to elaborate on why "The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general", and would like to ask you how it is less risk for PKers if it will be flooded by other PKers.

Q: From a game design perspective, will that make the ocean content better or worse?

A: Certainly better as it created a variation and a new Tier of Risk vs Reward

If, for whatever reason, Intrepid backpedals on this decision and the open sea goes back to having corruption, will the number of potential sailing victims increase? Will the number of pirates decrease? Will there be less PvP in the ocean?

A: If Intrepid backpedals on both the extra risk and extra rewards of the open seas, the number of "sailing victims" will certainly decrease alongside the number of pirates and that would indeed result in less PvP in the ocean.

Dygz

Okeydoke wrote: »

It's not just that. I'm talking in totality. There is a large amount of posts I read on this forum where it's just abundantly clear that the person doesn't understand basic concepts of Ashes and the games it's inspired from.

Which is understandable, if people haven't experienced those concepts and systems. I've never played a game with a flagging system like this. Took me a little while to fully understand it, and more specifically what the ramifications were for gameplay.

But anyway, I'm not just talking about the flagging system or the open sea autoflagging. It's all kinds of stuff man, economic aspects, political etc. There are mmos where you level up and then you do dungeons. I'm simplifying it some, but in a nutshell that's it. Level up, do dungeons. For people that that's all they've experienced, some of Ashes concepts probably seem foreign.

That may just be what some people like to focus on when they play MMORPGs.
Hasn't been my take on people in the forums, but... okeydoke....

Veeshan

BaSkA13 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of segregating PvE from PvP in any way in the open world, and that's what a null sec zone does and what the corruptionless open sea will do, in my opinion. I personally disliked it but I don't expect Steven to read this and to convince him, at the end of the day I just want the game to thrive and to have a healthy population.

For the people who liked the removal of Corruption from the open sea I have a few questions:
If the corruption system works as intended, what are the reasons to have zones without it? Can these reasons be distorted by big zers, alliances, etc. abusing them?

The Ocean was probably going to be one of the best places to PK in general, even before yesterday's announcement. From a game design perspective why make one of the best places to PK even better, as in less risk for PKers? From a game design perspective, will that make the ocean content better or worse?

If, for whatever reason, Intrepid backpedals on this decision and the open sea goes back to having corruption, will the number of potential sailing victims increase? Will the number of pirates decrease? Will there be less PvP in the ocean?

I was going to participate in ocean PKing regardless of yesterday's news, now I have even more reasons to. But I can't understand why I needed more reasons to do it.

1- You can add more value to the zone for the additional risk of more PvP, For example deep sea fishing can yield more reward for lake fishing, Cross continent trade can yield more cash reward than just trading on your continent. Resource diversity/supply and demand having important resources for end game crafting require a resource from each island makes demand for this cross continent trade. basicly the more risk you have being in a zone the more reward they can add to it for participating in these additional risks

2- Why would you think that in the first place? in Archage majority of pvp happened on the mainlands dispite no reward and just a penalty for doing so, PvP in the ocean still cause penalty in archage because people would spite boat out to where they were killed just to report the bloodstains so realy it didnt change much from PvPing on the land

3- There be less PvP in the ocean because if your gonna have a penalty either way you may aswell stay round the more target rich enviroment of the land than the ocean where players are usualy far between espeicaly with the size of the ocean.

Tbh they main reason they made ocean open PvP is to allow more value/return for crossing it and participating in the ocean, deep sea fishing in the ocean will now yield more gold then land counterpart. Regionalise resources will make taking those resources over the ocean more profitable due to the added risk.

I guarantee end game crafting is gonna require items unique to both continents and atleast 1 smaller island so you will either need to transport these mats back to your island or buy them on your continent for higher price. This will allow for the merchant type players to thrive who have no issues buying resources from east continent and risk traveling them across the ocean to sell for a profit on the east continent. Now yes this would come under a caravan run/system for pvp flagging but people can just carry inventory loads to bypass this and this change now changes that so there always a larger risk to transporting goods across the ocean. tbh this change adds more content to the game for both pvp and merchant/traders type of players.

it also adds a social element to the game for people to try and band together for transporting goods and a place for mercenaries.

PvE players are less likely to be murdered to while farming if there more PvP players out in the ocean than running around there continents so there also that tbh :P

Veeshan

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

...

So people who want to grief move into a completely optional area of the map rather than the zones where the general population spends a majority of their tine ? Sounds indeed like a huge loss for the part of the community, that is very PvP averse. /s

To be honest. I don't want them to move to any area. I want them to not do it anywhere. Since I cannot make them, I want the game to punish them if they do. Ergo, the corruption system should stay
But If that is not possible, I agree that it is better they move to their own zone and stay there.

Edit: to make sure we understand each other. For me griefing is PvP with the sole intend to ruin the other players game experience for the sake of the griefers own enjoyment alone, without any other benefit. Normal PvP, killing anoying kill-stealer or loud-mouths etc. or preventing access to resources etc. is not griefing.

Griefing different for everyone, For me im similiar to you in what griefing is, Killing somone and moving on to me is not griefing its pvp, now camping them thats griefing. However killing players in an area to deny resources is PvP and not griefing either you want those resources or you dont want an opponent to have it and so on.
but for PvE players any kinda of inconvience is griefing.

For me i general killed somone once and leave them alone after that unless they attack me. Unless there a goal like in Crowfall there was an objective to kill gryphons for a win condition and i killed everyone who tried to kill them because i needed the item for guild win condition for a campaign it got to the point for that season i had entire guild kill squads going after me in there zone the moment i killed one of them :P and all i was doing was playing the onjectives of that season

Diamaht

This type of open flagging is fantastic. There are clearly defined safe areas, and clearly defined auto-flag areas so everyone will know what they are getting into.

I am thankful this is in the game.

Okeydoke

Dygz wrote: »

That may just be what some people like to focus on when they play MMORPGs.
Hasn't been my take on people in the forums, but... okeydoke....

Our takes are usually opposite. But it's cool. You're a shit stirrer. I like that. lol shit be cracking me up

Child Item