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

Battlegrounds do not auto-flag people in the area.
Battlegrounds are still manual, opt-in.

Azherae

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

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...

I meant it relative to only 'admitting things' and such.

Once games come out, people judge them by what they are. Until then, 'hype' matters just as much if not more. At this point going 'yeah we were wrong about some core systems that you were looking forward to' is a seismic shift in perception.

"We finalized a decision we've been thinking on for a long time" or "Everything is working with slight changes to the original plan" works way better.

If so many of us react this way to this change, you can imagine how it might be if they admitted to needing to change something else that didn't seem within their originally laid out concepts.

Only reason I'm not up-in-arms about 'flight routes by Coastal Nodes' is that they'll probably have those take you on a hot air balloon or something and it take just as long as walking. I don't much like being able to fly from one Node to another, whether the travel is 'faster' or not, but I was just gonna Family Summon half the time anyway, so I'm appreciating them saving me that.

Mag7spy

mcstackerson

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

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.

Yes, in the current system, this is something you need to think about and some want it changed so it isn't. They would prefer that if they kill someone, they only have to think about the penalty they gained for killing that one person.

The larger point of this was that being attacked by green players isn't the real risk of the corruption system. The risk of the corruption system is the increased death penalty. Being attacked by greens just has a chance of increasing the penalty further.

Okilian

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Can't you still just do all this in coastal waters?

PenguinPaladin

Okilian wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Can't you still just do all this in coastal waters?

Yes, he could. But that still leaves an area of the game he can not do all this is, and up until now there was statments from steven saying he could do everythijg everywhere without flagging

Okilian

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Good because I think its silly to write off the entire game because of a zone that's catered to some content you don't enjoy.

Mag7spy

Okilian wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Good because I think its silly to write off the entire game because of a zone that's catered to some content you don't enjoy.

I can be wrong though that is just my guess since mmorpgs these days are rare to come by and its nto much investment to try even more so if you put money into it already. But people only stay if the game is fun for them, or fun in general. A issue for a lot of mmorpgs recently.

insomnia

Veeshan wrote: »

mfckingjoker 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.

Just move on man. I've seen you complaining many many times in this forums. This game is not for you.

PvE players just gotta complain till somone changes the game to PvE just for them :P new world tried this and we all know how well that went :P haha

You are quite clueless, if you think the change is what killed New World.

Josh Strife Says has a video, explaining why the really aren't any hardcore PvP mmo's

Mattchoo

@Dygz , I appreciate your requirements for what type of games you like to play. As I understand it your issue is with the auto-flagging of combat in naval areas that has the potential of limiting your ability to explore those areas due to knowing that anyone who kills you will experience a penalty via corruption. There seems to be an inconsistency in regards to other areas that will permit other players to engage you in PvP without penalty, such as: castle siege zones, moving caravan zones, even having war being declared on your guild by another, or being declared as an enemy of the state for a region. All these things, and there may be more, can have unpenalized PvP repercussions.

Mattchoo

Maybe we are getting hung up on the term auto-flagged for PvP zone. What if it is referred to as a corruption free PvP zone.

Dygz

Castle Siege, Caravan and Node Sieges are all opt-in; not permanent zones that auto-flag. You can be in those locations without being auto-flagged. I could witness a Siege or a Caravan run as a Non-Combatant.
My character would have to be in a Guild or a be a Citizen in order to be auto-flagged for a Guild War or a Node War. Which means, I could play a character/alt who is not in a Guild or who is not a Citizen to not be auto-flagged and still explore as much as I wish.
That's not possible in a permanent zone that auto-flags characters who enter the zone.

I especially do not want to play a game where other players can look at my character and assume I am in the mood for PvP - when, most likely, I am not. Those are the encounters that cause me to rage-quit PvP-Optional servers and move to PvE-Only servers. Even though, I enjoy PvP combat, sometimes.

Mattchoo

Enemy of the state? All of those things above also do not prevent someone from being killed in PvP, they just result in corruption being added to the aggressive player. I would like to say that I am not attacking you or your opinion, it just seems to me like "throwing the baby out with the bath water" to say that the game is unplayable if there is an area of corruption free PvP.

Dygz

Enemy of the State - I'm pretty sure your character has to have accrued negative Reputation in the System for that Node first. But, even if a Mayor can flag anyone as an Enemy of the State. I can switch to an alt. It's by character; not account.

My issue is not particularly about bein killed. It's about being flagged for PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP. Everyone has their dealbreakers. Being flagged for PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP causes me to rage-quit.
And, yeah, again. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge specifically for that reason.
Don't play what you don't like.
As soon as Steven indicates Ashes is like Eve Online and ArcheAge - I know, as Steven reminds us, Ashes is not made for everyone. And... if it has zones that auto-flag as Combatant, Ashes is not made for me.
Which is OK. I don't have to play every MMORPG every made.

mcstackerson

Dygz wrote: »

Enemy of the State - I'm pretty sure your character has to have accrued negative Reputation in the System for that Node first. But, even if a Mayor can flag anyone as an Enemy of the State. I can switch to an alt. It's by character; not account.

My issue is not particularly about bein killed. It's about being flagged for PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP. Everyone has their dealbreakers. Being flagged for PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP causes me to rage-quit.
And, yeah, again. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge specifically for that reason.
Don't play what you don't like.
As soon as Steven indicates Ashes is like Eve Online and ArcheAge - I know, as Steven reminds us, Ashes is not made for everyone. And... if it has zones that auto-flag as Combatant, Ashes is not made for me.
Which is OK. I don't have to play every MMORPG every made.

So would this recommendation fix your issue?

Mattchoo wrote: »

Maybe we are getting hung up on the term auto-flagged for PvP zone. What if it is referred to as a corruption free PvP zone.

Instead of being flagged a combatant, it's changed so that no corruption is given for killing a non-combatant. You would no longer be flagged so people wouldn't assume you wanted to pvp.

Mattchoo

So the issue is about being "flagged for PvP". That is gonna be hard for me to address considering, if I am not mistaken, everyone is flagged for PvP almost everywhere.

My purpose in responding here is my hope to keep you a part of the AoC community. I enjoy your podcasts. I believe having you around to express the needs of PvE players, of which I am one predominantly, helps to balance the game.

Dygz

mcstackerson wrote: »

Instead of being flagged a combatant, it's changed so that no corruption is given for killing a non-combatant. You would no longer be flagged so people wouldn't assume you wanted to pvp.

It would at least have to not auto-flag me for PvP although... I'm not sure how much it would matter if there were not a signifcant penalty for killing Non-Combatants.
Theoretically, players on the "PvP-light servers" might not attack Non-Combatants on the Open Seas.

My issue is there being a permanent zone that auto-flags as a Combatant, rather than being flagged as a Non-Combatant by default.

I can be a part of the Ashes Community and not play the game.

Strevi

Dygz wrote: »

I can be a part of the Ashes Community and not play the game.

You could be a good mayor

Not everybody has to PvP.

Dygz

In other words, "Stay in your place."
No, thank you. I'm not OK with that.

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

I can be a part of the Ashes Community and not play the game.

Sure. But the thing I don't get... is why would you WANT to? Seems pretty weird to me.
Are you hoping you can change the direction of the game? If so, you are playing it all wrong in my opinion.

Child Item