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

Dygz

Arya_Yeshe

NiKr wrote: »

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.

There's ship loss too, ammo consuption and repairs, makes sense being rewarding enough so you can replace lost ships

Noaani

DarkTides wrote: »

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.

I'm not concerned with linking things too much, there are many times people link things in the wiki or from a developer update that they have completely misunderstood about the game.

Rather, it's better to talk about your understanding. If there are aspects with how you think things will be in the game that I disagree with, that is when we can start discussing specifics of those things.

As it stands right now though, I have no real idea how you think the things we are talking about will go.

I still dont even know who these players you talk about in the OP that are running amuck actually even are.

The clarification I asked for in my previous posts is about your thoughts, bot about sources or anything (I make a point of not linking sources, people can look things up themselves - as such, I dont expect or require it from others unless they are saying something outlandish).

I mean, if all you want to do is discuss the last paragraph if your OP, I can still find a few things in there that I disagree with.

The penalty of corruption is associated with being killed while corrupt. It isnt all that much of a penalty if you do not die.

In order to be killed while corrupt, you need other players to attack you. This means that the area you are in realistically needs to have a fairly dense player population. If players are sparse, there simply wont be people around to attack you, and thus you can work off any corruption gains in relative peace.

You likely dont even need to worry about the people you just killed. Respawns around the ocean are likely to be few and far between. It is most likely that players killed in the open ocean will spawn at the nearest harbor. If you do kill someone and gain corruption, in order for them to retaliate, they need to resummon a ship (probably not their best ship, as you just destroyed it and it likely needs to be repaired). Then they need to sail across the ocean back to where you killed them. This is plenty of time for you to go elsewhere to work off your corruption - and indeed it may even be long enough to work it off.

As such, if corruption were present in the open ocean, it would be significantly less effective than it will be on land. This is why I always assumed the ocean would be free from the corruption system - it just wouldn't make sense to have it there, as it would be nearly effectiveless - the exact opposite of your assumption that it would be to harsh.

DarkTides

Noaani

DarkTides wrote: »

Great addition to the discussion.

Just adds to my theory that people asking for discussion on forums are actually only really after validation of their ideas. They only want people to agree with them - they aren't interested in actual discussion at all.

DarkTides

Calling you out.

You can't have a proper conversation with someone who ignores what people have said, selectively chooses to only engage in one thing and, in doing so, takes it out of context to actually give them some small piece of ground to stand on. You believe people can't engage in discussion and need a safe space, but it's the way you engage in the discussion that is the issue. When caught, you put your own spin on it to try and save your internet ego. Seems like you do this a lot.

I'm not the only person that sees what you're doing. You either do it intentionally or there's another reason.

In either case, the foundation of our beliefs is completely different, which results in opposing design philosophy. We could go into our gaming histories to find out why that is, but that's not what this post is about.

Noaani

DarkTides wrote: »

In either case, the foundation of our beliefs is completely different, which results in opposing design philosophy. We could go into our gaming histories to find out why that is, but that's not what this post is about.

This part is true, which us why discussion could be interesting.

The thing with discussion is that before it can happen, both sides need to understand each others baseline perspective.

This requires a reasonable amount of back and forth - and is what I have been trying to do here. The further apart the initial baseline of each person in the discussion, thenlonger this process will take.

If you and I attempt to have a discussion where we have not come to an understanding of each others baseline, then that conversation wont be of much use to anyone.

What many people on these forums do is just assume that they have given enough information in their OP, and blatantly refuse to answer questions or clarify things so that people that are coming in to the discussion from a different perspective can establish that baseline, and thus can then begin to participate in the discussion.

Basically, anyone not interested in clarifying themselves is proving that they are only interested in hearing opinions from people with the same baseline that they themselves have - literally only interested in hearing from people that share their opinion.

When I look at entering an actual discussion with someone that has a different perspective than I do, I will kot go in and attempt to discuss every nuance of what they are talking about to start. The first thing I will do is attempt to establish that baseline - and the easiest way to do that is to pick a statement that I blatantly disagree with, and attempt to discuss that (basically, starting off hu trying to talk about the biggest gaps in our perspectives).

If the person I am replying to wants actual discussion (and understands how to have discussion with people holding a different perspective), they will engage, clarify and discuss. Once that initial point has been cleared up, we then move on to other points. @NiKr is the best at this on these forums right now, and him and I have had a number of good discussions due to this.

Most poster though, they aren't good at it. What they do is they basically refuse to answer questions, refuse to clarify what they have said. They think that all the information anyone should need on their opinion has been provided, and simply dont understand that someone coming from a different perspective may want different information, or may take things differently than intended.

While refusing to engage in this pre-discussion, these people often accuse the person looking for clarification as not wanting to talk about the topic they want to talk about, they often post memes, and sometimes also subtly attack the person wanting to engage in that pre-discussion. Either thisnperson has literally never had a discussion with someone that has a different perspective to their own and thus doesnt know how to have that discussion, or they simply do not want to have it.

I'm not going to make assumptions as to which of the above is the case here, but one of them is.

What you often see me doing on these forums is attempting to get that process started, only to find the same attitude displayed in this thread. Generally, since that poster has demonstrated their unwillingness to actually have a discussion, I then just continue in that thread for my own amusement. You may take that as being any number of things, but if you actually look through my post history, you will see - without fail - a willingness to start discussion with others every time.

Mag7spy

DarkTides wrote: »

Calling you out.

You can't have a proper conversation with someone who ignores what people have said, selectively chooses to only engage in one thing and, in doing so, takes it out of context to actually give them some small piece of ground to stand on. You believe people can't engage in discussion and need a safe space, but it's the way you engage in the discussion that is the issue. When caught, you put your own spin on it to try and save your internet ego. Seems like you do this a lot.

I'm not the only person that sees what you're doing. You either do it intentionally or there's another reason.

In either case, the foundation of our beliefs is completely different, which results in opposing design philosophy. We could go into our gaming histories to find out why that is, but that's not what this post is about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyquiA8RL1Q

Child Item