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

Dizz1

NaughtyBrute wrote: »

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

@NaughtyBrute
I wrote this in the other naval flagging thread, but it directly answers the OP.

You should consider some of the problems of having corruption on the sea. We have known that pirates will be a thing and large crews will also be a thing. What happens if a raid ship of 40 players is destroyed while choosing not to fight back? Does everyone on the attacking ship get corruption? Is the corruption split? Is only one person responsible for the corruption? (That could result in 1 player getting corruption for killing 40 players while only being 1 of the participants in the full fight.) What happens if a large ship pretty much one shots a small ship with a few players? In the example of destroying the large ship, ridiculous amounts of corruption could be earned while destroying the weak ship would yield little corruption no matter how you split the corruption from killing a little ship. This is the opposite of the intent for corruption as the weak target actually yields the least corruption (at least if we assume that corruption is gained per player killed).

Corruption on the seas just could not work the same way as on land because sea corruption would be earned from killing multiple players at once while the corruption is also earned by a group of attackers at a time. On the other hand, power in a naval gunfight is not determined so much by the level of the players involved but by the tiers of the ships involved. However, corruption is determined by the difference in the levels of the players. How do you even determine what the corruption should be if you have a spread of levels in each group of players.

Regardless of how you look at it, either the corruption system needs a full rework for the sea; or, it needs to be removed. I think Steven did what made sense.

The difficulty of implementation might be a valid reason for the change, but since the corruption system will be active in coastal waters (unless they change that too) and there will be ship battles there, I don't think this is the real reason for the change.

However, I don't want to make assumptions about the real reason for the change.. a change that I actually like!
And I know that in this thread a lot of people are focusing on if this change was good or not, but that was not my intention. There was already another thread for that.

All I am saying is that what was said on stream about the corruption in relation to the risk-vs-reward philosophy seems inconsistent to me. That's the inconsistency I am talking about, nothing else. I am not talking about systems in the game, I am not talking about the implementation of it, or anything like that. Just what was said on stream. To put it simply:
- Corruption - Bad in the open sea because we are going with a risk-vs-reward philosophy.
While, until now they were saying:
- Corruption - Good because it puts some risk on the attackers and enhances the risk-vs-reward philosophy.

Like, wtf?!

And to clarify.. The game studio from my perspective can make any change they want in their design philosophy. Their game, their rules. I'll play the game in any case, even more now since as a PvPer I want non-protected PvP areas.
I just don't like logical inconsistencies and this justification for the change seems illogical to me.. if they came out and said "It's difficult to implement so we are disabling it", or if it was a design philosophy reason "We decided to remove the risk from the top dogs in the sea and make this area a sandbox" I would be happy.

Why they chose to present it like that? I can make assumptions, but I don't want to go there. I just hope they give us more details on this.

This is why I said I part agree with you, the reason the philosophy etc seems inconsistent.

In my understanding, corruption is not designed to being a absolutely rule for all contents when I first time watch thelazypeon's first video about Ashes of Creation, to me it's just at some development stages saying "corruption system will be cover whole game world" is more easier to make people to understand that there are consequences when you want to killing somebody in the game in general, BUT at the other hand this is a bad way to talk about things that have a large area can be misunderstood just like what happen now there will be players won't even consider the other possibility behind what developers did talk about and didn't talk about, please aware I'm not saying you are and this is not cool, I just saying from another point of view like a star point maybe they trying to do a higher risk vs return game loop and naturally thinking of open sea because what you find in open sea it's yours just no one says clearly that even those you take from other people's hands, so maybe from this point of view you can understand why they do it instead of see it from result.

But to be honest, keep transparency and keep sharing the concepts or progress things etc to players is HARD to do it well no matter what, and Intrepid is trying to do better and trying hard to me for now, I think that is important.

AGAIN, I'm not trying to say any bad, just provide another point of view, because I'm confused by their quotations too just like I said in my last reply: dps meter can have negative effect which means toxic dps check player behaviors, but combat log can help players easier to understand what happen and how to improve, to me like: "What? it's just the difference between auto and semi-auto and I just don't see the point why one is ok the other is not, and those toxic dps checking behaviors won't be stopped by doing these things to me, like if I'm toxic player I can talk a lot BS on anyone just by timing how long you need to kill a monster.", and yes I aware that might be people think I'm just crying that I'm those players want to have dps meter but didn't get it but I just don't care, I just want know why if you ban one thing because it can have bad effect why other one just 1cm lesser bad is ok, I just trying to figure it out, and yes it maybe just the lesser of two evils, and I need move on just like you need.

