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

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Right, so…
It’s not more risk and a boon for Corrupted.

Well, we know that. If unclear, I absolutely agree with you on that.

I just think, after seeing much more ArcheAge content, that this is explicitly the goal. I don't feel that Corruption was ever supposed to be a real risk or punishment, just 'a different gameplay style'. We already got people forming theoretical future 'perma-red guilds'.

But ArcheAge is technically 'supposed to feel like a high seas pirate game' sometimes. If you live in coastal nodes, expect Pirate attacks. Particularly because stealing someone's Materials and then escaping with your Pirate Crew by ship adds a massive amount to the escape chances, while creating a 'natural gameplay opportunity' for everyone.

You're not getting 'griefed' by Pirates probably, they're taking your stuff and then hauling off, probably through epic chases, etc. But ArcheAge's open sea content is explicitly for a different 'tier' of player, so using it to support "Pirates" is pretty useful.

Dygz

Yes. I’m just saying that it doesn’t actually jive with the reasoning Steven gave us during the live stream.

And…if Corruption is really just supposed to be a different form of PvP… I definitely would not be playing Ashes.

And, yeah, again…
I specifically chose not to play ArcheAge due to the naval combat.

Mag7spy

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Right, so…
It’s not more risk and a boon for Corrupted.

Potentially. Needs to be clarified if it is part of the design or not. That would definitely make bounties more fun

If you think a red isn't at risk with everyone ready and willing to pvp and knowing they can get dropped loot from red players....You are high on copium.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Yes. I’m just saying that it doesn’t actually jive with the reasoning Steven gave us during the live stream.

It depends on how one interprets Risk vs Reward as a concept, and you know how that goes.

"Encountering more powerful opponents is a risk, for which you may gain the reward of whatever you can gather if you outwit/outrun/outfight/don't encounter them."

You're aware of it probably even more than I was. If I'd known the precise mechanics of ArcheAge before, I wouldn't have assumed that 'Risk' and 'Reward' meant the same thing to Steven as they do to me, for example. I don't think it's outside of the scope. There's a consistent thread of 'not considering the effects of (or on) a single Actor to be relevant' in that game, and similarly if you read Steven's statements about the game through that lens, they all make more sense, a lot of 'contradictions' disappear.

Dolyem

Mag7spy wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Right, so…
It’s not more risk and a boon for Corrupted.

Potentially. Needs to be clarified if it is part of the design or not. That would definitely make bounties more fun

If you think a red isn't at risk with everyone ready and willing to pvp and knowing they can get dropped loot from red players....You are high on copium.

I said that earlier that they would be at a huge risk because of that

Azherae

Dolyem wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Right, so…
It’s not more risk and a boon for Corrupted.

Potentially. Needs to be clarified if it is part of the design or not. That would definitely make bounties more fun

If you think a red isn't at risk with everyone ready and willing to pvp and knowing they can get dropped loot from red players....You are high on copium.

I said that earlier that they would be at a huge risk because of that

That's still less risk.

A red is already at risk with 'everyone' ready and willing to PvP and knowing they can get dropped loot on land. It's riskier on land because now the Greens will attack you too if they think they can beat you, but you get a greater penalty if they're wrong.

Mag7spy

Dolyem wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Right, so…
It’s not more risk and a boon for Corrupted.

Potentially. Needs to be clarified if it is part of the design or not. That would definitely make bounties more fun

If you think a red isn't at risk with everyone ready and willing to pvp and knowing they can get dropped loot from red players....You are high on copium.

I said that earlier that they would be at a huge risk because of that

Honestly sorry wasn't really directed at you, just people thing that red isn't a punishment with the draw backs including more corruption gain per skill and stat reduction, loot drops even if you only have 1 corruption.

Dolyem

Azherae wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Right, so…
It’s not more risk and a boon for Corrupted.

Potentially. Needs to be clarified if it is part of the design or not. That would definitely make bounties more fun

If you think a red isn't at risk with everyone ready and willing to pvp and knowing they can get dropped loot from red players....You are high on copium.

I said that earlier that they would be at a huge risk because of that

That's still less risk.

A red is already at risk with 'everyone' ready and willing to PvP and knowing they can get dropped loot on land. It's riskier on land because now the Greens will attack you too if they think they can beat you, but you get a greater penalty if they're wrong.

