Explanation of open seas pvp auto-flag

Initially, it appeared as though players would be running around as non-combatants, with the exception of triggered opt-in PVP events, such as caravan escorts and node sieges. Then we have the corruption system to penalize players who decided to plant the face of others in the dirt, outside of those events.

That, if untouched, would result in too many non-combatants running amuck, able to influence PVP outcomes without any means of recourse.

Following live streams, and much discussion, it has become apparent that, unless nodes decide to develop friendly relations towards one another, there will certainly be additional PVP enabling systems, that interact with affiliations, to provide much needed "risk" to offset the well-fed, over achieving, and under-challenged PVE only players.

How does this relate to open seas pvp, and why is it auto-flag?

With the lack of nearby nodes in the open seas to establish PVP rulesets, and thus the lack of "risk" for PVE players; the severity of corruption penalties would be too great to bring balance, and therefore open seas PVP enabled combat is required. If not, the further from nodes you are, the less risk you would encounter, where the goal would be the opposite.

Discuss.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Arya_Yeshe

I really enjoy seeing someone politely calling for an honest discussion, appreciate that.

In this reply I will address just the Corruption system

I don't think the Corruption system will be a thing and I don't think we will see a lot of corrupted players. Just to begin with it's not even because the debuffs the corrupted will suffer, it's just that AoC has barely no loot and on top of it there's debuffs. So the green targets will be cherry picked, people will kill the most toxic green carebears and pve griefers and that's about it. People will kill greens when things get too personal and nobody will be doing a killing spree of greens.

Intrepid is pretty much fear mongering and creating prejudice because how the Corruption system is advertised, as if it was the plank of salvation for all the "good" people against the "evil" people. From the bottom of my heart, I hope the PvE griefing in AoC becomes the most toxic and alarming as possible while having the Corruption system as shelter, because this will bright light on the problem of rampant PvE griefing among all games.

I think there will be barely no corrupted players in AoC and advertising this system as "anti griefing" is just misinformation and paranoia.

We won't see a red horde, but maybe we will see a green horde and I will root for the green horde for it to be impossible to deal with and the most toxic group among all games, I hope it creates such an outcry that people will finally understand the matter

Arya_Yeshe

In this reply I will address naval gameplay.

Sounds amazing and I am greatly interested in this.

When the ships move into an open sea (open waters/deep ocean) area. This will automatically flag players as Combatants (purple).

Naval PvP is between ships.[2]
Naval PvE includes open sea raids and sea-based bosses.[1][2]

Open sea zones have better resources in more abundance to compensate for the added level of risk.[5]

This is just sensible and there will be ship destruction too, so having a crew of competent and fight able seamen will be a thing in AoC.

I believe that PvE carebears who want no risk in any game will go to the seas too and will take risks, then they will fail and then they will understand the importance of having PvP friends who can fight.

The seas will be an interesting melting pot where people will finally learn why we play MMOs, its for working together with people against other people.

For sure the seas won't be toxic because of it and will be super fun
For sure the AoC experience at the seas will be very different than the AoC experience at the woods or dungeons

There's only griefing if the guy has a wall of game mechanics and systems protecting him while he can hurt others in many ways, when there's open PvP there's a fight and the guy spawns far away and they won't see each other so soon if the spawns are done correctly

Dygz

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I believe that PvE carebears who want no risk in any game will go to the seas too and will take risks, then they will fail and then they will understand the importance of having PvP friends who can fight.

LMFAO

DarkTides

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I really enjoy seeing someone politely calling for an honest discussion, appreciate that.

In this reply I will address just the Corruption system

I don't think the Corruption system will be a thing and I don't think we will see a lot of corrupted players. Just to begin with it's not even because the debuffs the corrupted will suffer, it's just that AoC has barely no loot and on top of it there's debuffs. So the green targets will be cherry picked, people will kill the most toxic green carebears and pve griefers and that's about it. People will kill greens when things get too personal and nobody will be doing a killing spree of greens.

Intrepid is pretty much fear mongering and creating prejudice because how the Corruption system is advertised, as if it was the plank of salvation for all the "good" people against the "evil" people. From the bottom of my heart, I hope the PvE griefing in AoC becomes the most toxic and alarming as possible while having the Corruption system as shelter, because this will bright light on the problem of rampant PvE griefing among all games.

I think there will be barely no corrupted players in AoC and advertising this system as "anti griefing" is just misinformation and paranoia.

