Why are pirates exempt from corruption?

NiKr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

It’s not PKing because Caravan Defense/Attack is Purple/Combatant.
Half-Normal Death penalties.
Which incentivizes PvP combat.

Cravans are pvp events, not purple pvp, so the only penalty is gear decay (at least for now).

Mag7spy wrote: »

Saying sea has more pvp but you are going to ignore other elements of pvp and pick on the system meant to reduce chaotic elements of pvp is not really a honest take.

The cost of wars is probably magnitudes bigger than a cost of a ship (at least the smallest one). And we don't know if ships are the only way to traverse the seas. And with caravans being quite a small, and also unreliable thing - the sea will most likely have more pvp than land, because the seas will supposedly be valuable enough to draw people into themselves (which is the entire point of them being ffa pvp).

PvP events will be comparatively rare, while the seas are permanently pvp.

I highly doubt that that its going to cost more than a ship in any form of actual context between solo player and a guild / node. There is 0 indication of extreme cost. (unless you can find a qoute where they talk about war decs costing so much you can't dec often at all)

You are missing the context of my post you don't have infinite boats resources so you aren't going to be doing more pvp on the sea over land as a general player. I've already went over this.

Valuable doesn't mean infinite, nor does that mean the only thing you can do. I highly doubt AoC is going to have end game loop being ocean, and turn AoC main gameplay into ocean content. Which wouldn't make sense do to nodes not really having an overall effect on the ocean as far as i know.

This comes down to people needing to really tempter their expectations on what thy are actually going to be doing. You are over hyping the ocean imo, that place is going to be more on the generic side. They have a whole land area and underground area to make content for that is also dynamic and changes with nodes.

We have no indication that pvp events are going to be rare. Though if they are that means it is going to be more leaned towards guild / node decs to add more to pvp.

If there was no cost on sea that you could better argue it is the main pvp zone for people. But do to boats and such, its not realistic to think you are just summoning a boat and repairing all your gear easily and constantly. If you feel rough from 2-3 deaths that is practically no pvp compared to fighting a dec where there is like 100+ deaths between players and the size of fight.

Honestly at this point i think people are getting mixed up with easier to freely pvp with quantity of pvp

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

I highly doubt that that its going to cost more than a ship in any form of actual context between solo player and a guild / node. There is 0 indication of extreme cost. (unless you can find a qoute where they talk about war decs costing so much you can't dec often at all)

It would be great if they were cheap, but I'm not seeing that happening, just as you are not seeing seas being filled with people or valuable content.

Mag7spy wrote: »

I highly doubt AoC is going to have end game loop being ocean, and turn AoC main gameplay into ocean content

And as I keep saying - if the seas have fuck all in terms of content WHY IN THE FUCK ARE THEY FFA PVP. That's the stupidiest design change.

You are arguing for my point here. If seas are pointless then there'll be no pvp there, which means there was no damn reason to make them pvp. And if there is tiny pieces of high value content there - how is that any different from ground high value content with guild wars and shit, which still means "there's no point in it being ffa pvp".

This would also mean that Steven pretty much lied, because his main reason behind the change was "high reward requires higher risk". And higher risk can only exist if the pvp is near-assured at most times.

Mag7spy wrote: »

If there was no cost on sea that you could better argue it is the main pvp zone for people. But do to boats and such, its not realistic to think you are just summoning a boat and repairing all your gear easily and constantly. If you feel rough from 2-3 deaths that is practically no pvp compared to fighting a dec where there is like 100+ deaths between players and the size of fight.

Like I said multiple times, we don't know if we can traverse seas on mounts and/or our own char. And we haven't seen any water combat (if there is any).

Dygz

Ashes does not have an "Endgame loop".
You do the same activities at Max Adventurer Level that you do at Low Level.

Whatever Rewards (and mobs) are in the Open Seas will be determined by the Stages of the associated Nodes; not by Adventurer Level.

Krakhun wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So either this is a bad take and someone is suggesting most content takes place on the sea for wild reasons that don't make sense.

So the person acknowledges corruption will stop (corruption style) pvp and also wants pvp on sea around corruption to be reduced down closer to 0.

