Corruption system in relation to auto-flagging in open sea

This is not a post about if auto-flagging is good or not, or about preference between the two.
It is about the corruption system and the logic inconsistency of applying this system.
(for transparency, I would prefer the complete removal of this system, but what irks me more is the logic inconsistency)

The corruption system was presented as a tool that complies with the risk-vs-reward philosophy.

E.g. an attacker risks becoming corrupted if he kills a player that doesn't fight back and the defender risks losing much more loot if he doesn't fight back.
Both sides are risking in order to get rewarded.

In the open-sea, as Steven mentioned in the stream, the rewards will be grater and the risk needs to be higher.
Is the corruption system unable to handle that?
If the reward is more valuable, wouldn't that make the attacker more willing to become corrupted and the defender more willing to fight back to minimize his loses?

Why is now the corruption system presented as an obstacle to the risk-vs-reward philosophy for open-sea content?

In the open-sea now, with the auto-flagging, what is the risk for the attackers? E.g. if let's say 3 ships that are co-operating spot 1 ship, why wouldn't they attack? Where is the risk?
How are the bounty hunters affected by this change? Would they be able to hunt corrupted players in the open-sea?
Contrary to what Steven said, this change is actually going against the risk-vs-reward philosophy. If you outnumber the enemy, there is no risk in attacking.

You cannot treat the corruption system as a helpful tool for land content and as an obstacle for open-sea content.. those things cannot be true at the same time, just because the ground changes!

When you need to add exceptions to a system, in order to make the content fun, then maybe that system is not good enough.
If it is good enough, use it everywhere.. if it is not, remove it from everywhere!

The approach Intrepid is taking makes no sense.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.

Indeed - which makes it PvP.

To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.

I think the corruption system as designed is quite good at balancing out the worlds of unchecked pvp and one that makes people think twice

I disagree.

In order for the corruption system to be a balancing factor here, it would need to provide players a situation where they can basically assume PvE is all they need to think about.

Any time PvE is important enough to think about, the rewards for interrupting that PvE are so great that the corruption system will have no impact at all on it.

In order for me to agree with you, Intrepid would need to announce that corruption gain around world bosses (or at least around some world bosses) will be 4 times higher than normal.

Since my expectation is (and this is one I have stated before) that PvP around world bosses will not be subject to corruption, I really can't agree with your take here.

Wait, since when are world bosses not subject to corruption?

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.

Indeed - which makes it PvP.

To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.

I think the corruption system as designed is quite good at balancing out the worlds of unchecked pvp and one that makes people think twice

I disagree.

In order for the corruption system to be a balancing factor here, it would need to provide players a situation where they can basically assume PvE is all they need to think about.

Any time PvE is important enough to think about, the rewards for interrupting that PvE are so great that the corruption system will have no impact at all on it.

In order for me to agree with you, Intrepid would need to announce that corruption gain around world bosses (or at least around some world bosses) will be 4 times higher than normal.

Since my expectation is (and this is one I have stated before) that PvP around world bosses will not be subject to corruption, I really can't agree with your take here.

Wait, since when are world bosses not subject to corruption?

It has long been my expectation - just as it was with the ocean.

It hasn't been stated as the case as yet - but that is in part because we have heard basically nothing at all about PvE content. Placing world bosses in battleground areas fits in perfectly with what the game is (by definition, battlegrounds are PvP based events - open world bosses fit in to that description better than all ocean content fit in to that description), and will make those encounters far more interesting.

If you think about the game in that context, I am sure you will agree that instanced content becomes much more important.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.

Indeed - which makes it PvP.

To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.

I think the corruption system as designed is quite good at balancing out the worlds of unchecked pvp and one that makes people think twice

I disagree.

In order for the corruption system to be a balancing factor here, it would need to provide players a situation where they can basically assume PvE is all they need to think about.

Any time PvE is important enough to think about, the rewards for interrupting that PvE are so great that the corruption system will have no impact at all on it.

In order for me to agree with you, Intrepid would need to announce that corruption gain around world bosses (or at least around some world bosses) will be 4 times higher than normal.

Since my expectation is (and this is one I have stated before) that PvP around world bosses will not be subject to corruption, I really can't agree with your take here.

Wait, since when are world bosses not subject to corruption?

It has long been my expectation - just as it was with the ocean.

It hasn't been stated as the case as yet - but that is in part because we have heard basically nothing at all about PvE content. Placing world bosses in battleground areas fits in perfectly with what the game is (by definition, battlegrounds are PvP based events - open world bosses fit in to that description better than all ocean content fit in to that description), and will make those encounters far more interesting.