In the end we just need the game to be fun and to be appeal to different players as much as the game need to maintain itself.

mcstackerson

Dygz wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

It isn't surprising for people that Played Archeage and knows that Archeage is one of the greatest inspirations for Ashes, for those without those 2 informations it can certainly look "arbitrary" or "inconsistent".
It certainly doesn't invalidade nor dimishes the corruption system.

Again... I specifically asked Steven to compare Ashes PvP to ArcheAge PvP.
His answer was:
"Well, ArcheAge... You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone, so...if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them.
So, that really doesn't relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just a flagging system that relates to the other players."

So...adding a zone that is auto-flag Combatant with no Corruption is inconsistent with what he said when I asked him 4 years ago. It's fine for us to go with, "Everything is subject to change."
But, it absolutely is an inconsistent PvP philosophy for the Ashes game design.

Archeage's zones rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). Considering he mentions this mechanic prior to the statement you are focused on, this seems to be what he is referring to. As others have pointed out, there are other significant differences between Ashes and Archeages pvp so they aren't easy to compare.

Dygz

Warth wrote: »

For me its a very good change, but I think your discontent is very fair and i do understand where you are coming from. If the change went into the opposite direction, i'd probably not feel much different than you.

I do however believe for development to be fluid and changes to be expected. The change isn't massive enough for me to believe, that the core design really changed.

I would not say that I am discontent. I am content to not play the game.
It's just a server ruleset I'm not willing to play.

Warth wrote: »

Considering how much i agree with his other design choices, i'm rather excited to see where he takes it

Yep. I'm also eager to see what else transpires.

Dygz

mcstackerson wrote: »

Archeage's zones rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). Considering he mentions this mechanic prior to the statement you are focused on, this seems to be what he is referring to. As others have pointed out, there are other significant differences between Ashes and Archeages pvp so they aren't easy to compare.

Sure, but Steven said, "Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas."
And now Ashes has a zoned, flagged PvP area.
Remember that Steven said that is an important CHANGE.

I'm really just saying it's not as though I just made assumptions. I proactively asked for more details on the PvP philosophy. It's different now than it was in 2018.
Which is OK. It just happens to be a change that is a dealbreaker for me.

mcstackerson

Dygz wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Archeage's zones rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). Considering he mentions this mechanic prior to the statement you are focused on, this seems to be what he is referring to. As others have pointed out, there are other significant differences between Ashes and Archeages pvp so they aren't easy to compare.

Sure, but Steven said, "Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas."
And now Ashes has a zoned, flagged PvP area.

I feel like you are cherry picking. If you read the whole statement, he is clearly talking about the peace/war mechanic and how that affected your choices.

"Well, ArcheAge... You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone, so...if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them.
So, that really doesn't relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just a flagging system that relates to the other players."

To reiterate, the peace and war zones was something that most zones did. They would rotate between peace and war which is something that isn't going to happen in ashes.

NaughtyBrute

Dizz wrote: »

But to be honest, keep transparency and keep sharing the concepts or progress things etc to players is HARD to do it well no matter what, and Intrepid is trying to do better and trying hard to me for now, I think that is important.

I agree and that's why I am providing feedback, as they mention how valuable it is for them and they seem to care. If we had any indication that they don't care, I wouldn't even bother.

Dygz

No. You are cherry-picking.

"Well, ArcheAge... You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone, so...if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them."
So, that really doesn't relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just a flagging system that relates to the other players."
---Steven

Previously, there were no zoned, flagged PvP areas. Instead, there was just one flagging system that was global.
As Steven stated Friday, this has now changed.
The Open Seas are a zoned, flagged PvP area. And, people know what the PvP mechanics are when you move through that area. You know that the PvP is heightened there because everyone will be auto-flagged as Combatant. There will be warning messages alerting you to the high-risk zone. It is of your time and choosing to travel there.

Maybe you have some other point that I'm missing?

JustVine

@Dygz is this Archeage quote from one of the conversations you had with Steven? Due to wiki edits I can't check as easily.

Dygz

Yes.
Video and time stamp is on page 2.

mcstackerson

Dygz wrote: »

No. You are cherry-picking.

