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

mcstackerson

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Even without direct pvp conflict, all open world content is contestable. Only one group gets to kill a boss and get it's rewards at a time.

If i kill the kraken, you can't kill the kraken and get it's rewards.

I'm sorry i even mentioned the potential corruption design issues because that is far from the main reason. This content was already pvp content since one group gets the rewards and by taking the rewards, you are denying it from others. Even if the contest is a dps race, that is still players competing against each other.

Azherae

mcstackerson wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Even without direct pvp conflict, all open world content is contestable. Only one group gets to kill a boss and get it's rewards at a time.

If i kill the kraken, you can't kill the kraken and get it's rewards.

I'm sorry i even mentioned the potential corruption design issues because that is far from the main reason. This content was already pvp content since one group gets the rewards and by taking the rewards, you are denying it from others. Even if the contest is a dps race, that is still players competing against each other.

Please clarify if you perceive it would therefore be acceptable for all open world boss monsters to be Corruption-Free zones.

mcstackerson

Azherae wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Even without direct pvp conflict, all open world content is contestable. Only one group gets to kill a boss and get it's rewards at a time.

If i kill the kraken, you can't kill the kraken and get it's rewards.

I'm sorry i even mentioned the potential corruption design issues because that is far from the main reason. This content was already pvp content since one group gets the rewards and by taking the rewards, you are denying it from others. Even if the contest is a dps race, that is still players competing against each other.

Please clarify if you perceive it would therefore be acceptable for all open world boss monsters to be Corruption-Free zones.

Currently don't have strong opinions on it but yes, i'd find it acceptable.

PenguinPaladin

The biggest reasons im against the change, is because:

1. It is pointless. Anyone can attack you anytime anyways.

2. Runescape wilds as an example. People will just set on the sidelines, just outside of "open water" and then swarm whoever actually goes in. Without the line, people come and go and are opportunistic. With the line, people just set there and wait. Like its a "feature"

I need the reasons for the change to know more about having a strong opinion either way tho.

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

Azherae

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

Maybe story time?

PenguinPaladin

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

Maybe story time?

Non of that says why the curruption system wouldnt be fitting for that situation...? If someone attacks, and the opposite party retaliates, then its the exact situation that would occur from auto flagging. Where is the need for the change in the system? What events show that merchants will just not fight back currupting their attackers, and giving up their attempted trade goods?

Dolyem

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

2. Runescape wilds as an example. People will just set on the sidelines, just outside of "open water" and then swarm whoever actually goes in. Without the line, people come and go and are opportunistic. With the line, people just set there and wait. Like its a "feature"

That's an awfully massive sideline to cover.

Azherae

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

Maybe story time?

Non of that says why the curruption system wouldnt be fitting for that situation...? If someone attacks, and the opposite party retaliates, then its the exact situation that would occur from auto flagging. Where is the need for the change in the system? What events show that merchants will just not fight back currupting their attackers, and giving up their attempted trade goods?

Meant to illustrate that the 'feeling' of it is a possible goal, but more importantly that at full distance, an approaching ship would not need to 'be able to tell if a potential target was Purple or Green'.

It increases risk for a ship sighted at long range because the attacker does not need to 'worry' about 'going all the way over there' and wasting resources only to find 'just a few explorers out on a lark/pleasure cruise'.

The gameplay style of pirates and various cutthroats can differ in terms of long-term strategic play when one can simply 'assume any ship or player one sights is at least combatant'.

PenguinPaladin

Dolyem wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

2. Runescape wilds as an example. People will just set on the sidelines, just outside of "open water" and then swarm whoever actually goes in. Without the line, people come and go and are opportunistic. With the line, people just set there and wait. Like its a "feature"

That's an awfully massive sideline to cover.

Is it? Whats the veiw distance at sea? How far away can i see another ship. I would expect rather far, so i can be prepaired for being attacked, as even without auto flagging, i can be attacked at any time....

Mag7spy

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

The biggest reasons im against the change, is because:

1. It is pointless. Anyone can attack you anytime anyways.

2. Runescape wilds as an example. People will just set on the sidelines, just outside of "open water" and then swarm whoever actually goes in. Without the line, people come and go and are opportunistic. With the line, people just set there and wait. Like its a "feature"

I need the reasons for the change to know more about having a strong opinion either way tho.

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

There is a big difference between being punished to disincentivize pvp and actual open fights to incentivize it. There is nothing pointless about it unless you don't understand having different layers of pvp style content is good between the rules on land and ocean.

It isn't about trade that works the same as it always has with a open pvp area, its about the encounters on the ocean besides trade.