If you think about the game in that context, I am sure you will agree that instanced content becomes much more important.

Ah I see. Well I said before I do prefer raids to be instanced. World bosses tend to create bad drama on servers, but who knows, maybe ashes is so big it won't be as much of a problem.

One suggestion I would have is that any inhabitants of nodes sharing a ZOI with a raid should get a slight buff over outsiders potentially. Call it a "familiar with the territory" buff. It would still likely create conflict amongst the nodes occupants but at least mega guilds would have a disadvantage hopping from raid to raid across the world trying to take all of the kills each time they pop up.

Asgerr

I still get the feeling that people are vastly overestimating the amount of players per server who will:

Be rich enough to even be in the open seas with a decent ship
The amount of content that will be there (especially PvE content)
The amount of people who will be there at any one time (people acting like stepping oar into the open sea is equal to instant ganking)
The interest from people to actually PK on sight just because of auto-flagging (some people still don't wanna risk losing their ship, or having to sail back out there to loot their own corpses/aquatic mules etc)

Veeshan

Hartwell wrote: »

I'm very interested in this subject, as it does shake up the importance of certain ships and trade routes. It brings up questions.
The Northern part of the sea has a rather large island, so can we skim along the coast to remain in a non-PvP area?

I doubt he would allow that tbh going by his intention with it. that being said there be airships between metropolis too from my understanding so you will have a way to cross the ocean anyway although i doubt it will be allowed with resources.

Dygz

Ashes doesn't have a Non-PvP area, but...
Seems like it depends on what exactly counts as Open Sea.
Draakathbohr probably has shorline that does not count as Open Sea.

It's theoretically possible the island below Draakathbohr has shoreline that does not count as Open Sea, but it's also just as likely that it's still auto-flag Combatant there.

Noaani

Asgerr wrote: »

I still get the feeling that people are vastly overestimating the amount of players per server who will:
Be rich enough to even be in the open seas with a decent ship

Galleons have a crew of 40 - guilds will have multiple.

You are right about the lack of PvE content though. The point of being at sea will be mostly trade and attacking trade.

Songcaller

I'm not sure what instanced PvE will do. Whenever I've been on PvP Servers the most PvP has happened outside PvE Instances. Ashes will have the same issue because loot can be gained by those killed in PvP after the instanced raid. If we then go into Legendary Item Drops from instances rather than legendary resource drops then its even more unlikely PvE Instances will sit well. That also is not PvX, that is PvE Focus.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

I'm not sure what instanced PvE will do. Whenever I've been on PvP Servers the most PvP has happened outside PvE Instances.

This is kind of the point imo.

The idea is to move the PvP, not remove it.

Asgerr

Noaani wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

I still get the feeling that people are vastly overestimating the amount of players per server who will:
Be rich enough to even be in the open seas with a decent ship

Galleons have a crew of 40 - guilds will have multiple.

You are right about the lack of PvE content though. The point of being at sea will be mostly trade and attacking trade.

Right. large Guilds will. But if they want to spec into larger sizes for their Guild, they can't spec into naval proficiencies or other PvP bonuses. Remember the base player limit for a Guild is between 30 and 50.

And even if only Guilds can, that already reduces the amount of people there significantly. And they then need to be successful and rich enough to afford a Galleon.

Noaani

Asgerr wrote: »

Right. large Guilds will.

I mean, that was only ever going to be the case.

Ocean content will be for large, strong guilds only. This includes any cross continent trading.

Did people once think anything other than this would be the case?

JamesSunderland

Dygz wrote: »

It's theoretically possible the island below Draakathbohr has shoreline that does not count as Open Sea, but it's also just as likely that it's still auto-flag Combatant there.

That Small island in the middle of the open sea and between the continents, i kinda expect it to be Ashes' "Freedish Island".

As a fellow Archeage player what do you think @Noaani ?
Will it still count as part of the nodeless open sea or it will fall under the corruption system?

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

It's theoretically possible the island below Draakathbohr has shoreline that does not count as Open Sea, but it's also just as likely that it's still auto-flag Combatant there.

That Small island in the middle of the open sea and between the continents, i kinda expect it to be Ashes' "Freedish Island".

As a fellow Archeage player what do you think Noaani ?
Will it still count as part of the nodeless open sea or it will fall under the corruption system?

Yeah, that is my expectation as well, honestly.

I wouldn't be upset at all if it was more akin to Growlgate Island though - I spent a lot of time there.

Asgerr

Noaani wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Right. large Guilds will.

I mean, that was only ever going to be the case.

