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

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Of course, that's why I asked Steven to compare Ashes PvP with ArcheAge PvP back in 2018. I chose not to play ArcheAge specifically due to its naval combat.
And his answer was it doesn't relate because Ashes doesn't have zones with different PvP mechanics, but rather has just the one flagging PvP mechanic (with Corruption) globally.
I think the change makes sense given the games Steven likes to play. It's not surprising.
It's only unexpected because I specifically asked him in order to gauge, then, whether I would be playing Ashes. You'll notice by my questions that I'm trying to get him to say that the naval combat in Ashes is similar to the naval combat in Ashes. That's why my third question asks him about ArcheAge ships.
Now that I know that Ashes' Open Seas is similar to the naval content in ArcheAge, it's clear Ashes is not the game for me.
And that's OK.

It's great to finally have that confirmation.
And the people who love(d) the naval combat in ArcheAge should have tons of fun in the Open Seas.
That's awesome!

PherPhur

Dygz wrote: »

LMFAO
It's a dealbreaker.
Like EvE and ArcheAge, that's too PvP-centric for me.
I won't be playing.
Unless we can use the Divine Gateways to port to starting areas on other continents.

Ahhh come on, your basically a legend in the community. Just try not to pay much mind to it and I'm sure we can get together to escort you across the sea when you need it.

Let us worry about the combat you wish not to partake in.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

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.

My Bartle Score is: Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
The value is in the exploration. Especially where there are unique NPCs and unique treasure-FINDING opportunities. I don't even necessarily care about the treasure acquiring.
So, yeah, having zones that auto-flag as Combatant does matter to me.

Azherae wrote: »

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.

I mean...I'd be happy to just explore on my aquatic mount. I don't think I need a ship.
But... I have an inkling that could be exploited.
Then people would just be trying to ambush ships however they can from their aquatic mounts.

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Yep.

Dygz

Okilian wrote: »

You don't feel there should be any systems or places in the game for PvP content? Seems short sighted to me.

The entire game includes systems and places for PvP content.
Prior to the news a week ago, it was said that the global flagging system was deafult flagged Non-Combatant w/ the Corruption mechanic.
I wasn't even sure I'd be comfortable with that since I typically move from PvP-Optional servers to PvE-Only servers. Even though I like objective-based, opt-in, manual-flagging PvP sometimes.
I was willing to hold judgment on whether I play Ashes until I test Corruption as a deterrent to unwanted PvP in Alpha 2.

With the announcement of zones that auto-flag as Combatant, I have my answer already.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

The only reason I don't agree with you fully is that Coastal Waters actually ARE 'a place where a player might be just existing', and therefore the 'You can still play the game in the vicinity of stronger players' should still apply. Peaceful or less-leveled players who want to just be fishers or divers or such on a coastline.

It's easy to make the distinction between this and Open Seas, in my mind. So:

"Strong ship/crew in an area where weaker players are supposed to feel like they get to play the game is subject to Corruption."
"Strong ship/crew in an area where weaker players are not considered in the same way are not subject to Corruption."

For me... "vicinity of stronger players" is irrelevant.
I don't want to have a flag that says, "I'm in the mood for PvP combat! Come at me!" when I'm most likely there to be doing other stuff - like exploring. In order for me to play, I would need to be able to have the flag that says, "I'm a Non-Combatant. I'm not really here for PvP. If you kill me when I'm not in combat, expect severe penalties."

Since I am an explorer first and foremost, I at least need to have that as my flag in all zones across the map. 95% of my time in the Open Seas, I would be a Non-Combatant. Maybe 5% of the time, I would be willing to be a Combatant.
So, I just won't play a game that has zones where I'm auto-flagged to show that I'm in the mood to be a Combatant.

(Safe zones don't necessarily resolve that issue, but with safe zones, I might agree that Ashes is PvX. I currently consider the Ashes "PvP server ruleset" to be 1 small step away from a PvP server. And I never play on PvP servers.)

PenguinPaladin

mcstackerson wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

In the end, the real punishment of the curruption system is that greens can attack you without flagging. Its the social pressure of, am i willing to fight everyone? Thats the true down side.

I don't agree with this.

Only reason people have an issue with greens attacking without being flagging is they can't defend themselves without gaining more corruption, which leads to a higher penalty.

Yes. But you have already decided that curruption was worth taking on for some reason...