Yes but at sea you can assume everyone intends to pvp, which makes those players a bigger threat than green who decides to attack a corrupted. On land a corrupted risks more corruption or dying, on sea you don't get more corruption but you have a much higher likelihood of dying per encounter with a player.

Edit: the punishment is delivered through death, and a higher risk of death at sea makes it more dangerous

Azherae

Dolyem wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Right, so…
It’s not more risk and a boon for Corrupted.

Potentially. Needs to be clarified if it is part of the design or not. That would definitely make bounties more fun

If you think a red isn't at risk with everyone ready and willing to pvp and knowing they can get dropped loot from red players....You are high on copium.

I said that earlier that they would be at a huge risk because of that

That's still less risk.

A red is already at risk with 'everyone' ready and willing to PvP and knowing they can get dropped loot on land. It's riskier on land because now the Greens will attack you too if they think they can beat you, but you get a greater penalty if they're wrong.

Yes but at sea you can assume everyone intends to pvp, which makes those players a bigger threat than green who decides to attack a corrupted. On land a corrupted risks more corruption or dying, on sea you don't get more corruption but you have a much higher likelihood of dying per encounter with a player.

That's what I meant about the 'tier of player'. But it's not really a bigger threat situation. That's an 'illusion' that is created by the very culture of the game. If the Open Sea isn't actually that good for exp gain, or isn't particularly lucrative outside of few events, there's not as much reason to be out there even for players who are willing to PvP.

Similarly, since the PvP itself could easily be mostly ship related, the sort of person who wants to have a proper GvG synergized fight isn't going to be out at sea.

I'm kind of saying the same thing you are, but... more like this:

"You're safer on land because the less confident players will be there, because they'll avoid the seas due to the confident players being out there."

It would theoretically shift the Risk vs Reward of the ocean, but that's only because people already react by stratifying themselves. Now that's a part I don't agree with, but that part has less to do with the 'No Corruption' and way more to do with the 'profits available at Sea', so there's no way to comment on it.

Azherae

Dolyem wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Right, so…
It’s not more risk and a boon for Corrupted.

Potentially. Needs to be clarified if it is part of the design or not. That would definitely make bounties more fun

If you think a red isn't at risk with everyone ready and willing to pvp and knowing they can get dropped loot from red players....You are high on copium.

I said that earlier that they would be at a huge risk because of that

That's still less risk.

A red is already at risk with 'everyone' ready and willing to PvP and knowing they can get dropped loot on land. It's riskier on land because now the Greens will attack you too if they think they can beat you, but you get a greater penalty if they're wrong.

Yes but at sea you can assume everyone intends to pvp, which makes those players a bigger threat than green who decides to attack a corrupted. On land a corrupted risks more corruption or dying, on sea you don't get more corruption but you have a much higher likelihood of dying per encounter with a player.

Edit: the punishment is delivered through death, and a higher risk of death at sea makes it more dangerous

Actually my bad, I think I have a better way to explain this.

At sea, you don't actually have a reason to assume that everyone is out there to PvP if the PvE content out there is good. They enter the sea, they get flagged. The thing you're saying here is:

"You assume that anyone at sea thinks they are ABLE to PvP well enough to go." Which leads directly to stratification. If you've lost like 6 ship battles and think you will keep losing, the response from many would be 'stop going'. It's a filter, but it moreso 'seems' like a risk reduction, it's a 'trick of the mind', your actual risk isn't different. If anything it's lower because the population out there is lower.

I see this as similar to Tournaments for competitive games, but not quite. Sure, if you go to a Tournament you expect to face more strong opponents, but that's because the 'weaker ones' think it's pointless to go. In certain circles though, this leads to 'canceling the tournament due to lack of participants'. The number of strong opponents didn't explicitly change, the number of weaker ones did.

Idk if this makes sense, but figured I'd say it anyway.

Dolyem

Azherae wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Right, so…
It’s not more risk and a boon for Corrupted.

Potentially. Needs to be clarified if it is part of the design or not. That would definitely make bounties more fun

If you think a red isn't at risk with everyone ready and willing to pvp and knowing they can get dropped loot from red players....You are high on copium.

I said that earlier that they would be at a huge risk because of that

That's still less risk.

A red is already at risk with 'everyone' ready and willing to PvP and knowing they can get dropped loot on land. It's riskier on land because now the Greens will attack you too if they think they can beat you, but you get a greater penalty if they're wrong.