We won't see a red horde, but maybe we will see a green horde and I will root for the green horde for it to be impossible to deal with and the most toxic group among all games, I hope it creates such an outcry that people will finally understand the matter

My post was intended to outline what I believe we will see in the future, and why they decided to have open seas flagged for PVP. I do not believe we have to worry about griefing from either PVP or PVE with current ruleset and upcoming and not blatantly said, though apparent rulesets.

Noaani

DarkTides wrote: »

That, if untouched, would result in too many non-combatants running amuck, able to influence PVP outcomes without any means of recourse.

So, I disagree with this as a premise.

However, I agree with the notion that the ocean should be free from the corruption system (I always assumed it would be). Steven clearly wants to create Archeages naval content in Ashes, and that would require it be free from corruption.

The reason I disagree with you above is basically because it makes no real sense. It is assuming far too many things would happen far too often to be a viable conclusion.

The only way non-combatants can influence PvP is if that PvP is against corrupt players. The o ly way players can gain corruption is if they fight and kill someone that doesnt fight back.

Since rewards in ocean content are said to be better than land based content, people will fight back in order to preserve what they have.

As such, fewer people will gain corruption in the ocean (assuming it was tired of on). This in turn is obviouy meaning the number of times a group of non-combatant comes across a group if corrupt players that they are able to kill while out in the ocean will be significantly less, due purely to the fact that more PvP would be contested than it will be on land where the rewards (and thus motivation to fight back) will be less.

As such, your comments of non-combatants running amuck just doesn't ring true to me.

If corruption were enabled in the ocean, the only people that wouldn't fight back are the few people out there like Dygz - everyone else would fight back.

And truth be told, if you are attacking someone that is clearly just out exploring, you deserve corruption and all that it entails.

Strevi

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

That, if untouched, would result in too many non-combatants running amuck, able to influence PVP outcomes without any means of recourse.

So, I disagree with this as a premise.
...

Since rewards in ocean content are said to be better than land based content, people will fight back in order to preserve what they have.

Good to know that rewards will be better.
I didn't thought much on this but makes sense.
Do you think the wish to offer better rewards is the main cause of the change?

To me it feels that the map will be more interesting, having two continents with a more dangerous hard to cross area inbetween.

Noaani

Strevi wrote: »

Do you think the wish to offer better rewards is the main cause of the change?

My opinion - and it is just an opinion - is that Steven is literally trying to copy Archeages ocean content feel. This requires the ocean be free from corruption. To me, the reward structure is a result of the desire for the content, rather than the other way around.

Dygz

Um. Steven specifically stated that the reason for the change to the Open Seas is because with increased rewards comes increased Rsk/PvP.
But, yes, also Steven probably wants the Open Seas to feel similar to ArcheAge.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Um. Steven specifically stated that the reason for the change to the Open Seas is because with increased rewards comes increased Rsk/PvP.

I mean, that doesn't mean a whole lot in this context.

If you increase the risk, you have to increase the reward - just as if you increase the reward you have to increase the risk. The above statement requires both to be true, yet it doesnt say which one is the case in any given situation.

Since we have literally no reward structure in place for Ashes as yet (there wont be even a single item finalized), it seems a bit too early to say that the rewards for ocean content dictate it be PvP.

However, it is perfectly viable to say that they want the ocean to be PvP, and so when they get around to creating the rewards, they will factor that PvP in, making them better.

So, since Ashes isnt exactly trying to be original as an MMORPG, my assumptiong is still that the idea is to copy Archeages ocean content, and the rewards will just be what they need to be.

DarkTides

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

That, if untouched, would result in too many non-combatants running amuck, able to influence PVP outcomes without any means of recourse.

So, I disagree with this as a premise.

However, I agree with the notion that the ocean should be free from the corruption system (I always assumed it would be). Steven clearly wants to create Archeages naval content in Ashes, and that would require it be free from corruption.

The reason I disagree with you above is basically because it makes no real sense. It is assuming far too many things would happen far too often to be a viable conclusion.

The only way non-combatants can influence PvP is if that PvP is against corrupt players. The o ly way players can gain corruption is if they fight and kill someone that doesnt fight back.

Since rewards in ocean content are said to be better than land based content, people will fight back in order to preserve what they have.

As such, fewer people will gain corruption in the ocean (assuming it was tired of on). This in turn is obviouy meaning the number of times a group of non-combatant comes across a group if corrupt players that they are able to kill while out in the ocean will be significantly less, due purely to the fact that more PvP would be contested than it will be on land where the rewards (and thus motivation to fight back) will be less.

As such, your comments of non-combatants running amuck just doesn't ring true to me.