And the alternative is greens can't defend themselves without giving you the right to kill them one after the other. And i perfer the player not looking to ruin anyones day having the advantage over they guy willing to kill players that wont fight back.

Veeshan

Dygz wrote: »

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

Leave no witnesses then no one know your deeds :P

Veeshan

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.

those who dont fight back have more goodies i hear :P even more urge to kill them :P just gotta manage the corruption :P

PenguinPaladin

Veeshan wrote: »

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.

those who dont fight back have more goodies i hear :P even more urge to kill them :P just gotta manage the corruption :P

And that is an option, i support the ability to decide to attack and kill anyone. I support the curruption system existing for that purpose. Imo the curruption system is a system in place to protect greens enough that pking can be a game mechanic, not just greifing.... people intending to just greif, or not be punished at all by the curruption system, dont want an mmo game to play, they want a hack and slash power fantasy.

Dygz

Veeshan wrote: »

Leave no witnesses then no one know your deeds :P

The almight Gods are yo' witnesses!!!

Dygz

Veeshan wrote: »

those who dont fight back have more goodies i hear :P even more urge to kill them :P just gotta manage the corruption :P

Yep. So, then... no need for auto-flag zones?

GrandHarfang

Personally, what I would have prefered is the corruption system still being applicable in the open seas, but having everything the ship is transporting be stealable.

The attacker would risk gaining corruption and the defender would risk losing everything their ship is transporting.

That, to me, would be enough to incentivize PvP.

Mag7spy

Okilian wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

LMFAO
It's a dealbreaker.
Like EvE and ArcheAge, that's too PvP-centric for me.
I won't be playing.
Unless we can use the Divine Gateways to port to starting areas on other continents.

Did you think this was a pve game?

Pretty sure he is still going to play the game. They have said there will be safe/alternative ways to travel.

Mag7spy

Dygz wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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.

My Bartle Score is: Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
The value is in the exploration. Especially where there are unique NPCs and unique treasure-FINDING opportunities. I don't even necessarily care about the treasure acquiring.
So, yeah, having zones that auto-flag as Combatant does matter to me.

Azherae wrote: »

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.

I mean...I'd be happy to just explore on my aquatic mount. I don't think I need a ship.
But... I have an inkling that could be exploited.
Then people would just be trying to ambush ships however they can from their aquatic mounts.

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Yep.

I don't see aquatic mounts as a exploit, it just be more of a tactic.

Dygz

GrandHarfang wrote: »

Personally, what I would have prefered is the corruption system still being applicable in the open seas, but having everything the ship is transporting be stealable.

The attacker would risk gaining corruption and the defender would risk losing everything their ship is transporting.

That, to me, would be enough to incentivize PvP.

Haha! Yes. I wonder how well that would solve my issue.
Because, then, I would probably just use my aquatic mount to explore, instead of a ship. Make myself even less of a target.

PenguinPaladin

Unless there are technical limitations, or issues with implementation. The change is pointless at best. If anything its just a single step towards saying the curruption system wouldnt work, and i dont know why we are this late in development, just now admitting that after all the conversation about it all these years.

Azherae

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Unless there are technical limitations, or issues with implementation. The change is pointless at best. If anything its just a single step towards saying the curruption system wouldnt work, and i dont know why we are this late in development, just now admitting that after all the conversation about it all these years.

Even if this were true, it would not be in the interests of Intrepid to 'admit' anything, and technically, afaik, they have basically never done this about even a single system. They have some serious upcoming competition, mostly because the game did not hit its (implied) target dates due to pandemic and other factors.

I mean, they have to 'race' with RIOT of all people now.

Dygz

Jeffrey is not there. The Lead Game Designer position has not been filled.
Steven finaly decided to make Ashes naval combat more similar to ArcheAge naval combat.
(could be some programming challenges with having a mix of flagged players on a ship.)

PenguinPaladin

Azherae wrote: »

I mean, they have to 'race' with RIOT of all people now.

The population has been losing hope in every company in the industry.... i think the "competition" isnt a major factor for Intrepid. Unless theu start making a bunch of weird decisions... like changing their stance on having a singular pvp system active globally in game to something else after all this time...

Mag7spy

Having different elements of PvP does not = to something not working. That is like saying corruption system doesn't work in battlegrounds where its removed because there is a different kind of content there. That is like saying corruption system doesn't work because guilds can dec on you and kill you without corruption.

Corruption works fine is reducing overall PvP between singular people and having pvp more focused on group nodes/guilds.

Child Item