Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all? Because that isn't PVX How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp? No PvP is just PVE. Autoflagged PVP in a PVE zone with PVE incentives is PVX I understand that if what I was saying is make an entire server pve. But that's not what I'm asking about. How does having mostly middle ground with corruption with two areas for the opposite poles of ffa pvp and no pvp not still leave Ashes as a whole a pvx game? Why does either side have to have all or nothing? Ashes should be about balance if it is going to succeed in bringing these two very different populations together. I'm still playing either way. Because all aspects should be PvX. I understand what you're saying, but the polar opposite to your PVE zone would be a zone exclusively for PVP, not a PVE area that autoflags PVP. Am I explaining this well enough? Last question. If the area is not meant to be an area primarily for PVP, then why is there the need to remove corruption in the first place?
Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all? Because that isn't PVX How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp? No PvP is just PVE. Autoflagged PVP in a PVE zone with PVE incentives is PVX I understand that if what I was saying is make an entire server pve. But that's not what I'm asking about. How does having mostly middle ground with corruption with two areas for the opposite poles of ffa pvp and no pvp not still leave Ashes as a whole a pvx game? Why does either side have to have all or nothing? Ashes should be about balance if it is going to succeed in bringing these two very different populations together. I'm still playing either way. Because all aspects should be PvX. I understand what you're saying, but the polar opposite to your PVE zone would be a zone exclusively for PVP, not a PVE area that autoflags PVP. Am I explaining this well enough?
Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all? Because that isn't PVX How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp? No PvP is just PVE. Autoflagged PVP in a PVE zone with PVE incentives is PVX I understand that if what I was saying is make an entire server pve. But that's not what I'm asking about. How does having mostly middle ground with corruption with two areas for the opposite poles of ffa pvp and no pvp not still leave Ashes as a whole a pvx game? Why does either side have to have all or nothing? Ashes should be about balance if it is going to succeed in bringing these two very different populations together. I'm still playing either way.
Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all? Because that isn't PVX How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp? No PvP is just PVE. Autoflagged PVP in a PVE zone with PVE incentives is PVX
Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all? Because that isn't PVX How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp?
Dolyem wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all? Because that isn't PVX
Fantmx wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all?
Dolyem wrote: » Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk.
JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn difference and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers.
Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red.
JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway.
Dolyem wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway. If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway. If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land? Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.
Mag7spy wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway. If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land? Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'. Exploiting the system is strategy...... When has Steven ever said that?
Dolyem wrote: » . JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway. If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land? Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'. To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers. Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter
Dygz wrote: » You can't accidentally kill a Non-Combatant in Ashes. Why would you hit someone if you don't plan to kill them?
XiraelAcaron wrote: » As I said, it was the slap to the face gesture that did establish itself in that game. Usually, one hit with a weapon would not kill someone so it was used to show someone you disliked him or his actions without consequences. Or without consequences if you were not trapped as describes above.
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » . JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway. If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land? Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'. To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers. Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter Simple solution would be to base corruption gained not on the number or level of player on board but on the difference of the ship classes.
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway. If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land? Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'. Exploiting the system is strategy...... When has Steven ever said that? In L2, which is the inspiration for the corruption system baiting players to accidentally kill a white player (green in AoC) to get them red and kill them was a common tactic. The white one was sitting in the middle of the road and was annoying all the other players. If someone annoyed you you would run to him and hit him once. You would get purple, but that was basically slap to the face. The problem was that the white player had a dot on him and was hovering at 1HP. So hitting him cause any player to go red and then his friends came out and killed you. A friend of mine lost his weapons that way which he worked for for month. So...this was not an exploit then and I doubt steven sees it that way. But you have to ask him
JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » . JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway. If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land? Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'. To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers. Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter AoE attacks don't work on greens though. Destroying a ship vs boarding it was going to be one of the main strategic decision making processes in naval in my opinion for precisely that reason. So again I'm not seeing how the scenario would have come up in the way you are describing. Even if AoE did hit greens, that'd be way more likely of a strategy on land than on sea. Got any other thoughts on how it'd come up more frequently in the old system? If you think corruption is meant to be only a limiter not a weapon, I respect that. I think about game design/fun a little differently than you which is why I highly encouraged IS during that one dev discussion to find a way to nerf karma bombing as it benefits me immensely and that'd be kind of unfair/unfun for people who don't enjoy that style of play. It's definitely an important topic that needs to be addressed. Also now that you've made me think about it more I'm starting to dislike this change (I didn't care before since it mostly only benefited me.) Because you just pointed out to me that this change indirectly simplifies the boat meta of the game. Long ranged potion launcher attacks are now way more powerful and will now probably be more difficult to balance since everyone is forced into purple and can now be more easily effected by AoE.
