Would you say that Pv(P/X) MMOs in general are better when this is the case, in terms of gameplay?
Brief explanation of why:
This sort of change is the type of 'silent dealbreaker' you get for certain types of game. It's the sort of change where it's not 'degrees' anymore. Before, people who don't like that style were around complaining about the Corruption system because they were thinking 'this won't be harsh enough', but they had a reason to engage and talk.
This type of change wouldn't get as much voice. There's no reason to say anything, you just 'conclude the game isn't for you and move on' if you weren't already really committed to playing it. So I'm interested in what the overall gameplay loop advantage you experience, is.
All I was saying is Classic WoW, before Honor and PVP gear and flying mounts, actually had an engaging world PVP experience. You would have open battles between Southshore and Tauren Mill, if you were out questing and came across an enemy, you would either run (if too high level) or attack (if somewhat equal), and yes you had gankers. But when someone was ganking Red Ridge or something, all you had to do was call in guildies or even band-up and try to take them on.
My favorite pvp memory was me as a level 40 combat (mace stun spec) rogue who answered the call to Red Ridge to stop a ganker, only to find out it was a level 60 Rogue. But after multiple fights with him, I ended up winning most of the matches and scared him off. (of course he kinda sucked in a fair(ish) fight, and I was combat mace stun spec which nobody was playing at the time).
PvP for PvP's sake works, but once you start adding in PVP gear/currency/systems, it ruins it or forces it to be instanced like BGs or arenas.
EDIT: WoW also has PvE servers so if you didn't want any PVP, you could choose not to do it. I thought I would mention that as it is relevant to this discussion.
There were 2 other threads about this that got merged at some point. There were multiple topics discussed within those threads and I'll try to summarize the most relevant ones from my point of view:
1) Is this a good or a bad change?
Summary: Discussion is a waste of time, since people have different preferences. It's like asking 'what's your favorite color?' and then arguing about the answers.
2) What was the reason for the change?
Summary: In the stream, the reason given was that the rewards in the open sea will be greater so the risk will need to be higher. Does this make sense since the corruption system was presented as adding risk to the attackers? That's for you to decide. (It didn't for me and that's why I started one of the threads).
There were some other proposed reasons, e.g. difficulty of implementation, but they are all just assumptions.
3) How corruption can be implemented for naval combat.
Summary: This was interesting but cannot summarize.. You'll need to read it yourself
Great summary of that large thread! It's definitely worth going through, as there are a lot of interesting perspectives.
There's a chance Steven will elaborate on the design decision further, especially when we're able to show off that aspect of gameplay. For now, it's certainly something we look forward to testing externally when the day comes, for player feedback.
There were 2 other threads about this that got merged at some point. There were multiple topics discussed within those threads and I'll try to summarize the most relevant ones from my point of view:
1) Is this a good or a bad change?
Summary: Discussion is a waste of time, since people have different preferences. It's like asking 'what's your favorite color?' and then arguing about the answers.
2) What was the reason for the change?
Summary: In the stream, the reason given was that the rewards in the open sea will be greater so the risk will need to be higher. Does this make sense since the corruption system was presented as adding risk to the attackers? That's for you to decide. (It didn't for me and that's why I started one of the threads).
There were some other proposed reasons, e.g. difficulty of implementation, but they are all just assumptions.
3) How corruption can be implemented for naval combat.
Summary: This was interesting but cannot summarize.. You'll need to read it yourself
Great summary of that large thread! It's definitely worth going through, as there are a lot of interesting perspectives.
Sadly that's a lot harder to do when they've been merged into other only superficially related threads. I can't imagine it's easy to undo that sort of merge action (particularly this long after), but I was disappointed to see it happen.
There were 2 other threads about this that got merged at some point. There were multiple topics discussed within those threads and I'll try to summarize the most relevant ones from my point of view:
1) Is this a good or a bad change?
Summary: Discussion is a waste of time, since people have different preferences. It's like asking 'what's your favorite color?' and then arguing about the answers.