If corruption were enabled in the ocean, the only people that wouldn't fight back are the few people out there like Dygz - everyone else would fight back.

And truth be told, if you are attacking someone that is clearly just out exploring, you deserve corruption and all that it entails.

Slightly hypocritical post.

It sounds like you believe that crafting, along with resource acquisition, which is required to advance nodes or develop siege equipment and gear up allies, as an indirect contribution to achieving victory conditions, has no impact on PVP, although I'm sure that can't be so.

Would you please confirm whether you think that direct PVP is the only way to influence PVP outcomes, thanks.

Noaani

DarkTides wrote: »

Slightly hypocritical post.

It sounds like you believe that crafting, along with resource acquisition, which is required to advance nodes or develop siege equipment and gear up allies, as an indirect contribution to achieving victory conditions, has no impact on PVP, although I'm sure that can't be so.

Would you please confirm whether you think that direct PVP is the only way to influence PVP outcomes, thanks.

I literally have no idea at all how you arrived at the above thoughts from my post.

Literally no idea at all.

To answer your question though, yes, I do believe aspects such as crafting, the economy, PvE progression and social aspects of the game will and should have an impact on PvP outcomes.

My reply to you was based on the assumption that you were talking about such players influencing things in an untoward manner - but you are now suggesting they are participating in the game in literally the manner in which the game is designed for them to participate.

The question I then have for you is - why is your OP now coming across as if you think this is a bad thing? If non-combatants are running amuck influencing PvP outcomes via crafting gear, or via offering support, why are you suggesting that is a bad thing? Why are these people "running amuck" rather than "participating in the game as it was intended"?

DarkTides

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

That, if untouched, would result in too many non-combatants running amuck, able to influence PVP outcomes without any means of recourse.

The only way non-combatants can influence PvP is if that PvP is against corrupt players. The o ly way players can gain corruption is if they fight and kill someone that doesnt fight back.

No idea at all eh?

Noaani wrote: »

My reply to you was based on the assumption that you were talking about such players influencing things in an untoward manner - but you are now suggesting they are participating in the game in literally the manner in which the game is designed for them to participate.

The question I then have for you is - why is your OP now coming across as if you think this is a bad thing? If non-combatants are running amuck influencing PvP outcomes via crafting gear, or via offering support, why are you suggesting that is a bad thing? Why are these people "running amuck" rather than "participating in the game as it was intended"?

I think you are skimming over a lot of what was written, such as when I specifically said with no recourse. You think that's normal? Fund a group of players against another and those players cant touch you? That's equivalent to something called "immortal healing".

Arya_Yeshe

@DarkTides , I muded this Noaani guy because his wild ilogical replies and his questions loaded with answers
If nobody quotes the guy I dont even notice he insisting in messing up the discussions just with poor logic and ill intent. His logic is odd and disturbbing, I'm not sure what kind of person we are dealing here.

For sure PvE activities will directly influence PvP, because the PvE will bring better economical outcomes for everybody around it and gear availability, this works in all games.

In AoC there's the forced slavery through upgrading the node too that can put your guild on top of others by having better conditions in the node.

I liked the seas a lot because everybody is flagged for PvP and we will have an adventure there.

Noaani

DarkTides wrote: »

Fund a group of players against another and those players cant touch you? That's equivalent to something called "immortal healing".

Yeah, that sounds like bad game design.

What game is it from?

Because it sure isn't Ashes.

Lets say you have a crafter that literally never leaves their freehold. They are indirectly influencing your enemies via supplying them with gear, and you can't attack them directly because you can't attack people on their own freehold.

So, what you do is you prevent them from getting materials.

They are attacking you indirectly, you attack them indirectly.

I literally don't see your point here at all - unless your point is that some players may be able to indirectly influence things and you only want to retaliate in a direct manner. However, what you have now is a topic that is completely and totally removed from the title of the thread.

Even if this is what you are saying, directly attacking that player would be of no point to you. You kill them, they die, they go back to their freehold where all their materials are stored and just craft harder. In order to attack them in any meaningful way, your only option is to cut their supplies or their services. Nothing else will stop them.

My original reply to you was keeping within the scope of the change to oceans (which imo wasn't a change - just a clarification). If you want a discussion as to the scope of the over all game and when the corruption system is and is not in operation, the title of the thread needs to be changed.

DarkTides

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Fund a group of players against another and those players cant touch you? That's equivalent to something called "immortal healing".

Yeah, that sounds like bad game design.

What game is it from?

Because it sure isn't Ashes.

Lets say you have a crafter that literally never leaves their freehold. They are indirectly influencing your enemies via supplying them with gear, and you can't attack them directly because you can't attack people on their own freehold.