Dolyem wrote: » If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage
Dolyem wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » . JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway. If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land? Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'. To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers. Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter Simple solution would be to base corruption gained not on the number or level of player on board but on the difference of the ship classes. How would you go about ship classes then
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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. Please clarify if you expect Coastal content to not include things like meaningful/complex PvE encounters, in contrast to the Open Sea where it might be necessary to change the flagging system due to such encounters. I'd expect coastal pve enounters to work the same as the ones on land and not involve ships but that is purely my guess. On the ocean, I expect ships to play a larger role in pve encounters like the kraken/leviathon from Archeage but i'm not going to go as far as say the change is necessary. I think the difference between the zones and reason for the change is more that the land has a large variety of content but the sea will probably be focused on high level content. Please clarify if you perceive that this high level content will be rewarding enough to be a meaningful impact on the power balance on the server. I hope not. I think it should at least some of the best stuff but wouldn't want it to be so significant that you couldn't compete against players with it.
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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. Please clarify if you expect Coastal content to not include things like meaningful/complex PvE encounters, in contrast to the Open Sea where it might be necessary to change the flagging system due to such encounters. I'd expect coastal pve enounters to work the same as the ones on land and not involve ships but that is purely my guess. On the ocean, I expect ships to play a larger role in pve encounters like the kraken/leviathon from Archeage but i'm not going to go as far as say the change is necessary. I think the difference between the zones and reason for the change is more that the land has a large variety of content but the sea will probably be focused on high level content. Please clarify if you perceive that this high level content will be rewarding enough to be a meaningful impact on the power balance on the server.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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. Please clarify if you expect Coastal content to not include things like meaningful/complex PvE encounters, in contrast to the Open Sea where it might be necessary to change the flagging system due to such encounters. I'd expect coastal pve enounters to work the same as the ones on land and not involve ships but that is purely my guess. On the ocean, I expect ships to play a larger role in pve encounters like the kraken/leviathon from Archeage but i'm not going to go as far as say the change is necessary. I think the difference between the zones and reason for the change is more that the land has a large variety of content but the sea will probably be focused on high level content.
Azherae wrote: » 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. Please clarify if you expect Coastal content to not include things like meaningful/complex PvE encounters, in contrast to the Open Sea where it might be necessary to change the flagging system due to such encounters.
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.
Azherae wrote: » "Please explain if you are still of the opinion that the reason for the change is technical."
Dolyem wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » . JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Not to mention people can corruption bomb you with a bunch of low levels in order to highly deter attacks or ensure people are extremely deep red. This is actually a good point. You could bait people by loading up some level 1's and then kill the corrupted attackers. I mean... I'm not sure I quite see how corruption bombing is easier at sea than on land. If anything I think it'd be harder to corruption bomb at sea because you get thrown to shore on death which is probably going to be further away in most cases than on a land respawn point. There is a finite amount of greens you can throw at a person with out a ton of logistics as a result... And that's provided your opponent doesn't kill everyone in the encounter who could give you coordinates. Once you do, it's a lot harder to find people at sea so the Red is free to just go grind pirates and other mobs to rinse the corruption off. Feel free to point out to me what scenarios you are thinking of. On land corruption bombing is definitely going to be a challenge and a lot easier to find the opponent via bounty hunting and return to the fray due to the difference in respawn distance and population density. IS needs to solve this problem anyway. If it were me, I'd send in the first ship with level ones as a decoy, they'll likely die quickly from attacks from other ships. This would corrupt those ships and allow for less penalties for the rest of my fleet but more penalties for the enemy. Instant advantage That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land? Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'. To me it's an exploit. The difference between land and sea is on land you'll select an individual and see their level, on a ship, you'll attack from a distance hitting another ship with players on it/potentially hiding in it. Send 10 lvl 1 rogues stealthed on it and they die. Not a great time for the attackers. Politic/strategy shouldn't be based off manipulating a system as it wasn't originally intended. Corruption isn't meant to be a weapon. It's meant to be a limiter AoE attacks don't work on greens though. Destroying a ship vs boarding it was going to be one of the main strategic decision making processes in naval in my opinion for precisely that reason. So again I'm not seeing how the scenario would have come up in the way you are describing. Even if AoE did hit greens, that'd be way more likely of a strategy on land than on sea. Got any other thoughts on how it'd come up more frequently in the old system? If you think corruption is meant to be only a limiter not a weapon, I respect that. I think about game design/fun a little differently than you which is why I highly encouraged IS during that one dev discussion to find a way to nerf karma bombing as it benefits me immensely and that'd be kind of unfair/unfun for people who don't enjoy that style of play. It's definitely an important topic that needs to be addressed. Also now that you've made me think about it more I'm starting to dislike this change (I didn't care before since it mostly only benefited me.) Because you just pointed out to me that this change indirectly simplifies the boat meta of the game. Long ranged potion launcher attacks are now way more powerful and will now probably be more difficult to balance since everyone is forced into purple and can now be more easily effected by AoE. If AOE attacks don't work on ships, then how will engagements work? Instead of being able to engage the entire ship with potion launchers you have to catch up and board or individually target every crew member with each potion launcher attack? Likeni said in other comments, the systems don't need to be the same if it can work.