"Well, ArcheAge... You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone, so...if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them."
So, that really doesn't relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just a flagging system that relates to the other players."
---Steven

Previously, there were no zoned, flagged PvP areas. Instead, there was just one flagging system that was global.
As Steven stated Friday, this has now changed.
The Open Seas are a zoned, flagged PvP area. And, people know what the PvP mechanics are when you move through that area. You know that the PvP is heightened there because everyone will be auto-flagged as Combatant. There will be warning messages alerting you to the high-risk zone. It is of your time and choosing to travel there.

Maybe you have some other point that I'm missing?

Please answer me this, have you played Archeage?

The statement you are focused on is clearly in reference to the part i bolded, the part where he is referring to zones going through peace and war.

The part i think you are missing is the part where most pvp zones in archeage rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). He seems to be talking about that mechanic as in a sense, the zones have a flag that allows or disables pvp in them depending on the time. No where does he bring up how archeage's ocean was different since it never went into peace.

As other have brought up, Archeage also was a faction game where you were rewarded for killing members of the opposite faction. This is also something that Ashes does not have and another reason Steven would want to say the games are not alike. The crime system in Archeage was only for killing/stealing from members of your faction.

JustVine

mcstackerson wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Archeage's zones rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). Considering he mentions this mechanic prior to the statement you are focused on, this seems to be what he is referring to. As others have pointed out, there are other significant differences between Ashes and Archeages pvp so they aren't easy to compare.

Sure, but Steven said, "Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas."
And now Ashes has a zoned, flagged PvP area.

I feel like you are cherry picking. If you read the whole statement, he is clearly talking about the peace/war mechanic and how that affected your choices.

"Well, ArcheAge... You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone, so...if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them.
So, that really doesn't relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just a flagging system that relates to the other players."

To reiterate, the peace and war zones was something that most zones did. They would rotate between peace and war which is something that isn't going to happen in ashes.

My post was going to be a bit longer but I think you didn't watch the full conversation between Dygz and Steven. EvE's PvP zones came up before the quote you are discussing. If Steven really intended to have this specific system before when Dygz was asking Steven about PvP there is almost no chance he wouldn't have clarified that 'Ashes will have zones like EvE' or noted one of the differences between Ashes and Archeage was the persistence of areas where you can always engage in PvP without penalty.

It's really obvious why Dygz asks these kinds of questions. I think Steven is an intelligent enough guy to understand that PvP 'always on war' zones would be relevant information to Dygz's question here. There are a lot of things about 'misunderstanding Steven' I feel are valid to assert against Dygz about his 1 to 1's with Steven. This is certainly not one of them.

Dygz had clear intentions in asking and vetting out Steven's perception of what qualifies as a murder box to Steven and EvE's zoning came up right before this part of your quote. Note that Steven did not consider EvE to be a murder box. But the fact that Dygz showed a pretty strong reaction relative to it would make it really weird to not have brought up and tried to walk Dygz through. After all Dygz expressed uncertainty, not rejection.

It was a clear part of the context of this conversation. It would have made sense from Steven's perspective to clarify to Dygz the PvP zone thing at this point in the conversation. So either Steven knew he was going to be making this change back then and was just trying to coax Dygz into not giving him a certain kind of press (which is a bad look imo)..... Or it changed after the fact (much more favorable look)....

Dygz

mcstackerson wrote: »

Please answer me this, have you played Archeage?

The statement you are focused on is clearly in reference to the part i bolded, the part where he is referring to zones going through peace and war.

The part i think you are missing is the part where most pvp zones in archeage rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). He seems to be talking about that mechanic as in a sense, the zones have a flag that allows or disables pvp in them depending on the time. No where does he bring up how archeage's ocean was different since it never went into peace.

As other have brought up, Archeage also was a faction game where you were rewarded for killing members of the opposite faction. This is also something that Ashes does not have and another reason Steven would want to say the games are not alike. The crime system in Archeage was only for killing/stealing from members of your faction.

I think you don't understand what I'm saying.
Steven stated that Ashes has one global PvP mechanic. Until a few months ago, Ashes did not have zones with different PvP mechanics.
Friday, Steven stated there has been an important change.
So... I dunno. It seems like you are trying to say that it's not a change, even though Steven stated it is an important change.

Voxtrium

@Dygz My Bartle Score is: Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%

My Bartle score:
60% Achiever,
53% Socialiser,
47% Explorer,
40% Killer.
The questions are poorly formatted with extreme irrelevance based on common scenarios. I could devise a better test in 6 hours, it doesn't mean anything when you tell us yours.

