Corruption system in relation to auto-flagging in open sea

You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes.
My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below.
Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.

https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223
mark 3:43

Azherae

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.

None of these things are problems under the corruption system as it was described?

Does damaging a ship flag you?
Yes, just like damaging a player flags you.

Does one flagged/corrupted player make the whole ship flagged/corrupted?
No, just like one flagged/corrupted player doesn't make the whole group they are in flagged/corrupted.

How do ship abilities like cannons work when only part of the enemy crew is flagged/corrupted? etc
The same way?

You mention these as 'issues', but the only 'issues' I see are that players would need to flag up to attack crews that are not 'all pirates' and therefore wouldn't give those crews more corruption. 'Incidental damage' to ships where some of the crew is flagged and some not (this wouldn't even need to be allowed) doesn't have to corrupt anyone anyway.

The main reason I don't understand the post is that everything would have worked without 'issues' unless we consider 'issues' to be 'it's more required for a ship to flag up' and 'players might not accrue corruption as much/correctly'.

'Solving' those 'issues' by removing any flag up and dismissing all corruption isn't a thing one does for the purposes of solving the issues. That would literally be going 'people aren't careful enough about forest fires, so let's burn the whole forest down', except even that analogy wouldn't work, at least in that case you'd have Controlled Burn with an actual purpose.

"Corruption doesn't work to protect people on the sea as much, let's just remove it so there's no protection at all."

If the above is a reasoning that was seriously used for this, even I would need to start to care about this situation.

hleV wrote: »

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.

If you do that you devide the game into areas for PvP and PvE. You can do that, but that was not the original idea for the game. Then you could simply have created two games or have different server types. The PvE players just wont go into these areas. And if you force them to (by putting important content there) you will loose them in the long run. Then you only have the PvP part left. The game might live, but it will not be the game that was originally envisioned. That sounds dramatic, but that is how it goes. Usually the developer changes things up before that happens and that is when PvPers complain 'the developer ruining the game by listening to carebears'.

https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223
mark 3:43

NaughtyBrute

hleV wrote: »

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.

I wanted to focus on the justification for the change and not the change itself.
As a PvPer, I love this change, but what irks me is the reasoning Steven gave for the change.

For open sea: Corruption bad for risk-vs-reward.
For land & coastal waters: Corruption good for risk-vs-reward.

If there was a design philosophy change, then come out and say it.. if there were other reasons, fine too! They can do whatever they choose.. they are the ones creating the game!

I just don't think that the justification makes sense.
Hopefully they will expand on it a bit more.

Dygz wrote: »

You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes.
My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below.
Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.

https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223
mark 3:43

It does for about 80% the world.

If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good.

Asgerr wrote: »

It does for about 80% the world.
If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good.

Yep.

hleV

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

If you do that you devide the game into areas for PvP and PvE. You can do that, but that was not the original idea for the game. Then you could simply have created two games or have different server types. The PvE players just wont go into these areas. And if you force them to (by putting important content there) you will loose them in the long run. Then you only have the PvP part left. The game might live, but it will not be the game that was originally envisioned. That sounds dramatic, but that is how it goes. Usually the developer changes things up before that happens and that is when PvPers complain 'the developer ruining the game by listening to carebears'.

What was the original idea for the game? As far as I'm aware, it was always marketed as a PvX game, meaning PvP exists along PvE and you can't guarantee yourself PvP-safety unless you stay in a town. Going outside of town is a risk. Well going into open sea is a bigger risk. That's still PvX, with emphasis on risk vs reward. Nothing wrong with certain areas being more risky (as in, higher probability of PvP), it makes things more interesting.

Azherae

Asgerr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes.
My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below.
Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.

https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223
mark 3:43

It does for about 80% the world.

If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good.

@Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad.

This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'.

The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?')

To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals.

You've been here longer, so I ask you, was there ever an impression given by Steven, that Ashes is supposed to be bigger than ArcheAge? I can see how the entire plan might just have been to make a game that has maybe two servers per region and call it at that, but subtleties like that won't be on a wiki.

NaughtyBrute wrote: »

@Asgerr

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

People noping out of a game because what amounts to less than 20% of the world is open world PvP without the corruption system, is essentially throwing a tantrum.

NaughtyBrute wrote: »

@Asgerr
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?

Oh but it is a about that. Imagine you're playing a world made of 10 squares. You can play on all of them. On 8 of those you have the normal rules, on 2 of those you don't.

BUT, to play in those 2 squares, you first of all need to be of high enough level to gain enough money to buy a ship. Once you've bought that ship, you need to have enough people to staff it with. And you wanna have cannons.