Eventually there comes to a point where if you need to accept AoC has PvP in the game. People keep forgetting corruption is the least amount pvp that will be happening in game and other types of pvp are going to be main points. So there is no reasoning why you will see more pvp on sea than on land unless you are purposely ignoring all other pvp except for corruption.

pvp is going to happen all over the world (and rightfully so, its an enjoyable part of the game). The corruption system is in place to just keep it from becoming a toxic element in the game. Which is why I am curious as to why the sea is exempt. NOT why is there pvp.

Maybe because is huge.
On land there are choke points.
Also it is a good reason to trigger node sieges: you sink my ship, I destroy your node

Krakhun wrote: »

Let me try to explain myself better. The way I see it, we are going to have 3/4 of the world with little to no pvp, due to the corruption system, which is going to be much less exciting. Then we are going to have 1/4 of the world (the sea), were everyone who wants to pvp will go. Making that area a much bigger pain in the ass to do anything else in the area. I think we would be better off with no corruption system than a partial one. Then the pvp is spread out more evenly, and no one area is swamped with pvper's.
I think It needs to be all or nothing as far as the corruption system is concerned, this partial stuff is a bad idea. IMO

What "anything else in the area" you wan to do?

It is easy to make the corruption almost non-existent. You become red: you kill a bunny, you are green again.
Also they can make guild wars and node wars cost 1 gold to trigger.
Then the pvp-ers will be evenly distributed over the entire map as you want.

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I highly doubt that that its going to cost more than a ship in any form of actual context between solo player and a guild / node. There is 0 indication of extreme cost. (unless you can find a qoute where they talk about war decs costing so much you can't dec often at all)

It would be great if they were cheap, but I'm not seeing that happening, just as you are not seeing seas being filled with people or valuable content.

Mag7spy wrote: »

I highly doubt AoC is going to have end game loop being ocean, and turn AoC main gameplay into ocean content

And as I keep saying - if the seas have fuck all in terms of content WHY IN THE FUCK ARE THEY FFA PVP. That's the stupidiest design change.

You are arguing for my point here. If seas are pointless then there'll be no pvp there, which means there was no damn reason to make them pvp. And if there is tiny pieces of high value content there - how is that any different from ground high value content with guild wars and shit, which still means "there's no point in it being ffa pvp".

This would also mean that Steven pretty much lied, because his main reason behind the change was "high reward requires higher risk". And higher risk can only exist if the pvp is near-assured at most times.

Mag7spy wrote: »

If there was no cost on sea that you could better argue it is the main pvp zone for people. But do to boats and such, its not realistic to think you are just summoning a boat and repairing all your gear easily and constantly. If you feel rough from 2-3 deaths that is practically no pvp compared to fighting a dec where there is like 100+ deaths between players and the size of fight.

Like I said multiple times, we don't know if we can traverse seas on mounts and/or our own char. And we haven't seen any water combat (if there is any).

This is where context comes into play with what i mean, What is the personal cost / player gain vrs Guild / node personal cost / gain. Not to mention any parent node that decs you got to war with as a child.

As well as the impact and such causing players to move towards that area for war. Based on this atm i dont see a reality where you are going out there with your boat. We can even look at caravans as the closest example with how things are destroyed as that and the boat system most likely are going to be drawing the basic principles from each other. Like i mentioned before on top of that with your boat loss i doubt you are going to just survive out on sea as well so gear damage will be a thing as well.

That cost of loss from a single player is going to have an effect and not easily be repeated unless something changes with what else we see and they go with.

Unsure how you get to say Steven is lying saying there i high value out there doesn't mean its in abundance. Nor does it mean it is there constantly and could pop up based on things they design. It still means its high risk / value on top of other layers they can add for rare fishing / monster hunting. Not everyone can be a winner, the point of high risk means a high amount of pvp to get some element of reward. end of the day its a different gameplay loop and it will also be tied to trading as well between lands.

Like the ocean is not that deep, its just another form of content for pvpers to enjoy and people that like navel combat. There is a high chance you make much more money on land, doesn't mean people won't enjoy that kind of ocean content.

They said in steam you could use a water mount. I doubt its recommended and i have no clue how things will change as they start to develop more of the sea content when they get there next year most likely. I doubt it will exactly be safe, and i also doubt people are just going to let people get away in the water easily.

haha, I think I kicked a hornet's nets.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

Like the ocean is not that deep, its just another form of content for pvpers to enjoy and people that like navel combat. There is a high chance you make much more money on land, doesn't mean people won't enjoy that kind of ocean content.