"MMORPGs should not have an endgame. Endgame is when you've finished all of the quests and stories and you're waiting for new content."
Your definition of endgame differs from Ashes. AOC endgame will consist of players running through content that is changing from other players effectively creating a everchanging loop of content. Which is what IS has said will be our endgame. So basically in our case the design has ALWAYS been that a player COULD finish all of the content, but the true endgame loop will be derived from a player to player experience. Your post on this topic are consistent, you were on the fence about this game before now your off the fence due to this change, but just your statement on the endgame loop indicates that you weren't understanding that after you completed that content, the loop was going to be player driven, which you never wanted to begin with. To me it seems like this REALLY is not the game you wanted to play well before this change.

OW bosses == PVP
Nodes == PVP
Bosses will likely need to auto flag you for PVP when participating in them otherwise I can screw your raid over and screw you over by making you corrupt.

"Part of the whole experience with nodes is that there is no real end-game, in that the world is constantly shifting every day. Month one is going to be really different from month two; and that's for the level 50s and level 1s" – Jeffrey Bard

Why don't we give suggestions to make their proposed systems work, get with the program or leave it be completely.

Dygz

Yeah... the questions are from the 1990s. So... don't work super-well for 202X RPGs.

If I were playing - you could try to screw my raid up. Wouldn't bother me.
There would be no way for you to make me go Corrupt.

Their proposed systems work, as far as I know.

Rando88

"I didn't say getting PKed is a dealbreaker. Frequency of being PKed could be a dealbreaker."

Luckily there aren't nodes in the ocean right? You should think of it like a challenge to go outside your comfort zone and accomplish the task of exploring it. Not like it's ever changing like the land is. Game is about risk/reward from what I read so you should expect some content that puts you at risk if you want to see it all.

Or you could just do the hundreds of hours of content that isn't in the pvp ocean zone... going to not play because of that 1% of the content you dont like... can't wrap my head around it. It's like, I don't like fetch quests. I don't quit when I get a fetch quest or because I run into fetch quests alot.

Thruck

I wanted to add my perspective to this conversation. For reference I am a PvE player, and I am still weighing if the corruption system will be enough to allow me to play the way I want to play without the constant need of being ganked or if ashes might just not be for me. That said, I for one think this is a great change (assuming I can still safely sail along the coast with a small buffer of safe space.) I think having this area as a designated open PvP area will be great to keep the high seas dangerous, regardless of PvE encounters. I think for one it will help draw people who are interested in PvP to that area so that they won't have to deal with players like me who refuse to fight back and let them get corruption. I think the idea of pirate PvP sounds really cool, and something I might even find myself dabbling in. I do hope that the PvE encounters out to see don't become absolutely mandatory for the best gear, but other then that this is a really cool change!

TL;DR: As a PvE player I think this is a really cool and good idea.

Dygz

Rando88 wrote: »

"I didn't say getting PKed is a dealbreaker. Frequency of being PKed could be a dealbreaker."

Luckily there aren't nodes in the ocean right? You should think of it like a challenge to go outside your comfort zone and accomplish the task of exploring it. Not like it's ever changing like the land is. Game is about risk/reward from what I read so you should expect some content that puts you at risk if you want to see it all.

Or you could just do the hundreds of hours of content that isn't in the pvp ocean zone... going to not play because of that 1% of the content you dont like... can't wrap my head around it. It's like, I don't like fetch quests. I don't quit when I get a fetch quest or because I run into fetch quests alot.

Or I could just not play on the server that doesn't fit my playstyle.
I was already going out of my comfort zone with global Corruption.

mcstackerson

JustVine wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Archeage's zones rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). Considering he mentions this mechanic prior to the statement you are focused on, this seems to be what he is referring to. As others have pointed out, there are other significant differences between Ashes and Archeages pvp so they aren't easy to compare.

Sure, but Steven said, "Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas."
And now Ashes has a zoned, flagged PvP area.

I feel like you are cherry picking. If you read the whole statement, he is clearly talking about the peace/war mechanic and how that affected your choices.

"Well, ArcheAge... You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone, so...if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them.
So, that really doesn't relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just a flagging system that relates to the other players."

To reiterate, the peace and war zones was something that most zones did. They would rotate between peace and war which is something that isn't going to happen in ashes.