Yes but at sea you can assume everyone intends to pvp, which makes those players a bigger threat than green who decides to attack a corrupted. On land a corrupted risks more corruption or dying, on sea you don't get more corruption but you have a much higher likelihood of dying per encounter with a player.

Edit: the punishment is delivered through death, and a higher risk of death at sea makes it more dangerous

Actually my bad, I think I have a better way to explain this.

At sea, you don't actually have a reason to assume that everyone is out there to PvP if the PvE content out there is good. They enter the sea, they get flagged. The thing you're saying here is:

"You assume that anyone at sea thinks they are ABLE to PvP well enough to go." Which leads directly to stratification. If you've lost like 6 ship battles and think you will keep losing, the response from many would be 'stop going'. It's a filter, but it moreso 'seems' like a risk reduction, it's a 'trick of the mind', your actual risk isn't different. If anything it's lower because the population out there is lower.

I see this as similar to Tournaments for competitive games, but not quite. Sure, if you go to a Tournament you expect to face more strong opponents, but that's because the 'weaker ones' think it's pointless to go. In certain circles though, this leads to 'canceling the tournament due to lack of participants'. The number of strong opponents didn't explicitly change, the number of weaker ones did.

Idk if this makes sense, but figured I'd say it anyway.

I think I get what you're saying. To which I say that it will then be entirely dependent on the servers population of pvpers as to how dangerous the sea will be.

PlasticLemons

I know one thing for sure, this will definitely be fun to test. I can see both sides of the argument (corruption or no corruption in open seas).

I'd think having the same flagging system with corruption in play makes the most sense because why break the flow of the whole rest of the game just for naval content? Even without flagging, at least keep the corruption maybe at a 50% reduced rate, but I don't understand the reasoning of removing that from sea content.

With no flagging and no corruption would also make sense, though, if ship skills are such that they kind of replace the bounty hunter system on land. Maybe some ships have good scouting abilities and you can avoid conflicts easier i.e.

I could see it going either way. I'd lean towards having consistency across the world but I will happily test this in the future.

Veeshan

Asgerr wrote: »

From my understanding, a Kraken raid boss would still fall under the territorial waters of a Node's zone of influence, as the appearance of raids and the like are related to a node's progress. Also the XP earned through that kind of PvE goes towards the node's progression.

So ultimately, the international waters sections of the seas and oceans, might not even have Raids and dungeons. Thus rendering the open PvP more valid.

one of 3 things wil be what dictates ocean i think
1 - It all there day one (which is probaly not the case)
2 - Nodes will influence the ocean but wont realy be displayed on the map as territory so a node development might influence the kraken spawn off in the ocean outside of its visable node range
3 - ocean will be tied into all node developments pretty much all nodes have a value (Some node might have higher or lower value based on location port nodes could be say +3 base and inland +1 base for example and then levels muiltiply these base values too and the ocean is at this state based on total points from all nodes so kraken might spawn when total world nodes = 500 point for example

Dolyem

Veeshan wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

From my understanding, a Kraken raid boss would still fall under the territorial waters of a Node's zone of influence, as the appearance of raids and the like are related to a node's progress. Also the XP earned through that kind of PvE goes towards the node's progression.

So ultimately, the international waters sections of the seas and oceans, might not even have Raids and dungeons. Thus rendering the open PvP more valid.

one of 3 things wil be what dictates ocean i think
1 - It all there day one (which is probaly not the case)
2 - Nodes will influence the ocean but wont realy be displayed on the map as territory so a node development might influence the kraken spawn off in the ocean outside of its visable node range
3 - ocean will be tied into all node developments pretty much all nodes have a value (Some node might have higher or lower value based on location port nodes could be say +3 base and inland +1 base for example and then levels muiltiply these base values too and the ocean is at this state based on total points from all nodes so kraken might spawn when total world nodes = 500 point for example

I dont see how Nodes will influence beyond a limited point of coastal waters. Otherwise nobody would bother with inland nodes if coastal nodes have triple or more territory with water. I am thinking coastal nodes will just be the coastal waters, and open ocean will have nothing to do with node influence.

Noaani

Veeshan wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

From my understanding, a Kraken raid boss would still fall under the territorial waters of a Node's zone of influence, as the appearance of raids and the like are related to a node's progress. Also the XP earned through that kind of PvE goes towards the node's progression.