So going to those 2 squares already requires an investment in time, money and resources that would lead all those who have done so, to go there for the exact premise of said 2 squares.

You won't just be swimming around, and doing stuff there, with people ganking you. If you're there with a ship of your own, you're basically going there to PvP as a combattant anyway.

If you're there as part of a Caravan, then you're already there as Combatant as well.

In what scenario are you, as a green, going to be in the middle of international waters just fucking about?

They're not really gonna put resources there, because resource gathering and its related XP goes towards a Node''s XP, and international waters don't count towards that.

They won't disable it in dungeons because in dungeons you're there to PvE. In international waters, where there is nothing, you're there to PvP anyway. So there is no griefing there.

And if you're "just trying to cross the sea to the other continent" well hey, you get to be on edge for all of 10 minutes. Which is pretty much how long it'll take to cross the sea between the two continents.

NaughtyBrute wrote: »

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.

I shall repeat myself, but in land and coastal waters, whatever it is you do, contributes to your Node's XP. Therefore if you don't have the corruption system there, someone could gank everyone in an area to prevent any XP from going to a node and leveling it up.

In international waters, there is no such mechanic or risk to the game. As I said before, if you're there, you're there with full understanding of what goes on there.

Plus they mentioned in previous discussions, that if one player on a ship attacks another ship, the whole ship would have turned combattant. This could have been a pain in the ass for someone being victim of a troll. Now at least, no one can troll anyone, you know exactly what your status is once you reach international waters.

Thus I disagree entirely in that they're inconsistent.

Just because you can't put two and two together from all of the systems that are there, doesn't mean that their choice is a bad one. You'd think that the developers, developing a game, with all the data and knowledge of their own systems, might be making a more educated decision, over some people on the forums who just want to prevent anyone ever in the game from trying to kill anyone without going corrupt, including when you're not in an area with any form of government to sanction it.

So yeah, everyone whining and threatening to leave the game is just throwing a tantrum for the game not catring 100% to their desires or not understanding things fully.

I don't recall Steven ever saying he wants Ashes to be bigger than ArcheAge.
I think, for him, it just needs to be big enough for him to support enough staff to keep the game running after launch.

CROW3

NaughtyBrute wrote: »

I wanted to focus on the justification for the change and not the change itself.
As a PvPer, I love this change, but what irks me is the reasoning Steven gave for the change.

For open sea: Corruption bad for risk-vs-reward.
For land & coastal waters: Corruption good for risk-vs-reward.

If there was a design philosophy change, then come out and say it.. if there were other reasons, fine too! They can do whatever they choose.. they are the ones creating the game!

I just don't think that the justification makes sense.
Hopefully they will expand on it a bit more.

This is very close to my concern. To HleV’s point, though I know it’s not the intention, a slippery slope has been introduced for PvX without a sufficient explanation.

hleV wrote: »

XiraelAcaron wrote: »

If you do that you devide the game into areas for PvP and PvE. You can do that, but that was not the original idea for the game. Then you could simply have created two games or have different server types. The PvE players just wont go into these areas. And if you force them to (by putting important content there) you will loose them in the long run. Then you only have the PvP part left. The game might live, but it will not be the game that was originally envisioned. That sounds dramatic, but that is how it goes. Usually the developer changes things up before that happens and that is when PvPers complain 'the developer ruining the game by listening to carebears'.

What was the original idea for the game? As far as I'm aware, it was always marketed as a PvX game, meaning PvP exists along PvE and you can't guarantee yourself PvP-safety unless you stay in a town. Going outside of town is a risk. Well going into open sea is a bigger risk. That's still PvX, with emphasis on risk vs reward. Nothing wrong with certain areas being more risky (as in, higher probability of PvP), it makes things more interesting.

More interesting for some yes. Mainly the PvP players. The original idea was to have both together. If you make one area more PvP than others the player base will devide. The PvE will avoid the PvP heavy zones and the PvPer will go there because there is more of the content they like. This might even be good for the PvE players because now they have less PvP players in the light PvP zones of the game. You still have PvE and PvP content, so it is still a PvX game, but the content is now more segregated and so is the player base.
There are many ways the game can go from there, but I personally think its not a good direction.

Azherae wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes.
My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below.
Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.

https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223
mark 3:43

It does for about 80% the world.

If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good.

@Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad.

This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'.

The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?')

To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals.

So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game?

How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him).

If he doesn't like a small section of the world doing something he doesn't like, then why should he get to tell everyone else we're wrong for liking something he doesn't? And that ideally the game should change to cater to his desire for absolutely no free PvP area ever.

International waters are essentially one big Caravan system. You're there opting into the consensual PvP experience. If you don't want to opt into a caravan, you stay away from it. If you don't want to opt into the international waters, you stay away from them.