My post was going to be a bit longer but I think you didn't watch the full conversation between Dygz and Steven. EvE's PvP zones came up before the quote you are discussing. If Steven really intended to have this specific system before when Dygz was asking Steven about PvP there is almost no chance he wouldn't have clarified that 'Ashes will have zones like EvE' or noted one of the differences between Ashes and Archeage was the persistence of areas where you can always engage in PvP without penalty.

It's really obvious why Dygz asks these kinds of questions. I think Steven is an intelligent enough guy to understand that PvP 'always on war' zones would be relevant information to Dygz's question here. There are a lot of things about 'misunderstanding Steven' I feel are valid to assert against Dygz about his 1 to 1's with Steven. This is certainly not one of them.

Dygz had clear intentions in asking and vetting out Steven's perception of what qualifies as a murder box to Steven and EvE's zoning came up right before this part of your quote. Note that Steven did not consider EvE to be a murder box. But the fact that Dygz showed a pretty strong reaction relative to it would make it really weird to not have brought up and tried to walk Dygz through. After all Dygz expressed uncertainty, not rejection.

It was a clear part of the context of this conversation. It would have made sense from Steven's perspective to clarify to Dygz the PvP zone thing at this point in the conversation. So either Steven knew he was going to be making this change back then and was just trying to coax Dygz into not giving him a certain kind of press (which is a bad look imo)..... Or it changed after the fact (much more favorable look)....

I don't believe Steven knew of this specific change back then but also, all zones are pvp zones which is one of the points Steven was making. All this does is remove the potential penalty for killing someone which is still different from archeage where zones enable or disable pvp.

The system had already been explained to Dygz, i don't think there is anything Steven could do to further explain how the system would play to him without creating further situations like this where things are miss-interpreted.

At the end of the day, the best thing a person can do is play the system and see if they like it.

Dygz wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Please answer me this, have you played Archeage?

The statement you are focused on is clearly in reference to the part i bolded, the part where he is referring to zones going through peace and war.

The part i think you are missing is the part where most pvp zones in archeage rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). He seems to be talking about that mechanic as in a sense, the zones have a flag that allows or disables pvp in them depending on the time. No where does he bring up how archeage's ocean was different since it never went into peace.

As other have brought up, Archeage also was a faction game where you were rewarded for killing members of the opposite faction. This is also something that Ashes does not have and another reason Steven would want to say the games are not alike. The crime system in Archeage was only for killing/stealing from members of your faction.

I think you don't understand what I'm saying.
Steven stated that Ashes has one global PvP mechanic. Until a few months ago, Ashes did not have zones with different PvP mechanics.
Friday, Steven stated there has been an important change.
So... I dunno. It seems like you are trying to say that it's not a change, even though Steven stated it is an important change.

It's a change but i don't think it's as drastic as you are making it out to be. All zones have always been pvp zones since you could be attacked in every zone. This is different from archeage that disables pvp in zones during peace time. All this change does is remove the potential penalty for killing, not attacking, someone in the ocean.

Mag7spy

Ima jump into this as will i have not used this before lmao

87% Killer

♣ Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently) aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it. Normal points-scoring is usually required so as to become powerful enough to begin causing havoc in earnest, and exploration of a kind is necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to kill people. Even socialising is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a recent victim, for example in finding out someone's playing habits, or discussing tactics with fellow killers. They're all just means to an end, though; only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about it, is there any true adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun.

53% Achiever
40% Socialiser
20% Explorer

*The bold part is accurate i remember when i was deep in someone's head in BDO he hated me and was flipping out lmao

Lethality

mcstackerson wrote: »

It's a change but i don't think it's as drastic as you are making it out to be. All zones have always been pvp zones since you could be attacked in every zone. This is different from archeage that disables pvp in zones during peace time. All this change does is remove the potential penalty for killing, not attacking, someone in the ocean.

I think it's a hugely drastic change, and Steven even called it out as such. There's no way to downplay it.

Removing the penalty for killing is counterintuitive to the *entire* reason the corruption system exists and there by allows a game like AoC to try to correct what has been uncorrectable in every other game up until now. That's the entire premise of it!

If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.

What I'd really like to hear from Steven and the team is how was this decision arrived at? Without actual gameplay testing, which to me, would be the only thing that could inform such a drastic change. As far as we know, the "idea" of the Corruption system is the same as it always was, and as bad or as good as it has ever been... until it gets in the hands of players. So I'd expect play testing before a change like this.

Child Item