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

Warth

@Natasha not sure why you are trying to convince someone to see your point who made up his mind about 44 hours ago.

Dygz

PvP with Corruption and default as Non-Combatant is not free-for-all PvP. Free-for-all PvP does not have a Corruption penalty.
Opt-in, PvP combat with Corruption where all players are Non-Combatants by default is an acceptable compromise for me to play on the same server as a PvPers.
Including zones with auto-flagging to Combatant and no Corruption mechanic just to explore and adventure in the area is a deal-breaker for me.

Mag7spy

Honestly this isn't a big deal its a PvX game. Yes there is more risk on the ocean and I'm sure potentially some more to main in contrast to certain content. But you aren't going to be doing most the content int he game on the ocean in your boat or with battles on boats...

Most you can say is for transporting gods, maybe some monster hunting and bosses there, and underwater dungeons for when you resurface with your loot. If you aren't a fan of potential risk of pvp just don't spend as much time on the water. That could be 5-10% of gameplay you are cutting down 2.5-5% of your time. And they will have safe methods of travel.

People out here thinking AoC is going to be sea of thieves and they will be spending their lives on the ocean and not only a fraction of it. Some people more into pvp of course will spend more time depending on the content tat is available and if it is to their liking.

Hinotori

Warth wrote: »

@Natasha not sure why you are trying to convince someone to see your point who made up his mind about 44 hours ago.

I'm not I'm trying to understand their weird logic behind why they think any danger they're facing has changed when you can always be attacked literally (figuratively) everywhere.

I'm just gonna chalk it up to PVE brain.

NaughtyBrute

@George_Black
Who are you responding to? 90% of what you wrote is unrelated to my point.
Are you responding to other people that live rent-free in your brain?
You argued about PvX, about "pvp free zone... that is going to take away all the pvp/pk action from the mainland.." and other nonsense.. Are you in the wrong thread?

The only relevant argument you had to my initial point of 'inconsistent logic about the corruption system' is that it might be hard to implement and that's why they don't want it in the open sea. First of all, this was not mentioned in the stream and second this argument falls apart, since Steven mentioned that the corruption system will be active in coastal waters, which will have also ship battles.

So, again, in some cases the corruption system is presented as helpful for the risk-vs-reward philosophy and is some as an obstacle to the same philosophy. You have said nothing that convincingly counters that.

This was not a thread about PvX, or if you like auto-flagging or not.. this thread is about the inconsistency in logic on what Steven said (not what you imagined he meant).

Please, next time gather your thoughts and try to focus on the point, not the points you think you have arguments that you 'can win'.

NaughtyBrute

Also, because I see this thread is focusing on other stuff.. There is already a thread about the auto-flagging in the open sea.. please use that one for arguments about that.

This was meant to discuss the specific point I mentioned in relation to the corruption system and how it is presented as having different effect for different content.

Dygz

Natasha wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

@Natasha not sure why you are trying to convince someone to see your point who made up his mind about 44 hours ago.

I'm not I'm trying to understand their weird logic behind why they think any danger they're facing has changed when you can always be attacked literally (figuratively) everywhere.

I'm just gonna chalk it up to PVE brain.

Steven tells you that there has been an important change where the Open Seas lack the protection and punishments that exist on land and you somehow think there is no change.
Yes. I can be PKed on land - and there is a punisment for that - a punishment that does not exist on the Open Seas. In addition the default is a flagged state that indicates I'm in the mood to be a Combatant - when I'm probably not.
PvP Brain addles your logic. Yes.

Szar

I didn’t play any game with naval pvp content but I am confused that no one takes into consideration how corruption system would work on sea.
There would be a lot of issues like:
1. Do damaging/destroying other ships flag you or makes you corrupted?
2. Do one flagged/corrupted player make whole ship flagged/corrupted?
3. How ship abilities like cannons work when only part of the enemy crew is flagged/corrupted? etc

I can imagine that corruption system was just not suitable to make balanced and exciting naval pvp content.

Asgerr

If you don't want to open yourself to free PvP without corruption repercussions in international waters, then don't fucking go in international waters.

The world is large enough that you'll have the benefit of the corruption system's protection on something like 80% of the whole world. Throwing a tantrum over the 20% seems odd to me.

Especially because of that 20% there will be a significant portion that still counts as a Node's ZOI, and thus has Corruption applying as usual.

And not to disregard the level, economical might and Guild size necessary in most case for you to even own a ship that can go into open waters, or fight in it, being manned to optimal cannon usage.

Not every schmuck can get on a dingy and start ganking people. That's just not how it's going to work.

hleV

Disabling corruption in open seas is a step in the right direction, but we need more of such important zones to be marked as dangerous and risky, with no anti-corruption.

