Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it? I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call. There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid. There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised? I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'? Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three. I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding? I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness? I wasn't meaning to separate you out like that but i can see how you got that idea. My first paragraph boils down to a better experience for people who like this content possibly and indirect positive affect on players who don't like pvp because of where pvpers will now be. The second paragraph which i guess is where you got your first statement was asking how many of the players in "you and dygz" group are already turned off by other pvp features of the game. You are in a group of people who don't like the open pvp on the sea but are fine with being attacked while farming, having your caravans raided, being war dec'ed, and having your node raised by a siege. Archeage's ocean is also a prominent war zone so people can always attack each other. We don't know how prominent boarding will be. I kind of hope it's not that easy so ship v ship is different then zerg v zerg. To me, the main source of awkwardness I was thinking is from none combat activities on the ship like repairing and driving. Are players engaging in those activities safe unless people want to get corrupted? I already see some awkwardness in large scale fights where people need to attack each other to become combatant. Normally you want to engage hard on a group but with corruption, you are going to want to be careful you don't kill someone before they have had a chance to fight back. I believe I was singling myself out in an abstract way, which I shouldn't have done due to our communication issues. So in your case I'll just ask the other question. "If Corruption is complex in Open Seas, is it also too complex in coastal ship battles?"
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it? I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call. There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid. There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised? I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'? Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three. I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding? I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness? I wasn't meaning to separate you out like that but i can see how you got that idea. My first paragraph boils down to a better experience for people who like this content possibly and indirect positive affect on players who don't like pvp because of where pvpers will now be. The second paragraph which i guess is where you got your first statement was asking how many of the players in "you and dygz" group are already turned off by other pvp features of the game. You are in a group of people who don't like the open pvp on the sea but are fine with being attacked while farming, having your caravans raided, being war dec'ed, and having your node raised by a siege. Archeage's ocean is also a prominent war zone so people can always attack each other. We don't know how prominent boarding will be. I kind of hope it's not that easy so ship v ship is different then zerg v zerg. To me, the main source of awkwardness I was thinking is from none combat activities on the ship like repairing and driving. Are players engaging in those activities safe unless people want to get corrupted? I already see some awkwardness in large scale fights where people need to attack each other to become combatant. Normally you want to engage hard on a group but with corruption, you are going to want to be careful you don't kill someone before they have had a chance to fight back.
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it? I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call. There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid. There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised? I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'? Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three. I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding? I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness?
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it? I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call. There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid. There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?
Azherae wrote: » So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it? I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call. There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid. There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised? I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'? Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three. I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding? I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness? I wasn't meaning to separate you out like that but i can see how you got that idea. My first paragraph boils down to a better experience for people who like this content possibly and indirect positive affect on players who don't like pvp because of where pvpers will now be. The second paragraph which i guess is where you got your first statement was asking how many of the players in "you and dygz" group are already turned off by other pvp features of the game. You are in a group of people who don't like the open pvp on the sea but are fine with being attacked while farming, having your caravans raided, being war dec'ed, and having your node raised by a siege. Archeage's ocean is also a prominent war zone so people can always attack each other. We don't know how prominent boarding will be. I kind of hope it's not that easy so ship v ship is different then zerg v zerg. To me, the main source of awkwardness I was thinking is from none combat activities on the ship like repairing and driving. Are players engaging in those activities safe unless people want to get corrupted? I already see some awkwardness in large scale fights where people need to attack each other to become combatant. Normally you want to engage hard on a group but with corruption, you are going to want to be careful you don't kill someone before they have had a chance to fight back. I believe I was singling myself out in an abstract way, which I shouldn't have done due to our communication issues. So in your case I'll just ask the other question. "If Corruption is complex in Open Seas, is it also too complex in coastal ship battles?" I'm not saying too complex but i think we will see some awkwardness i mentioned. You will have a mix of none-combatants and combatants going at it and managing how people are flagged could become part of the strategy, which i'm thinking could be awkward.
Dolyem wrote: » [ I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me. I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay Then they should tell us that. And I already have a first idea of the top of my head of how you can make corruption work with ships. We can discuss it if you like, but it would turn this discussion in a totally different direction. Go for it, it's more info for devs OK, its simple. But please remember its a first shot. I did not think about every last aspect. The main ocean content is done by ships, yes? Then why not have ship owners have a ship corruption status that applies to every ship that is summoned by them and is independent from the players corruption state (or from the other occupants). So you summon a ship and the ship gets corruption (or however you want to call it. Lorewise it is of course total crap) and reduces corruption if it does normal naval gameplay or is sunk. Basically the same as on land, only for ships. You still have auto-flagging zones around caravans/merchant ships/world bosses etc. As a drawback fot going back, red ships cannot go to harbors to be repaired or improved until purple. Of course, if the reason was to increase the risk on the ocean that will not help. You have to think about something other there. Interesting take, how would that negatively affect the players on the ship then? And if it got too corrupted, wouldn't it be as simple as making another?
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me. I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay Then they should tell us that. And I already have a first idea of the top of my head of how you can make corruption work with ships. We can discuss it if you like, but it would turn this discussion in a totally different direction. Go for it, it's more info for devs OK, its simple. But please remember its a first shot. I did not think about every last aspect. The main ocean content is done by ships, yes? Then why not have ship owners have a ship corruption status that applies to every ship that is summoned by them and is independent from the players corruption state (or from the other occupants). So you summon a ship and the ship gets corruption (or however you want to call it. Lorewise it is of course total crap) and reduces corruption if it does normal naval gameplay or is sunk. Basically the same as on land, only for ships. You still have auto-flagging zones around caravans/merchant ships/world bosses etc. As a drawback fot going back, red ships cannot go to harbors to be repaired or improved until purple. Of course, if the reason was to increase the risk on the ocean that will not help. You have to think about something other there.
Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me. I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay Then they should tell us that. And I already have a first idea of the top of my head of how you can make corruption work with ships. We can discuss it if you like, but it would turn this discussion in a totally different direction. Go for it, it's more info for devs
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me. I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay Then they should tell us that. And I already have a first idea of the top of my head of how you can make corruption work with ships. We can discuss it if you like, but it would turn this discussion in a totally different direction.
Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me. I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay
XiraelAcaron wrote: » For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me.
Azherae wrote: » "Please explain if you are still of the opinion that the reason for the change is technical."
mcstackerson wrote: » The second paragraph which i guess is where you got your first statement was asking how many of the players in "you and dygz" group are already turned off by other pvp features of the game. You are in a group of people who don't like the open pvp on the sea but are fine with being attacked while farming, having your caravans raided, being war dec'ed, and having your node raised by a siege.
mcstackerson wrote: » Archeage's ocean is also a prominent war zone so people can always attack each other.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "Please explain if you are still of the opinion that the reason for the change is technical." Sorry, i don't think it's purely technical, just thought it might have played a role. I also think it was made because the kind of content that was planned for the sea and to support the pirate playstyle.
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » [ I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me. I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay Then they should tell us that. And I already have a first idea of the top of my head of how you can make corruption work with ships. We can discuss it if you like, but it would turn this discussion in a totally different direction. Go for it, it's more info for devs OK, its simple. But please remember its a first shot. I did not think about every last aspect. The main ocean content is done by ships, yes? Then why not have ship owners have a ship corruption status that applies to every ship that is summoned by them and is independent from the players corruption state (or from the other occupants). So you summon a ship and the ship gets corruption (or however you want to call it. Lorewise it is of course total crap) and reduces corruption if it does normal naval gameplay or is sunk. Basically the same as on land, only for ships. You still have auto-flagging zones around caravans/merchant ships/world bosses etc. As a drawback fot going back, red ships cannot go to harbors to be repaired or improved until purple. Of course, if the reason was to increase the risk on the ocean that will not help. You have to think about something other there. Interesting take, how would that negatively affect the players on the ship then? And if it got too corrupted, wouldn't it be as simple as making another? It would not affect the players on the ship. I have no problem with that. If they leave the ship they go back to their normal corruption state. I have no problem with distinguishing the two states. What happend on the ocean stays on the ocean. The owners ship corruption status would apply to all ships that they summon. You could use another players ship next time, but summoning is only possible at harbors so that is very inconvenient. Also at some point you have a whole lot of red ships that you have to get to purple somehow. Also they would only be able to be sold in a purple state.
Dygz wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Archeage's ocean is also a prominent war zone so people can always attack each other. Right. So, I don't understand your push back when I said Ashes now seems much like that.
Vaknar wrote: » Hiya everyone! I merged two threads on the same topic: (Auto-flagging in open sea) together! I also wanted to mention a comment that Steven made following the livestream, which can be found here Steven discussed this topic and brings forward a few notes to remember about different game features and elements to our design direction. I highly encourage everyone to read it! ^_^ Carry on and keep up the awesome discussions! P.S. Please be sure to be well unto one another. I know we're all very passionate about not only the game, but this topic. But remember - we're all here because we love MMORPGs and want to see the game succeed, and we all have that in common
Dolyem wrote: » Vaknar wrote: » Hiya everyone! I merged two threads on the same topic: (Auto-flagging in open sea) together! I also wanted to mention a comment that Steven made following the livestream, which can be found here Steven discussed this topic and brings forward a few notes to remember about different game features and elements to our design direction. I highly encourage everyone to read it! ^_^ Carry on and keep up the awesome discussions! P.S. Please be sure to be well unto one another. I know we're all very passionate about not only the game, but this topic. But remember - we're all here because we love MMORPGs and want to see the game succeed, and we all have that in common I feel cheated, I posted my discussion first 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I kid
mcstackerson wrote: » The peace and war zones disables and enables pvp, which is a lot different the ashes where pvp is enabled everywhere but is now not punished on the ocean.
NaughtyBrute wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Vaknar wrote: » Hiya everyone! I merged two threads on the same topic: (Auto-flagging in open sea) together! I also wanted to mention a comment that Steven made following the livestream, which can be found here Steven discussed this topic and brings forward a few notes to remember about different game features and elements to our design direction. I highly encourage everyone to read it! ^_^ Carry on and keep up the awesome discussions! P.S. Please be sure to be well unto one another. I know we're all very passionate about not only the game, but this topic. But remember - we're all here because we love MMORPGs and want to see the game succeed, and we all have that in common I feel cheated, I posted my discussion first 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I kid And I indented mine to be about the reasoning for the change, not if the change is good or not.. we were both cheated
Azherae wrote: » Vaknar wrote: » Hiya everyone! I merged two threads on the same topic: (Auto-flagging in open sea) together! I also wanted to mention a comment that Steven made following the livestream, which can be found here Steven discussed this topic and brings forward a few notes to remember about different game features and elements to our design direction. I highly encourage everyone to read it! ^_^ Carry on and keep up the awesome discussions! P.S. Please be sure to be well unto one another. I know we're all very passionate about not only the game, but this topic. But remember - we're all here because we love MMORPGs and want to see the game succeed, and we all have that in common I am very concerned that these two specific topics have been merged together for multiple reasons. I do not wish for this to be undone, but I do wish to ask, if another topic was made even more explicitly regarding the reasoning for the change, if that would also be merged.