Ocean content will be for large, strong guilds only. This includes any cross continent trading.

Did people once think anything other than this would be the case?

Considering that some people complain about their personal exploration of the world or that some guildless people have this One Piece fantasy of recruiting people during their naval adventures.... Yes. In my read, a number of people do thing that they will be out there on a ship exploring the seas and complain about how the auto-flagging will affect their enjoyment.

Even some PvPers seem to thing it will be a dingy or raft free for all, instead of Man-O-War vs Man-O-War.

Noaani

Asgerr wrote: »

Even some PvPers seem to thing it will be a dingy or raft free for all

I'm sure that will happen - on lakes and rivers.

JustVine

I feel like 'aquatic mounted exploration' got completely lost in people's perception of what open seas were going to entail. Your right not everyone has a boat. But I was fully expecting before this change for small groups/soloers to use those. I expect this to be less of the case now and much more rare if not basically 'never seen because you'd be an idiot to go in on one'.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

I feel like 'aquatic mounted exploration' got completely lost in people's perception of what open seas were going to entail. Your right not everyone has a boat. But I was fully expecting before this change for small groups/soloers to use those. I expect this to be less of the case now and much more rare if not basically 'never seen because you'd be an idiot to go in on one'.

I can see aquatic mounts being of value in three distinct situations.

Fresh water- rivers or lakes of what ever.
Coastal areas - within sight of land.
In the ocean if you are stranded, as a means to get back to shore.

If you are on a mount out in the ocean, a warship is unlikely to bother you - but you also likely have no real business being out there.

SongRune

Noaani wrote: »

If you are on a mount out in the ocean, a warship is unlikely to bother you - but you also likely have no real business being out there.

lol, my man, there are islands to go to! (And hopefully a bunch of smaller ones too, not just those big few we see on the map.) I don't know what's out there but I intend(ed?) to find out. I can't just not be taking pictures of the sights from all of the good perches I might find out there.

Aquatic mounts might work for this, as you say. Might not. I guess we'll see what type of player base this new policy attracts; something far more important than the mechanical effects of the policy itself on the player base you'd have had before it was announced.

NaughtyBrute

Noaani wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

Right. large Guilds will.

I mean, that was only ever going to be the case.

Ocean content will be for large, strong guilds only. This includes any cross continent trading.

Did people once think anything other than this would be the case?

Exactly.. but this is not only gonna happen in the open sea imo. Strong guilds/corporations will control many of the important places on the map. Not all the map of course and not 24/7, but many PoI and most of the time, until they don't need them anymore.
The only thing corruption (as it is described atm) would provide, apart from protecting lower level players, is some small protection to smaller groups that go near those places for exploration or content, basically making the players protecting the PoI think twice before killing them. Intrepid will probably need to increase significantly the effects of corruption to avoid that and make sure there are no 'shortcuts' for removing it.

Without corruption in the open sea there is no reason for the top guilds to not attack on sight, gaining all the rewards with minimal risk.

Will another guild challenge one of the top guilds for control of a PoI on land or the open sea? sure, it will happen from time to time, as it happens in sandbox mmos.. but then the 'winner' will continue the cycle.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

I feel like 'aquatic mounted exploration' got completely lost in people's perception of what open seas were going to entail. Your right not everyone has a boat. But I was fully expecting before this change for small groups/soloers to use those. I expect this to be less of the case now and much more rare if not basically 'never seen because you'd be an idiot to go in on one'.

I can see aquatic mounts being of value in three distinct situations.

Fresh water- rivers or lakes of what ever.
Coastal areas - within sight of land.
In the ocean if you are stranded, as a means to get back to shore.

If you are on a mount out in the ocean, a warship is unlikely to bother you - but you also likely have no real business being out there.

I was fully expecting them in the ocean due to the mounted skills system. In the old model a warship would probably leave them alone and I was expecting the higher maneuverability plus these skills to cover a certain gap that meant it was too much work to randomly kill a green on said mounts.

Now I'm fully expecting people to just waste potion launcher ammo shooting at such people depending on how cheap it is. Maybe ballista ammo if they let us have those on ships. They might have niche uses in exploration, but I doubt they will be prevalent at sea now. The risk on the attacker is practically zero now and the mobility of the aquatic mount is less relevant when you can just use what are effectively siege weapons on them.

I agree that those three use cases you stated are probably where we will see aquatic mounts most though due to the recent change. I'd fight you on the 'no business being out there' bit but given the most recent change to the open seas makes you completely right I think trying to explain explorer type mmo players is a bit fruitless with you. I have no interest in making that part of the conversation.

Child Item