They said in steam you could use a water mount. I doubt its recommended and i have no clue how things will change as they start to develop more of the sea content when they get there next year most likely. I doubt it will exactly be safe, and i also doubt people are just going to let people get away in the water easily.

So seas will in fact have a ton of pvp then? Which proves Krakhun's point of it having more pvp than ground. Cause if it's dangerous to go out on a mount or super pricey to go out on a boat it means that you have a high chance of getting killed out there, while pvp events are no only opt-in but are also never assured to even be present at any given moment.

That is what I'm talking about when I say Steven was lying. The seas are either dangerous enough to balance out the, supposedly, highly valuable content, or they are not dangerous at all (or at least not more dangerous than any other pve content) and its completely pointless to suddenly disable the corruption system on the seas.

It's just yet another contradiction in the design. At least until they show us truly valuable pve at sea.

Krakhun wrote: »

haha, I think I kicked a hornet's nets.

Nah, just classic forum back&forth

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Like the ocean is not that deep, its just another form of content for pvpers to enjoy and people that like navel combat. There is a high chance you make much more money on land, doesn't mean people won't enjoy that kind of ocean content.

They said in steam you could use a water mount. I doubt its recommended and i have no clue how things will change as they start to develop more of the sea content when they get there next year most likely. I doubt it will exactly be safe, and i also doubt people are just going to let people get away in the water easily.

So seas will in fact have a ton of pvp then? Which proves Krakhun's point of it having more pvp than ground. Cause if it's dangerous to go out on a mount or super pricey to go out on a boat it means that you have a high chance of getting killed out there, while pvp events are no only opt-in but are also never assured to even be present at any given moment.

That is what I'm talking about when I say Steven was lying. The seas are either dangerous enough to balance out the, supposedly, highly valuable content, or they are not dangerous at all (or at least not more dangerous than any other pve content) and its completely pointless to suddenly disable the corruption system on the seas.

It's just yet another contradiction in the design. At least until they show us truly valuable pve at sea.

Krakhun wrote: »

haha, I think I kicked a hornet's nets.

Nah, just classic forum back&forth

His point was where would most PvP happen, my point is you will have more pvp on the ground than on sea do to all the things he had left out.

If the limit for someone to push without really hurting their resources was 3 times, that is only 3 pvp deaths. That is not a lot of pvp. Pvp is going to be more limited do to boats and needing to repair/ remake parts of boat after dying.

Again this is literarily the most important part
Ease of PvP does not = quantity. Do to boats and needing to repair / remake parts after it gets destroyed.
(HIGH RISK) (Player resources as cap to continue content)

Also he is not contradicting himself if someone sees you they can pvp you that is a danger as there is no rule set to protect you. And I'm sure there is plenty of other things that they could do as well and even use the BH system with it if they wanted to (not going to get into that though).

Diamaht

Krakhun wrote: »

Whats going to happen to the bounty hunter system, if most of the open world pvp takes place on the sea? Will bounty hunters have anyone to hunt? Does no corruption on the sea, turn the corruption system into partial corruption system?

This type of system works well in a lot of other MMOs. Eve and OSRS both have areas where there is no punishment for pvp. In EVE the sepatation of High Sec, Low Sec and 0.0 give variety and change of pace.

Also the areas with no restrictions get tons of activity. So as long as the no corruption areas have good incentives and rewards, then they will never become dead zones.

JamesSunderland

Never heard the saying?

daveywavey

Krakhun wrote: »

I think It needs to be all or nothing as far as the corruption system is concerned, this partial stuff is a bad idea. IMO

We're going to be testing the hell out of it during Alpha-2. I'm sure they'll tweak it if it turns out to be disappointing.

Things that are nailed on:
- PvX
- Nodes
- High Fantasy
- No Pay To Win

Everything else is subject to testing!

I'm going to kick this think again.

You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?

Krakhun wrote: »

I'm going to kick this think again.

You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?

Because by the time you catch the ship (not player), if that ship ends up not answering your attack to put corruption onto your team, then maybe you would not want to destroy it. Then you would regret not going in a different direction to catch another visible ship on the horizon.
So a corruption system on the sea in a naval combat would not work.

