hleV wrote: » I might be wrong, but wasn't the Corruption system put in place to fight off griefing? The Risk vs Reward is still there: you have a risk of PvP, you get reward for enduring. Now Open Sea seems like an activity that is past the point of a PvE player getting griefed while he's leveling, no?
Asgerr wrote: » 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?
Asgerr wrote: » 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).
Asgerr wrote: » 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.
BaSkA13 wrote: » Up until 72 hours ago, international waters had corruption and I never saw anyone complaining about that. Where were the PvP chads then? Unacceptable!!! Chads, unite!!!
BaSkA13 wrote: » I fail to see him demanding anything other than asking Intrepid not to make changes to the game design, in this case big changes related to PvP, 5 years after the Kickstarter campaign from his PvE player perspective.
Asgerr wrote: » By territorial waters I mean the Ocean that is still within a Node's Zone of influence. A coastal Node's ZOI won't end at the coast, it will encompass a large section of all the world's Seas/Ocean.
Asgerr wrote: » A lot of people are talking about this like the moment you set oar to water at the coast, you're a free kill for some ganker and like people can't fish or explore that area.
Asgerr wrote: » I'm pretty sure the ZOI will be the same size as other Node's except its terrain is mostly Ocean instead of land.
Asgerr wrote: » The little fringes in between those (between continents) won't offer as much content for exploration as the rest of the world.
Asgerr wrote: » And hey, since you're 87% explorer, you get to explore 87% percent of the world under the protection of the corruption system.
CROW3 wrote: » I mean, we could flip this argument around and state that all terrestrial areas outside a populated node's ZOI are now non-PvP zones with awesome mats & quests that are accessed via RP and daily mini-game questing. This is just as problematic because it's not PvX. If I put this in product terms, PvX is a core market differentiator that has the potential of capturing a share of two lucrative consumer segments. Reducing the integrity of PvX erodes the capability of the product to effectively garner support of both segments therefore relegating it to one or the other, which already have better funded and established titles that would have to be disrupted accordingly. TLDR: like it or not, the corruption system is a crucial commercial mechanism to Intrepid. Undermining its integrity undermines the long term value proposition of Ashes.
BaSkA13 wrote: » hleV wrote: » I might be wrong, but wasn't the Corruption system put in place to fight off griefing? The Risk vs Reward is still there: you have a risk of PvP, you get reward for enduring. Now Open Sea seems like an activity that is past the point of a PvE player getting griefed while he's leveling, no? Sorry for the following wall of text: From the best of my memory, from all the AMAs, QAs, fan videos, etc. that's not the only reason the corruption system existed, although it certainly is one of the reasons and there's also some lore involved, if you care about that. What I thought was the best way to summarize the corruption system before the change to the open sea was: to enforce the fact that PKing in Ashes is not free of punishment, free of risk to the aggressor. That encompasses reasons such as griefing, protect low levels, etc. and also adds consequences and planning to PKing. My understanding could be wrong, but even if you read some quotes from Wiki pages (1, 2, 3) you can somewhat see the direction they had, you can see in Steven's words that although he always said "this game ain't for everyone", he wasn't stupid and always chose his words carefully "making sure" PvE players always had the "protection" of corruption, which is now removed from a very important segment of the game. Respectfully, if one says the open sea is not important/unnecessary/"just don't go there", they're trying to find excuses for an unprecedent change in game design, which is easy to refute. If Intrepid removed PvP from a zone which would be an absolutely stupid decision, that now I don't doubt it could happen (could be an overreaction, but it's the same logic), PvE players will simply say "just don't go there", it's the same idiotic argument. Removing corruption brings positive changes but it also brings negative changes, depending on your point of view. That's why in my opinion you should try to look at decisions from as many sides as possible to find out if the overall balance is good or bad for anything in life. If you are able to take off your PvP Chad hat and put on your PvE player hat, like I am trying to do for the sake of logic and to understand what's negative about this change, then you might understand the inconsistencies, to say the least, of removing the corruption system from anywhere. Corruption was removed from the open sea but apart from all the bullshit and excuses, forgive my French, it could've been open world dungeons and some of us would have similar arguments just swapping "open sea" for "open world dungeons". That's what, in my opinion, some of you fail to understand. The problem is not the where but the why. Ironically enough, I actually think that open world dungeons, raids and world bosses' radius would be a way better candidate to have auto flagging and no corruption, not an entire zone such as the open seas. At the end of the day, I just want the game to thrive and to be its best possible version, and even though we still don't have a lot of information regarding Naval content, we had a lot of information regarding the logic behind the corruption system, and I'm not sure this change to the open sea makes the game better.