So ultimately, the international waters sections of the seas and oceans, might not even have Raids and dungeons. Thus rendering the open PvP more valid.

one of 3 things wil be what dictates ocean i think
1 - It all there day one (which is probaly not the case)
2 - Nodes will influence the ocean but wont realy be displayed on the map as territory so a node development might influence the kraken spawn off in the ocean outside of its visable node range
3 - ocean will be tied into all node developments pretty much all nodes have a value (Some node might have higher or lower value based on location port nodes could be say +3 base and inland +1 base for example and then levels muiltiply these base values too and the ocean is at this state based on total points from all nodes so kraken might spawn when total world nodes = 500 point for example

This is similar to my expectation.

What I think will end up being the case is that ocean content will be dictated by what ever the highest level costal node is.

If there is a costal metropolis, then all ocean content is there. If the highest is a city, then raid content may disappear, but the rest will be there.

I dont really see them moving naval content around the map too much - good encounters just take up too much space (I dont see them being able to find a naval raid encounter between the continents, tbh).

Desbaros

Slightly different take: I play primarily PvE in MMOs, largely because I'm just really bad at PvP lol

That being said though, PvP that is tied to the story fascinates me. I played on PvP servers in WoW because (at least back in the day) a core part of the story was the conflict between Alliance and Horde. I feel the same way about PvP in this world. Given the story and the lore, a fair amount of lawlessness is probably expected in Verra. I love the idea of people getting to play their characters as bandits and pirates, not only because those are additional, fun ways for people to play, but because it also adds to the world immersion for players like me too. If I understand correctly, the game was originally inspired by a D&D (or similar) campaign, and viewing it as such, those are all things I would expect to have to contend with.

As to open seas not having the corruption system...I actually feel like that's lore-appropriate as well. If you think about historical pirates IRL, living on a ship for extended periods would be challenging due to supplies, weather, etc., but there would still be those who chose that life because of the freedom and the fact that being out on the vast expanse of the ocean would make it harder for them to be caught by guards, bounty hunters, and so forth. That is kinda what this change feels like for me. You're out in the "international waters" so to speak, and I think that being outside of the reach of the "law" (aka - the Corruption system) actually plays well into that.

Not trying to argue with anyone, not trying to correct anything that's been stated prior. Just throwing in a vote that some of us on the PvE side like this change as well.

Dygz

What's the lore for Death Penalties being half-normal out there??
Can we get Steven to leek the Goddess of the Open Seas?

Volgaris

I generally disagree with no corruption at sea. I kinda? see the point though, it's a "lawless" area. What happens at sea stays at sea

to you sailors out there. They labelled the sea a Battle ground. So it's open pvp area, I can't argue with that. But was it needed? You can already kill whoever you want whenever you want... The corruption system already handled the risk vs reward. So it's a solution to problem that doesn't exist.

Azherae

Volgaris wrote: »

I generally disagree with no corruption at sea. I kinda? see the point though, it's a "lawless" area. What happens at sea stays at sea to you sailors out there. They labelled the sea a Battle ground. So it's open pvp area, I can't argue with that. But was it needed? You can already kill whoever you want whenever you want... The corruption system already handled the risk vs reward. So it's a solution to problem that doesn't exist.

I definitely feel like the real problem I have here is that the other half of this equation is missing, for me.

If the Open Seas are not really that rewarding generally, just 'gives naval combat, allows for a few very niche but not terribly important forms of gathering', I don't care what they do.

If the Open Seas are where the Kraken spawns and the Kraken drops among the best gear in the game, I have a big problem immediately.

Making Decision A that goes against your system and then making Decision B to bring A back in line with your system is a valuable tool if the lore needs it. But lore ruining gameplay (if it were to do so) quickly leads to ruining game.

I think I just want to hear the other half of it. I don't believe it's technical reasoning, and I don't believe that 'transporting goods at sea' needed it either, and I actually especially DO NOT like the fact that players can cross the ocean safely without boats using ferries and flying and teleportation and whatever. Red flag again.

It feels like poking holes in solid systems to support an unnecessary one, so I would like answers.

PenguinPaladin

If anything, autoflagging is less risk.... because you know everyone is an enemy. Where not auto flagging allows for easier betrayal and suprise attacks....

Child Item