Otr wrote: »

Krakhun wrote: »

I'm going to kick this think again.

You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?

Because by the time you catch the ship (not player), if that ship ends up not answering your attack to put corruption onto your team, then maybe you would not want to destroy it. Then you would regret not going in a different direction to catch another visible ship on the horizon.
So a corruption system on the sea in a naval combat would not work.

The player took the risk of sailing out there knowing he could be killed by pirates and incur ship repair costs and all that goes with dieing. Not wanting to sink that ship is a choice, not risking turning red is a choice. Why is there no risk on the pirates side? why are they exempt?

Krakhun wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Krakhun wrote: »

I'm going to kick this think again.

You can pvp anywhere in the world, any dungeon, any zone, and the sea, if the player fights back, there is, no corruption. The only time corruption is an issue, is if the attacked player does not fight back and just stands there and takes it, or tries to run away. (and there are some valid reasons to kill that player, you know he has materials you are willing to go red for, he is giving you the figure as he is running away haha, etc.) but in most cases that is no fun for anyone. Why is it so important that the sea be exempt from corruption? Do just want to able to kill the scarred player that's running away with no consequences? no risk of turning red?

Because by the time you catch the ship (not player), if that ship ends up not answering your attack to put corruption onto your team, then maybe you would not want to destroy it. Then you would regret not going in a different direction to catch another visible ship on the horizon.
So a corruption system on the sea in a naval combat would not work.

The player took the risk of sailing out there knowing he could be killed by pirates and incur ship repair costs and all that goes with dieing. Not wanting to sink that ship is a choice, not risking turning red is a choice. Why is there no risk on the pirates side? why are they exempt?

Don't sail with a ship you cannot afford to lose.

"Not wanting to sink that ship is a choice" - yes, if you make the choice to keep the ship afloat at all costs, then you sail away as soon as you see another ship. Or if you have ships on both sides, you send players from your team on water mounts to scout and risk loosing them in PvP when they get close.
Or if you can try to negotiate yourself out of battle. Or try to win.
You have choices. The others have too. They may be afraid the ship they see is just a bait and send their own scouts to see if you have reinforcements out of their view.
You can also keep scouts ahead to let you change direction before you become visible to others.
You have choices.

The only choice you don't have is to go to toilet or feed your cat, dog and children while playing in the deep ocean or driving a caravan.

Choice is not the issue, its a matter of risk vs reward. The pirate does not even risk corruption.

Krakhun wrote: »

Choice is not the issue, its a matter of risk vs reward. The pirate does not even risk corruption.

The risk is other players see you and can attack you without corruption. And you will have to deal with repair / destruction cost that will limit how much you are actively do the content.

This being a different gearing system they could make it fully well that on death certain types of items you find in the ocean are partly dropped to be looted, and the other half destroyed not even allowing you to get anything if you end up dying.

If you were not concerned with risk you wouldn't raise up the idea people can't get corruption. This comes from you wanting there to be less risk for yourself with others generally not attacking do to the cost of corruption.

Like it is really simple, i get people don't want to be pvped but this is still a pvx game pvp is also part of it. Corruption is meant to reduce most Pvp around it so hence if it is meant to reduce PvP and you want corruption included. That means you are wanting people to PvP you less on the ocean. Like the conversation goes easier if it is opinion you want to be pvped less on the ocean and be more safe.

Just in case someone tries to say than there is more pvp on the ocean again. There is not if you are on ground and die 15 times on land compared to like 3-4 times on sea and need to break before getting you mats back to do that again for awhile. While on land you could run down mid and do 15 deaths again. That means there is more PvP on LAND.

Krakhun wrote: »

Choice is not the issue, its a matter of risk vs reward. The pirate does not even risk corruption.

Pirates who have citizenship will have enemy nodes and they will fight each-other.
AoC's philosophy is to have resource scarcity.
When food is scarce, even piranhas turn on each other and eat their own kind.

Now if you ask why Steven does not put his developers to make it more PvE friendly, I cannot give one single good answer.
The game is about the economy players create and having two continents separated by a dangerous area feels more interesting than having a peaceful straight connection between them.

Better stay near the coast, where the water is not that deep and you will also help your node.
But if money is important... don't go alone.
Going alone into the ocean to fight sea monsters is not what Steven wants to offer.