BaSkA13 wrote: » Last but not least, there's no such thing as consensual PvP in Ashes. PvP is forced upon you if an aggressor wants to. You may choose not to fight back, but you opted in to PvP when you logged into the game. Respectfully, your Caravan example is some next level mental gymnastics. Caravans have a specific goal, the open sea doesn't. Caravans are temporary, the open sea isn't. Caravans' "ZoI" represent nothing when compared to the size of the open sea. Caravans were part of the game since the Kickstarter, corruptionless zones weren't (afaik).
Dygz wrote: » The issue for me is that I consider Corruption to be the punishment for non-consensual PvP where the Non-Combatant is PKed. If all PvP combat was consensual just for playing the game, there would be no Corruption. Same as for an MMOFPS. If the game has zones that auto-flag you as a Combatant, you are pretty much auto-consenting just by playing the game. And...I won't play that type of game.
Neurath wrote: » I think this makes perfect sense. If multiple people are on a ship and the corruption system applied then some people on the boat would go corrupt and the rest would not. Its not conducive to good PvX contestation. Its not the same as two raids duking in out over the world boss - it would mean half the raid would be complaining they turned corrupted, or, the other half complaining half the raid didn't turn combatant during a ship to ship contest. Some of these ships can cater to whole raids the last I heard.
Dolyem wrote: » Cant agree with this comparison. Open oceans with autoflagged PVP still involve PVP and PVE cohesion, therefore retaining the PVX format.
CROW3 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Variety, flavor, it makes sense that an ungoverned area wouldn't have law. Why shouldn't it be done? It makes for a far more interesting world when you sitting on a "safe" piece of land looking out into the ocean knowing you are looking at a far more dangerous world than what you're currently residing in. And it's your choice to enter that dangerous world, or stay in the one with safeguards. Totally. We’ve talked about this for years, so you know my opinions about roaming a dangerous world. I can apply all the RP reasons why open ocean is a free pvp zone to any land mass in Verra that does have corruption in place. I’m just baffled as to the why, and the implications.
Dolyem wrote: » Variety, flavor, it makes sense that an ungoverned area wouldn't have law. Why shouldn't it be done? It makes for a far more interesting world when you sitting on a "safe" piece of land looking out into the ocean knowing you are looking at a far more dangerous world than what you're currently residing in. And it's your choice to enter that dangerous world, or stay in the one with safeguards.
Dolyem wrote: » This is a definition we will likely always disagree on. Agreeing to a games rules and designs once you log in means you accept the outcomes that may happen, including being killed by other players without you wanting to be. Thus you are consenting to the possibility of being killed by another player, even if you don't want it to happen.
CROW3 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Cant agree with this comparison. Open oceans with autoflagged PVP still involve PVP and PVE cohesion, therefore retaining the PVX format. Sure, let's throw an instanced pvp duel into that no-ow PvP example. We can probably determine exactly where that analogous balance point is. However, I think most PvP'ers would see this terrestrial area as a PvEr space just as most PvE'ers will now look at auto-flagged open seas as a PvPer space. That leaves us at a red v. blue Venn with very little purple in the middle. IMO Intrepid's success through Ashes hinges on maximizing the purple. So, I'm just very curious on the why behind this call, and the implications on the overall direction for PvX.
Dolyem wrote: » If I had to make a guess, the "why" whilst staying true to the whole games philosophy so far may be that it falls in line with higher risk for higher reward as Steven said. Not to mention, it is an area without node influence, so this system could help highlight that fact and provide a distinct separation between nodes where you can benefit your home through activities, and an area that has no benefit to anyone except what you can harvest from it to take back to your home node. Its also just a different option, which is a nice thing to have. Hard to really say what their reason for "why" is since I am not them, but thatd be my first guess.
Natasha wrote: » I don't consider corruption punishment at all. Inconvenience absolutely, but I'm not going to not kill someone because it exists. If I know someone's got some nice gatherables or if I've got a grudge on them from killing me or something then no amount of corruption would ever make me stop. They could make corruption full loot item drops and I have to work off 10 levels of XP debt and I'd still kill you.
