Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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. 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. Above all else, we have what I consider another problem. Are coastal battles between ships subject to all of this or not? If the result is 'hey don't fight in coastal waters you might get KarmaBombed', that's not great in my opinion. Similar to if you get 'well, coastal battles don't really involve ships', because there are probably quite a few players who would want to do this. Steven gives the argument about Cross Continental Trade opportunities, but I don't really see why because Naval Caravans should have been PvP zones anyway. Maybe it's for 'preventing scouts who are out there looking for hypothetical red pirates' from being effective? This decision definitely isn't 'causing' any new technical problems with Corruption, but it definitely seems to be getting into a weird space. If I use my ship to bring my crew to the edge of open water and they jump off and go attack a coastal fishing boat and sink it, who gets Corruption for boat-sinking, if anyone? Currently, i'd' imagine that fighting on the coast line would come with the risk of corruption and not be encouraged. I'd imagine whoever killed the the noncombatant would get the corruption if they jumped off and attacked a fisher that wasn't out in the open sea. Please clarify if your basis for this is that you perceive that boats cannot be attacked and sunk in coastal waters, or if your basis is that you see no reason for destroying/stealing a boat to grant corruption.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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. 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. Above all else, we have what I consider another problem. Are coastal battles between ships subject to all of this or not? If the result is 'hey don't fight in coastal waters you might get KarmaBombed', that's not great in my opinion. Similar to if you get 'well, coastal battles don't really involve ships', because there are probably quite a few players who would want to do this. Steven gives the argument about Cross Continental Trade opportunities, but I don't really see why because Naval Caravans should have been PvP zones anyway. Maybe it's for 'preventing scouts who are out there looking for hypothetical red pirates' from being effective? This decision definitely isn't 'causing' any new technical problems with Corruption, but it definitely seems to be getting into a weird space. If I use my ship to bring my crew to the edge of open water and they jump off and go attack a coastal fishing boat and sink it, who gets Corruption for boat-sinking, if anyone? Currently, i'd' imagine that fighting on the coast line would come with the risk of corruption and not be encouraged. I'd imagine whoever killed the the noncombatant would get the corruption if they jumped off and attacked a fisher that wasn't out in the open sea.
Azherae wrote: » 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. 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. Above all else, we have what I consider another problem. Are coastal battles between ships subject to all of this or not? If the result is 'hey don't fight in coastal waters you might get KarmaBombed', that's not great in my opinion. Similar to if you get 'well, coastal battles don't really involve ships', because there are probably quite a few players who would want to do this. Steven gives the argument about Cross Continental Trade opportunities, but I don't really see why because Naval Caravans should have been PvP zones anyway. Maybe it's for 'preventing scouts who are out there looking for hypothetical red pirates' from being effective? This decision definitely isn't 'causing' any new technical problems with Corruption, but it definitely seems to be getting into a weird space. If I use my ship to bring my crew to the edge of open water and they jump off and go attack a coastal fishing boat and sink it, who gets Corruption for boat-sinking, if anyone?
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.
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: » . 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
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'.
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: » 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: » 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.
Mag7spy wrote: » Then every person on the ship is a threat you want to take out, and there for you want to work together to keep each other alive. (Doesn't mean aoes are one shotting people on the ship id expect hugely reduced damage but you still need to be conscious of the damage you may take at times.)
Dolyem wrote: » I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Then every person on the ship is a threat you want to take out, and there for you want to work together to keep each other alive. (Doesn't mean aoes are one shotting people on the ship id expect hugely reduced damage but you still need to be conscious of the damage you may take at times.) I think you are missing the point that Intrepid want to make naval combat it's own thing, not a subset of regular combat. Sure, you and those on your ship want to work together to keep each other alive. That is why you have people running around patching up the ship. These people are essentially healers in naval combat. They are who is keeping you alive.
Azherae wrote: » Please clarify if your basis for this is that you perceive that boats cannot be attacked and sunk in coastal waters, or if your basis is that you see no reason for destroying/stealing a boat to grant corruption.
Mag7spy wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Then every person on the ship is a threat you want to take out, and there for you want to work together to keep each other alive. (Doesn't mean aoes are one shotting people on the ship id expect hugely reduced damage but you still need to be conscious of the damage you may take at times.) I think you are missing the point that Intrepid want to make naval combat it's own thing, not a subset of regular combat. Sure, you and those on your ship want to work together to keep each other alive. That is why you have people running around patching up the ship. These people are essentially healers in naval combat. They are who is keeping you alive. Which is a threat lol, everyone knows in a mmorpg you kill the healer.
Noaani wrote: » The paradigm shift is that rather than looking at a group as a bunch of individual players as in regular combat, you need to look at the group as the ship - not as the individual component players that make it up.
Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs. See, I'm all for it as well. However, I would suggest to Intrepid the following; You laid down a base PvP experience in Ashes with corruption. This statement about open sea combat (even if expected) skews the game more towards PvP than that base that was laid down would suggest. As such, add in content that skews things back (in terms of the game as a whole) to where it was.
CROW3 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs. Another approach. Ships (as whole units) have their own corruption, with no cascading corruption to individual players, but red ships become more vulnerable and drop more loot the more 'innocent' ships it destroys. Emphasis on destroys, instead of disabling. Player corruption would still be in play if a player swings over to another ship and starts murdering greens, or pelting greens floating in the water until they're dead. I figure if a purple boat is carrying greens and is destroyed, all the green players go in the water, as long as they aren't actively picked off, they do not give the attacking ship or its crew corruption. Green players that drown in the water are collateral damage. Have the devs create life-jackets or something. If a green boat is destroyed the corruption goes to the ship, but as long as the green crew isn't murdered while they're floating around, the crew of the attacking boat likewise get no corruption.Edit: It's rare when @Noaani and I agree on something, even more rare when we're saying pretty much the same thing. I dig it. Noaani wrote: » The paradigm shift is that rather than looking at a group as a bunch of individual players as in regular combat, you need to look at the group as the ship - not as the individual component players that make it up.
Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs. See, I'm all for it as well. However, I would suggest to Intrepid the following; You laid down a base PvP experience in Ashes with corruption. This statement about open sea combat (even if expected) skews the game more towards PvP than that base that was laid down would suggest. As such, add in content that skews things back (in terms of the game as a whole) to where it was. I would consider the land content enough for what the game is intending to be, but do you have any suggestions that maintain the PVX mindset of the game?
Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I love this conversation but it honestly makes me want autoflagging for open ocean even more. It keeps it simple and gives a variety for gameplay. All of this discussing is definitely crucial for the areas of water still within a ZOI though. It's all assumptions but all of these suggestions should fuel the devs. See, I'm all for it as well. However, I would suggest to Intrepid the following; You laid down a base PvP experience in Ashes with corruption. This statement about open sea combat (even if expected) skews the game more towards PvP than that base that was laid down would suggest. As such, add in content that skews things back (in terms of the game as a whole) to where it was. I would consider the land content enough for what the game is intending to be, but do you have any suggestions that maintain the PVX mindset of the game? Yeah, things I have already talked about in the past. Add in some instanced PvE (which brings the PvE balance back, and potentially past where it was), but then add in an additional journey where the PvP is heightened. My suggestion in the past has been to make it so the raid needs to carry the spoils of their encounter back home via the caravan system - but to also send out an announcement to attract would be attackers. (ie, PvE is free from PvP, but getting worth out of the rewards attracts even more PvP). Another option could be to have instanced content on islands. You need to sail there and sail back - though the increased PvP aspects of naval content. While there though, you are assured of having content (lock out based), and are free from PvP prevention.
Dolyem wrote: » But I do love the concept of instanced raids and the loot being caravan driven and exposed
Noaani wrote: » Add in some instanced PvE
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Then every person on the ship is a threat you want to take out, and there for you want to work together to keep each other alive. (Doesn't mean aoes are one shotting people on the ship id expect hugely reduced damage but you still need to be conscious of the damage you may take at times.) I think you are missing the point that Intrepid want to make naval combat it's own thing, not a subset of regular combat. Sure, you and those on your ship want to work together to keep each other alive. That is why you have people running around patching up the ship. These people are essentially healers in naval combat. They are who is keeping you alive. Which is a threat lol, everyone knows in a mmorpg you kill the healer. Yeah, but naval combat is supposed to be it's own thing. It is not supposed to be just normal combat on water. It is supposed to have it's own paradigm. The paradigm shift is that rather than looking at a group as a bunch of individual players as in regular combat, you need to look at the group as the ship - not as the individual component players that make it up.
CROW3 wrote: » I mean what are the major PvE levers to pull as rewards in the open sea to justify the risk? 1. Boss / Raid content (and rewards) 2. Crafting recipes / mats / tools 3. Node contributions (influence, advancement, resources, special control access of deep sea node?) 4. Exploration (achievements, hints about other areas, treasure hunting) 5. RP/Story (open new / rare hooks for story-driven impact to any and all of the above) 6. Pirate costumes & cosmetics & pets Any and all can be connected to the system we're riffing on.
Noaani wrote: » Of all of these, I only consider the first one to be PvE. Everything else is as applicable to a PvE player as a PvP player. You can't just assume actual PvP combat is PvP, and everything else is PvE. If you were to do that, then I would be able to assume that just PvE combat is PvE, and everything else is PvP.