Hinotori

Szar wrote: »

I didn’t play any game with naval pvp content but I am confused that no one takes into consideration how corruption system would work on sea.
There would be a lot of issues like:
1. Do damaging/destroying other ships flag you or makes you corrupted?
2. Do one flagged/corrupted player make whole ship flagged/corrupted?
3. How ship abilities like cannons work when only part of the enemy crew is flagged/corrupted? etc

I can imagine that corruption system was just not suitable to make balanced and exciting naval pvp content.

Thankyou. Someone with a brain. Have some headpats.

XiraelAcaron

Szar wrote: »

I didn’t play any game with naval pvp content but I am confused that no one takes into consideration how corruption system would work on sea.
There would be a lot of issues like:
1. Do damaging/destroying other ships flag you or makes you corrupted?
2. Do one flagged/corrupted player make whole ship flagged/corrupted?
3. How ship abilities like cannons work when only part of the enemy crew is flagged/corrupted? etc

I can imagine that corruption system was just not suitable to make balanced and exciting naval pvp content.

That might be the case. But that is not how Steven explained that. He said it was a design decision to increase risk and rewards. If it was a technical problem, there might be technical solution or not and we would be discussing that. Instead we are currently discussing a design decision and its impact. That is a completely different beast.

BaSkA_9x2

Warth wrote: »

Id really like an answer to this part as well:

how it is less risk for PKers if it will be flooded by other PKers.

Do you think that PKers wont attack and fight each other? Where does that notion come from? The right to attack anybody automatically comes with the threat of being attacked by everybody.

I never said or implied that PKers wouldn't fight each other before or after the removal of corruption, that's just an assumption y'all made.

Regarding the question "Why is it less risk for PKers now?" it's mainly because, according to Steven, corruption = risk, so that risk has been removed. On the other hand, like you all know, in a null sec zone PKers have no reason not to attack each other, even if the losing party doesn't drop anything (because, obviously, only raw mats and processed goods are dropped, which I'm guessing nobody will have reason carry those to go PKing).

I will say that until we have more information regarding Naval content, it's possible that the risk of becoming corrupted was greater than the risk of dying in the open sea making my argument valid, just as much as it's possible that if you lose a battle in the open sea, your ship is guaranteed to be sunk by the winning party for "ship debris", which would balance the risk lost with the removal of corruption, making my argument invalid.

Regarding the request to elaborate on "why the open sea was already going to be a great place to PK", it's because I'm assuming that, generally speaking, "PvE players" will usually be on ships tailored with ship components to help in their non-PvP goals (fit loads of people or loot, lots of HP to fight bosses, defensive abilities, etc.). On the other hand, PvP players will usually be on ships tailored with ship components to help in their PvP goals (speed, turn rate, offensive abilities, etc.). For that reason, I believe that it was already going to be much harder to try to seek revenge or just chase PKers in the ocean than in land, making it a better place to risk becoming corrupted than in dry land. Which, in my mind, is another reason why a zone like this should have corruption.

It's a bit concerning to see that you believe that the open sea with corruption would have less potential victims, i.e. players who did not set sail with PvP as their main goal, than the new corruptionless open sea. I think it's clear that the total number of players who were going to set foot in the open sea decreased with the removal of corruption, regardless of the increase in PvE rewards, not the opposite: PvP players who would sail will still do it, but PvE players who would sail now may not. To me, that means now there will be more PvP between PvP players and less PvP with PvE players, which might turn out to be great, but nothing guarantees that.

Also, saying that it's okay to remove corruption because they increased the "PvE rewards" in the open sea feels like it's the only reason they found to justify their design change, which I'm personally not sure if it's a good or bad design change in the first place.

Last but not least, zergs don't need to control the entire ocean. If many different zergs control many different harbors and the nearby waters, that's bad enough. It was probably going to be bad even before the removal of corruption, now it became worse. As a PvP player myself, I see that many other PvP players don't worry too much about the effect of zergs in open world content, open seas or land, with or without corruption, and I don't understand why. I guess each one has their own experiences, and I know from my experience in online PvP games that people who underestimate the power of zergs usually regret it.

NaughtyBrute

@Asgerr

Nobody it 'throwing a tantrum'.. unless you consider discussing stuff as something negative and since this is a forum, that would be weird.

Again, I am not arguing about what is better.. You are responding to something that was never said.
Let me make this clear:
- Do I like the corruption system: NO, as a PvPer I would prefer if it was removed completely.