So, what you do is you prevent them from getting materials.

They are attacking you indirectly, you attack them indirectly.

I literally don't see your point here at all - unless your point is that some players may be able to indirectly influence things and you only want to retaliate in a direct manner. However, what you have now is a topic that is completely and totally removed from the title of the thread.

My original reply to you was keeping within the scope of the change to oceans (which imo wasn't a change - just a clarification). If you want a discussion as to the scope of the over all game and when the corruption system is and is not in operation, the title of the thread needs to be changed.

I realize you don't see my point, and it sounds like you don't understand most points that people make. Get angrier next time, please, and make 20k comments. Super Saiyan those comments up.

Noaani

DarkTides wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Fund a group of players against another and those players cant touch you? That's equivalent to something called "immortal healing".

Yeah, that sounds like bad game design.

What game is it from?

Because it sure isn't Ashes.

Lets say you have a crafter that literally never leaves their freehold. They are indirectly influencing your enemies via supplying them with gear, and you can't attack them directly because you can't attack people on their own freehold.

So, what you do is you prevent them from getting materials.

They are attacking you indirectly, you attack them indirectly.

I literally don't see your point here at all - unless your point is that some players may be able to indirectly influence things and you only want to retaliate in a direct manner. However, what you have now is a topic that is completely and totally removed from the title of the thread.

My original reply to you was keeping within the scope of the change to oceans (which imo wasn't a change - just a clarification). If you want a discussion as to the scope of the over all game and when the corruption system is and is not in operation, the title of the thread needs to be changed.

I realize you don't see my point, and it sounds like you don't understand most points that people make. Get angrier next time, please, and make 20k comments. Super Saiyan those comments up.

Who's angry?

You asked for discussion, I am discussing.

If I have taken the wrong thing from your OP, or any subsequent post, clarify.

Your OP inferred that without the current understanding for ocean combat, non-combatants would be running amuck, influencing PvP outcomes. You then subsequently stated that you may have been talking about crafters (you didn't say you were talking about them, you hinted that you might be).

What I don't see is how crafters crafting gear and handing it to PvP players would in any way be impacted by the current understanding of ocean content. Nor do I see how crafters crafting gear for PvP players to use in PvP is anything other than how the game is designed to be played.

So sure, perhaps I am not understanding your points - but that is because your points are not overly clear. They are DEFINATELY not concisely stated in the OP.

Clarification is always welcome.

DarkTides

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Fund a group of players against another and those players cant touch you? That's equivalent to something called "immortal healing".

Yeah, that sounds like bad game design.

What game is it from?

Because it sure isn't Ashes.

Lets say you have a crafter that literally never leaves their freehold. They are indirectly influencing your enemies via supplying them with gear, and you can't attack them directly because you can't attack people on their own freehold.

So, what you do is you prevent them from getting materials.

They are attacking you indirectly, you attack them indirectly.

I literally don't see your point here at all - unless your point is that some players may be able to indirectly influence things and you only want to retaliate in a direct manner. However, what you have now is a topic that is completely and totally removed from the title of the thread.

My original reply to you was keeping within the scope of the change to oceans (which imo wasn't a change - just a clarification). If you want a discussion as to the scope of the over all game and when the corruption system is and is not in operation, the title of the thread needs to be changed.

I realize you don't see my point, and it sounds like you don't understand most points that people make. Get angrier next time, please, and make 20k comments. Super Saiyan those comments up.

Who's angry?

You asked for discussion, I am discussing.

If I have taken the wrong thing from your OP, or any subsequent post, clarify.

Your OP inferred that without the current understanding for ocean combat, non-combatants would be running amuck, influencing PvP outcomes. You then subsequently stated that you may have been talking about crafters (you didn't say you were talking about them, you hinted that you might be).

What I don't see is how crafters crafting gear and handing it to PvP players would in any way be impacted by the current understanding of ocean content. Nor do I see how crafters crafting gear for PvP players to use in PvP is anything other than how the game is designed to be played.

So sure, perhaps I am not understanding your points - but that is because your points are not overly clear. They are DEFINATELY not concisely stated in the OP.

Clarification is always welcome.

Must...have....more....comments....must....reply...to....every..thing

Noaani

DarkTides wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Fund a group of players against another and those players cant touch you? That's equivalent to something called "immortal healing".

Yeah, that sounds like bad game design.

What game is it from?

Because it sure isn't Ashes.

Lets say you have a crafter that literally never leaves their freehold. They are indirectly influencing your enemies via supplying them with gear, and you can't attack them directly because you can't attack people on their own freehold.