Mongkhai

The corruption system is required in some extent to prevent mindless PK, which ruins other people's experience. But I think being red, dropping low value items, loosing XP, and gear degradation is enough for punishment.
You shouldn't drop any equipped items, or valuable items.

It would be better to have safe zones for cities, quest hubs, and some part of the resource gathering places. So being close to the node's center is safe, and if you wander off, you could get attacked. The risk of corruption would be still there.

This way players who are not enjoying open world PVP would have their comfort zone, and people who do wouldn't have to stress about loosing something you were grinding for 2 months.

Dividing the nodes to certain zones is not hard to achieve, there are no technical limitations to implement this.

Dolyem

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

2. Runescape wilds as an example. People will just set on the sidelines, just outside of "open water" and then swarm whoever actually goes in. Without the line, people come and go and are opportunistic. With the line, people just set there and wait. Like its a "feature"

That's an awfully massive sideline to cover.

Is it? Whats the veiw distance at sea? How far away can i see another ship. I would expect rather far, so i can be prepaired for being attacked, as even without auto flagging, i can be attacked at any time....

I mean, if my math estimate is right it'd be roughly 80 to 90 km of coastlines to be covered

PenguinPaladin

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

Maybe story time?

Non of that says why the curruption system wouldnt be fitting for that situation...? If someone attacks, and the opposite party retaliates, then its the exact situation that would occur from auto flagging. Where is the need for the change in the system? What events show that merchants will just not fight back currupting their attackers, and giving up their attempted trade goods?

Meant to illustrate that the 'feeling' of it is a possible goal, but more importantly that at full distance, an approaching ship would not need to 'be able to tell if a potential target was Purple or Green'.

It increases risk for a ship sighted at long range because the attacker does not need to 'worry' about 'going all the way over there' and wasting resources only to find 'just a few explorers out on a lark/pleasure cruise'.

The gameplay style of pirates and various cutthroats can differ in terms of long-term strategic play when one can simply 'assume any ship or player one sights is at least combatant'.

I would nearly argue the opposite here.

If there was no auto flagging, i would want enough battle power to desuade people from attacking and take my chances.

With auto flagging, i know everyone i run into is going to try and sink the ship, so ammount of defences of a single vessel probably wont be enough if im unlucky, so instead i send 10 merchant ships, and 6 of them have nothing on them.

Azherae

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

Maybe story time?

Non of that says why the curruption system wouldnt be fitting for that situation...? If someone attacks, and the opposite party retaliates, then its the exact situation that would occur from auto flagging. Where is the need for the change in the system? What events show that merchants will just not fight back currupting their attackers, and giving up their attempted trade goods?

Meant to illustrate that the 'feeling' of it is a possible goal, but more importantly that at full distance, an approaching ship would not need to 'be able to tell if a potential target was Purple or Green'.

It increases risk for a ship sighted at long range because the attacker does not need to 'worry' about 'going all the way over there' and wasting resources only to find 'just a few explorers out on a lark/pleasure cruise'.

The gameplay style of pirates and various cutthroats can differ in terms of long-term strategic play when one can simply 'assume any ship or player one sights is at least combatant'.

I would nearly argue the opposite here.

If there was no auto flagging, i would want enough battle power to desuade people from attacking and take my chances.

With auto flagging, i know everyone i run into is going to try and sink the ship, so ammount of defences of a single vessel probably wont be enough if im unlucky, so instead i send 10 merchant ships, and 6 of them have nothing on them.

But we're still talking about the generality of 'pirates vs explorers/fishermen' technically.

And for those people, having to have more ships cuts into their profits (or if they lose them all, into their gaming time).

This is why I'm fine if the Open Sea is just 'useless', personally. Some trophy fish no one really needs, some strong but not interesting enemies, nothing of value to explore?

No longer matters if auto-flagging happens or not. But otherwise, explorers will probably 'get on someone's boat', possibly even paying someone with a good boat, then when a PvP crew spots that boat and goes to take it out, they arrive and find... players with no intention of a battle, who will then not even be worth killing/sinking.

But at least then, if the Ocean were 'useless', they would not need to 'worry' about it. In the standard system, you couldn't know that those 'explorers' weren't really 'people who had found cool content that they were on their way to'. You'd have to follow them, etc, using up all your PvP time just to 'make sure' they didn't get something before you if the Ocean had good stuff in it.

In the current proposed system, just sink them for being there and solve the problem.