This is not about 'if you don't like it then don't go there', because I can say the same for the whole world 'If you don't like PvP then don't enter the game' and argue that the corruption system should not exist, but that wasn't their design philosophy and I respect that.
Also, if we assume that they are disabling corruption in open sea because it is more of an end-game area, then why not disable it also in the high level dungeons or world bosses?

A discussion like that is meaningless imo, since each one of us have different preferences.
It is not about what each one of us want, or what we think it will be better.

The only think I don't understand and was the reason for creating this thread, is why:
- In land & coastal waters: Corruption is good for risk-vs-reward because it adds some risk to the attackers for the reward they are trying to get.
- In open sea: Corruption is bad because it interferes with the risk-vs-reward philosophy, since we need higher risk for greater rewards.

These 2 descriptions imo are inconsistent.

It is like they are separating the world and targeting different parts for different playstyles/levels and they are using this weird logic to justify the change. If there are other reasons, then tell us what those are, e.g. 'it's difficult to implement', or 'we want less PvEers in the open sea', etc.

Dygz

Szar wrote: »

I didn’t play any game with naval pvp content but I am confused that no one takes into consideration how corruption system would work on sea.
There would be a lot of issues like:
1. Do damaging/destroying other ships flag you or makes you corrupted?
2. Do one flagged/corrupted player make whole ship flagged/corrupted?
3. How ship abilities like cannons work when only part of the enemy crew is flagged/corrupted? etc

I can imagine that corruption system was just not suitable to make balanced and exciting naval pvp content.

There could be a lot of technical issues. That's not the reason Steven gave.
But, Naval Content was a Kickstarter stretch goal. It's not one I would have supported had I known it was going to add a 24/7 auto-flag Combatant, free-for-all PvP zone to the game.

It's fine if the devs determined that this was easier for them to implement.
Doesn't mean I'm going to play the game.
I just don't play games where I have to play on a server that includes zones like that.

Dygz

Asgerr wrote: »

If you don't want to open yourself to free PvP without corruption repercussions in international waters, then don't fucking go in international waters.

I won't be going there because I won't be playing. It's fine.
I don't play games were I have to play on a server that has zones that are 24/7, auto-flag Combatant just to explore or adventure in the area.
I dunno why that is offensive to anyone.

BaSkA_9x2

NaughtyBrute wrote: »

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.

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?

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.

That's also something that is bugging me, because this change contradicts many things said the in the past. People who are dismissing your reasons, in my opinion, are unable to see that if they are now removing corruption from certain zones, nothing stops them from removing PvP from others, as long as Steven gives enough reasons to justify it. Unfortunately I bring bad news: Steven can be wrong and make mistakes, like everyone else.

Don't get me wrong, many games do this, EVE is a more or less applicable example with their null sec, low sec and high sec zones, and it works just fine in my opinion. However, I wish that Ashes didn't have these zone segregations, because that's not the kind of game I thought Ashes was going to be and not really the kind of game I want to play.

XiraelAcaron

Warth wrote: »

...

Corruption has always been meant to stop griefing (inhibiting the fun of others without benefit of your own), not contesting vital resources and its necessary, because you will automatically have a strong mixture of players, that will end up in the weaker ones being griefed.

If the only thing that corruption does is to stop griefing. Thats the only thing you add by removing it. So why is it necessary to add that?

Warth wrote: »

All that change tells me, is that they want to place a strong emphasis on contesting for the content they plan to place in the open sea.

If they want to make it even more contested, thats ok with me. Adding griefing to it is the wrong way to do that, however. At least in my opinion.

Veeshan

Szar wrote: »

I didn’t play any game with naval pvp content but I am confused that no one takes into consideration how corruption system would work on sea.
There would be a lot of issues like:
1. Do damaging/destroying other ships flag you or makes you corrupted?
2. Do one flagged/corrupted player make whole ship flagged/corrupted?
3. How ship abilities like cannons work when only part of the enemy crew is flagged/corrupted? etc

I can imagine that corruption system was just not suitable to make balanced and exciting naval pvp content.

just dont flag so u dont injure the player but only dmg the ship that way u can sink the ship and leave them in the water to swim very very slowly back

it would be mercy to kill them at that stage lol

XiraelAcaron

Natasha wrote: »

...
Corruption is there to stop excessive griefing, it won't stop the random "bump into" encounter which is what happens at sea anyway.

It just gets rid of the pesky build up of corruption if you happen to be two 40 man ships blasting eachother to pieces. Could you imagine the corruption grind on that?

Yes, I want to stop the excessive griefing in the naval content as well.
If there are technical reasons for them to change the system they should tell us and not pretend its about risk vs. reward.

Child Item