So, what you do is you prevent them from getting materials.

They are attacking you indirectly, you attack them indirectly.

I literally don't see your point here at all - unless your point is that some players may be able to indirectly influence things and you only want to retaliate in a direct manner. However, what you have now is a topic that is completely and totally removed from the title of the thread.

My original reply to you was keeping within the scope of the change to oceans (which imo wasn't a change - just a clarification). If you want a discussion as to the scope of the over all game and when the corruption system is and is not in operation, the title of the thread needs to be changed.

I realize you don't see my point, and it sounds like you don't understand most points that people make. Get angrier next time, please, and make 20k comments. Super Saiyan those comments up.

Who's angry?

You asked for discussion, I am discussing.

If I have taken the wrong thing from your OP, or any subsequent post, clarify.

Your OP inferred that without the current understanding for ocean combat, non-combatants would be running amuck, influencing PvP outcomes. You then subsequently stated that you may have been talking about crafters (you didn't say you were talking about them, you hinted that you might be).

What I don't see is how crafters crafting gear and handing it to PvP players would in any way be impacted by the current understanding of ocean content. Nor do I see how crafters crafting gear for PvP players to use in PvP is anything other than how the game is designed to be played.

So sure, perhaps I am not understanding your points - but that is because your points are not overly clear. They are DEFINATELY not concisely stated in the OP.

Clarification is always welcome.

Must...have....more....comments....must....reply...to....every..thing

So... you don't want discussion now?

DarkTides

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Fund a group of players against another and those players cant touch you? That's equivalent to something called "immortal healing".

Yeah, that sounds like bad game design.

What game is it from?

Because it sure isn't Ashes.

Lets say you have a crafter that literally never leaves their freehold. They are indirectly influencing your enemies via supplying them with gear, and you can't attack them directly because you can't attack people on their own freehold.

So, what you do is you prevent them from getting materials.

They are attacking you indirectly, you attack them indirectly.

I literally don't see your point here at all - unless your point is that some players may be able to indirectly influence things and you only want to retaliate in a direct manner. However, what you have now is a topic that is completely and totally removed from the title of the thread.

My original reply to you was keeping within the scope of the change to oceans (which imo wasn't a change - just a clarification). If you want a discussion as to the scope of the over all game and when the corruption system is and is not in operation, the title of the thread needs to be changed.

I realize you don't see my point, and it sounds like you don't understand most points that people make. Get angrier next time, please, and make 20k comments. Super Saiyan those comments up.

Who's angry?

You asked for discussion, I am discussing.

If I have taken the wrong thing from your OP, or any subsequent post, clarify.

Your OP inferred that without the current understanding for ocean combat, non-combatants would be running amuck, influencing PvP outcomes. You then subsequently stated that you may have been talking about crafters (you didn't say you were talking about them, you hinted that you might be).

What I don't see is how crafters crafting gear and handing it to PvP players would in any way be impacted by the current understanding of ocean content. Nor do I see how crafters crafting gear for PvP players to use in PvP is anything other than how the game is designed to be played.

So sure, perhaps I am not understanding your points - but that is because your points are not overly clear. They are DEFINATELY not concisely stated in the OP.

Clarification is always welcome.

Must...have....more....comments....must....reply...to....every..thing

So... you don't want discussion now?

Despite being able to reply as I have thus far, I do not have time to search through hours of videos and read over wiki's, combine everything together to paint a picture (oh and link it all for you on a silver platter). If you did not hear Steven mention risk in the open seas, as Dygz pointed out, then I would point you in that general direction.

Ludullu

Steven hasn't told us shit. "More rewards" doesn't mean anything w/o details of what those rewards are. Is it literally best gear in the game? Is it smth else? How much of those "rewards" is in the open seas? Is it a few bosses or is it hundreds of mobs and dozens of bosses and quests and a ton of other stuff, all of which are very valuable?

We know nothing of that. The only thing we know is just a vague justification of why the open seas have suddenly become always-on pvp. Having seen the uncontested farm of the AA's Kraken, I sure as hell hope that's not the type of content Steven considers "rewarding".

And if open seas' bosses require always-on pvp to justify their rewards, I'd assume land-based bosses in dungeons will also have pvp zones around them, cause it'd be a bad design to have high rewards in the seas with huge risks linked to them, but then have huuuge risk of PKing around land bosses w/o the same lvl of rewards. And if the rewards on land are the same as the seas' one, then why da hell one has a pvp zone for it while the other doesn't.

Child Item