PenguinPaladin

Mag7spy wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

The biggest reasons im against the change, is because:

1. It is pointless. Anyone can attack you anytime anyways.

2. Runescape wilds as an example. People will just set on the sidelines, just outside of "open water" and then swarm whoever actually goes in. Without the line, people come and go and are opportunistic. With the line, people just set there and wait. Like its a "feature"

I need the reasons for the change to know more about having a strong opinion either way tho.

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

There is a big difference between being punished to disincentivize pvp and actual open fights to incentivize it.

I dont see the curruption system as disincentivizing pvp. Pvp is incentivized in fact with less death penalties. Curruption disincentivizes killing those who dont fight back.... who is not going to fight back when everything stored on their ship, and their ship is going to be lost? Simply being at sea further incentives pvp.

PenguinPaladin

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

Maybe story time?

Non of that says why the curruption system wouldnt be fitting for that situation...? If someone attacks, and the opposite party retaliates, then its the exact situation that would occur from auto flagging. Where is the need for the change in the system? What events show that merchants will just not fight back currupting their attackers, and giving up their attempted trade goods?

Meant to illustrate that the 'feeling' of it is a possible goal, but more importantly that at full distance, an approaching ship would not need to 'be able to tell if a potential target was Purple or Green'.

It increases risk for a ship sighted at long range because the attacker does not need to 'worry' about 'going all the way over there' and wasting resources only to find 'just a few explorers out on a lark/pleasure cruise'.

The gameplay style of pirates and various cutthroats can differ in terms of long-term strategic play when one can simply 'assume any ship or player one sights is at least combatant'.

I would nearly argue the opposite here.

If there was no auto flagging, i would want enough battle power to desuade people from attacking and take my chances.

With auto flagging, i know everyone i run into is going to try and sink the ship, so ammount of defences of a single vessel probably wont be enough if im unlucky, so instead i send 10 merchant ships, and 6 of them have nothing on them.

But we're still talking about the generality of 'pirates vs explorers/fishermen' technically.

And for those people, having to have more ships cuts into their profits (or if they lose them all, into their gaming time).

This is why I'm fine if the Open Sea is just 'useless', personally. Some trophy fish no one really needs, some strong but not interesting enemies, nothing of value to explore?

No longer matters if auto-flagging happens or not. But otherwise, explorers will probably 'get on someone's boat', possibly even paying someone with a good boat, then when a PvP crew spots that boat and goes to take it out, they arrive and find... players with no intention of a battle, who will then not even be worth killing/sinking.

But at least then, if the Ocean were 'useless', they would not need to 'worry' about it. In the standard system, you couldn't know that those 'explorers' weren't really 'people who had found cool content that they were on their way to'. You'd have to follow them, etc, using up all your PvP time just to 'make sure' they didn't get something before you if the Ocean had good stuff in it.

In the current proposed system, just sink them for being there and solve the problem.

With this concept, you are saying all of the areas in international waters. Should be devoid of content. The only content should be the pvp battle ground.

Which furthers my point....... if the only people involved are pirates, attacking any ships they see, and merchant ships trying to trade between continents. Who isnt fighting back? What merchant ship is just letting their investment be sunk?

Azherae

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

Maybe story time?

Non of that says why the curruption system wouldnt be fitting for that situation...? If someone attacks, and the opposite party retaliates, then its the exact situation that would occur from auto flagging. Where is the need for the change in the system? What events show that merchants will just not fight back currupting their attackers, and giving up their attempted trade goods?

Meant to illustrate that the 'feeling' of it is a possible goal, but more importantly that at full distance, an approaching ship would not need to 'be able to tell if a potential target was Purple or Green'.

It increases risk for a ship sighted at long range because the attacker does not need to 'worry' about 'going all the way over there' and wasting resources only to find 'just a few explorers out on a lark/pleasure cruise'.

The gameplay style of pirates and various cutthroats can differ in terms of long-term strategic play when one can simply 'assume any ship or player one sights is at least combatant'.

I would nearly argue the opposite here.

If there was no auto flagging, i would want enough battle power to desuade people from attacking and take my chances.

With auto flagging, i know everyone i run into is going to try and sink the ship, so ammount of defences of a single vessel probably wont be enough if im unlucky, so instead i send 10 merchant ships, and 6 of them have nothing on them.

But we're still talking about the generality of 'pirates vs explorers/fishermen' technically.

And for those people, having to have more ships cuts into their profits (or if they lose them all, into their gaming time).

This is why I'm fine if the Open Sea is just 'useless', personally. Some trophy fish no one really needs, some strong but not interesting enemies, nothing of value to explore?