You wouldn't tell the devs that they need to remove the caravan system because if there are 5 caravans going from one node to the other, you've suddenly reduced the total amount of surface area where you can choose not to opt into consensual PvP.

Azherae

Asgerr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes.
My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below.
Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.

https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223
mark 3:43

It does for about 80% the world.

If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good.

@Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad.

This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'.

The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?')

To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals.

So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game?

How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him).

If he doesn't like a small section of the world doing something he doesn't like, then why should he get to tell everyone else we're wrong for liking something he doesn't? And that ideally the game should change to cater to his desire for absolutely no free PvP area ever.

International waters are essentially one big Caravan system. You're there opting into the consensual PvP experience. If you don't want to opt into a caravan, you stay away from it. If you don't want to opt into the international waters, you stay away from them.

You wouldn't tell the devs that they need to remove the caravan system because if there are 5 caravans going from one node to the other, you've suddenly reduced the total amount of surface area where you can choose not to opt into consensual PvP.

I don't have anything to say to you, you can assume that anything you believe about my perspective is true and 'other' me as well.

Asgerr wrote: »

...

You won't just be swimming around, and doing stuff there, with people ganking you. If you're there with a ship of your own, you're basically going there to PvP as a combattant anyway.

If you're there as part of a Caravan, then you're already there as Combatant as well.

In what scenario are you, as a green, going to be in the middle of international waters just fucking about?

They're not really gonna put resources there, because resource gathering and its related XP goes towards a Node''s XP, and international waters don't count towards that.

They won't disable it in dungeons because in dungeons you're there to PvE. In international waters, where there is nothing, you're there to PvP anyway. So there is no griefing there.

And if you're "just trying to cross the sea to the other continent" well hey, you get to be on edge for all of 10 minutes. Which is pretty much how long it'll take to cross the sea between the two continents.

...

Exploration of the ocean content was always part of what PvE centric players imaginged doing. So being alone on the ocean in a ship was something people wanted. Not so much anymore under the current circumstances.
You are right about the caravan, there is effectively no change there.
The rest are some heavy assumptions on your part. If you are right, i agree that we do not really have a problem. But I doubt it. I assume there will be resouces to be gathered there. Whether corruption will be active or not in dungeons in the ocean I have no idea. But I would image that it is deactivate there as well. If it is just a matter of going there undisturbed that would be managable. We need some clarifcations about this.

Azherae wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes.
My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below.
Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.

https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223
mark 3:43

It does for about 80% the world.

If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good.

@Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad.

This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'.

The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?')

To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals.

So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game?

How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him).

If he doesn't like a small section of the world doing something he doesn't like, then why should he get to tell everyone else we're wrong for liking something he doesn't? And that ideally the game should change to cater to his desire for absolutely no free PvP area ever.

International waters are essentially one big Caravan system. You're there opting into the consensual PvP experience. If you don't want to opt into a caravan, you stay away from it. If you don't want to opt into the international waters, you stay away from them.

You wouldn't tell the devs that they need to remove the caravan system because if there are 5 caravans going from one node to the other, you've suddenly reduced the total amount of surface area where you can choose not to opt into consensual PvP.

I don't have anything to say to you, you can assume that anything you believe about my perspective is true and 'other' me as well.

So you either have no defense or you're just here to ignore everyone else's opinion that doesn't conform with your own.

Fantastic reply. Pat yourself on the back brother.

Asgerr wrote: »

They're not really gonna put resources there, because resource gathering and its related XP goes towards a Node''s XP, and international waters don't count towards that

Steven states that the reason for the change is that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities. Which is enticing, but...
If exploring there means I'm going to be auto-flagged as a Combatant... I'm not playing that game.
Because I don't play games that do that.

Asgerr wrote: »

Just because you can't put two and two together from all of the systems that are there, doesn't mean that their choice is a bad one.

True. We agree. It doesn't mean their choice is a bad one.
It just means now the game is too much like EvE Online and ArcheAge for me to want to play it.
It should be a great addition to players who love EvE Online and ArcheAge.

Asgerr wrote: »

So yeah, everyone whining and threatening to leave the game is just throwing a tantrum for the game not catring 100% to their desires or not understanding things fully.

LMAO
100% to my desires woud be a PvE-Only server.
Or to have total immunity from PvP, like I do on New World.

Corruption is the compromise that had me willing to play on the same servers as PvPers.
Precisely as Steven outlined when I asked him about how PvP works in Ashes.

Choosing not to play a game is not throwing a tantrum. Again, my stance has not changed from what it was 4 years ago. Steven made a change that placed Ashes onto the list of MMORPGs I don't like to play.