No longer matters if auto-flagging happens or not. But otherwise, explorers will probably 'get on someone's boat', possibly even paying someone with a good boat, then when a PvP crew spots that boat and goes to take it out, they arrive and find... players with no intention of a battle, who will then not even be worth killing/sinking.

But at least then, if the Ocean were 'useless', they would not need to 'worry' about it. In the standard system, you couldn't know that those 'explorers' weren't really 'people who had found cool content that they were on their way to'. You'd have to follow them, etc, using up all your PvP time just to 'make sure' they didn't get something before you if the Ocean had good stuff in it.

In the current proposed system, just sink them for being there and solve the problem.

With this concept, you are saying all of the areas in international waters. Should be devoid of content. The only content should be the pvp battle ground.

Which furthers my point....... if the only people involved are pirates, attacking any ships they see, and merchant ships trying to trade between continents. Who isnt fighting back? What merchant ship is just letting their investment be sunk?

Ah sorry, I think I was misleading.

I also find this decision confusing and suspicious from the perspective of certain goals of game design that I consider positive/logical.

My point was that such a perception is subjective. Steven is a big fan of ArcheAge, and could just be trying to make an experience similar to the one in the link provided, and internal discussion led to the conclusion that this was the way to achieve it most often.

Or it could just be, as the many supporters of it imply, 'just okay for the lore', and then maybe it's a contradiction to the Corruption System's implied purpose, but not really to 'Risk vs Reward' because you have to look at those terms from Steven's perspective, which, if you research ArcheAge, might start to seem a little different.

tl;dr if Steven wants to re-experience the feelings from ArcheAge and wants others who play the game to have those same feelings, this decision makes sense even without testing, because Corruption was never meant to protect from PvP anyway, it's just a stopgap, so we should probably be expecting that any situation where Corruption CAN be 'reasonably removed' in future, it will be.

PenguinPaladin

Dolyem wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

2. Runescape wilds as an example. People will just set on the sidelines, just outside of "open water" and then swarm whoever actually goes in. Without the line, people come and go and are opportunistic. With the line, people just set there and wait. Like its a "feature"

That's an awfully massive sideline to cover.

Is it? Whats the veiw distance at sea? How far away can i see another ship. I would expect rather far, so i can be prepaired for being attacked, as even without auto flagging, i can be attacked at any time....

I mean, if my math estimate is right it'd be roughly 80 to 90 km of coastlines to be covered

And whats my view distance?

If im trying to pirate, im probably not one ship trying to 1v1 another ship. Im probaby 5 vessels. Spread out to look for targets. If the 5 of us can spread out over 10km. And manage decent veiw distance. Then we have the entire span of the international waters to try and catchup to the first boat stalling the target...

And again, if every battle starts with the target returning fire, than them being auto flagged or not is meaningless.

Mag7spy

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

The biggest reasons im against the change, is because:

1. It is pointless. Anyone can attack you anytime anyways.

2. Runescape wilds as an example. People will just set on the sidelines, just outside of "open water" and then swarm whoever actually goes in. Without the line, people come and go and are opportunistic. With the line, people just set there and wait. Like its a "feature"

I need the reasons for the change to know more about having a strong opinion either way tho.

I have no idea why this would even be decided without any practical testing before hand, that shows the curruption system itself isnt appropriate for the type of game play they are aiming for in international waters...

There is a big difference between being punished to disincentivize pvp and actual open fights to incentivize it.

I dont see the curruption system as disincentivizing pvp. Pvp is incentivized in fact with less death penalties. Curruption disincentivizes killing those who dont fight back.... who is not going to fight back when everything stored on their ship, and their ship is going to be lost? Simply being at sea further incentives pvp.

You would be very surprised, anything you think might happen is flipped over when it comes to peoples pvp and creativity.

There have been a lot of points people have gone over, one of which is id expect boats to deal damage to players, you simply have a lower lvl player and you have their aoe kill them so you can freely destroy their boat while they are red.

You can use decoy boats as well to try to bait people, once they are corrupted they can no go back to town as they would be KOS d to being corrupted and unable to drop their loot off until they work off the corruption. Plenty of time to kill them on the open sea and have a fast scout boat to keep track of people.

Eventually people would start to realize if it is worth fighting over rather then simply and safely getting their loot and driving back in most cases leading to less pvp on the ocean and people trying to make most out of the lucrative treasure finding, etc.

Mag7spy

They greatly expanded the amount of ocean content in their design because they clearly must have a fun kind of content revolving around it in a more pvp focus kind of thing. Something that most likely wasn't possible or as fun since the water ratio of the world would have been much smaller. I personally don't feel it as changing i feel it as something that is being added in as a new type of pvx content.

Child Item