2) What was the reason for the change?
Summary: In the stream, the reason given was that the rewards in the open sea will be greater so the risk will need to be higher. Does this make sense since the corruption system was presented as adding risk to the attackers? That's for you to decide. (It didn't for me and that's why I started one of the threads).
There were some other proposed reasons, e.g. difficulty of implementation, but they are all just assumptions.
3) How corruption can be implemented for naval combat.
Summary: This was interesting but cannot summarize.. You'll need to read it yourself
Great summary of that large thread! It's definitely worth going through, as there are a lot of interesting perspectives.
There's a chance Steven will elaborate on the design decision further, especially when we're able to show off that aspect of gameplay. For now, it's certainly something we look forward to testing externally when the day comes, for player feedback.
Ok, ok.. I'll admit it.. I exaggerated a bit with the 'Discussion is a waste of time' for comedic effect. Even if I believe we'll not reach a consensus on this, it's always beneficial to discuss subjects like this, in order to understand different points of view.
So my take on the change. I flip perspective a bit.
Depending on how the flagging happens, its not too much difference than caravan flagging. Approaching international waters, i imagine a banner shows on screen, alerting you, to flag or turn back.
Now, how do you deal with travelers vs battlers...?
Lets say there intentions for being at sea.
Travel, pirating, moving goods, and content.
Moving goods, pirating, and content, all fit into a group that would be prepaired for combat. Where traveling, does not necessarily fit into that group.
How do you deal with curruption, when a handful of level 5 players hop onto a mechant ship souly with the intention of moving to another region? If that ship sinks, does everyone on the attacking ship become corrupted? It is simpler to just make is known that pvp at sea is something you arent protected from, than to try and explain all the acceptions, changes, interactions, and such from corruption. And how corrupted players are treated as monsters, i would imagine a currupted player isnt able to use features on a ship either.
This is assumptions about how "completed" systems would interact. And we arent there yet in development. But i imagine, everyone on a ship as sea is a combatant. Is a simple change, to keep things simple. Over the alternatives.
So my take on the change. I flip perspective a bit.
Depending on how the flagging happens, its not too much difference than caravan flagging. Approaching international waters, i imagine a banner shows on screen, alerting you, to flag or turn back.
Now, how do you deal with travelers vs battlers...?
Lets say there intentions for being at sea.
Travel, pirating, moving goods, and content.
Moving goods, pirating, and content, all fit into a group that would be prepaired for combat. Where traveling, does not necessarily fit into that group.
How do you deal with curruption, when a handful of level 5 players hop onto a mechant ship souly with the intention of moving to another region? If that ship sinks, does everyone on the attacking ship become corrupted? It is simpler to just make is known that pvp at sea is something you arent protected from, than to try and explain all the acceptions, changes, interactions, and such from corruption. And how corrupted players are treated as monsters, i would imagine a currupted player isnt able to use features on a ship either.
This is assumptions about how "completed" systems would interact. And we arent there yet in development. But i imagine, everyone on a ship as sea is a combatant. Is a simple change, to keep things simple. Over the alternatives.
You can safely travel between areas with ways in game where you can't be flagged on.
So my take on the change. I flip perspective a bit.
Depending on how the flagging happens, its not too much difference than caravan flagging. Approaching international waters, i imagine a banner shows on screen, alerting you, to flag or turn back.
Now, how do you deal with travelers vs battlers...?
Lets say there intentions for being at sea.
Travel, pirating, moving goods, and content.
Moving goods, pirating, and content, all fit into a group that would be prepaired for combat. Where traveling, does not necessarily fit into that group.
How do you deal with curruption, when a handful of level 5 players hop onto a mechant ship souly with the intention of moving to another region? If that ship sinks, does everyone on the attacking ship become corrupted? It is simpler to just make is known that pvp at sea is something you arent protected from, than to try and explain all the acceptions, changes, interactions, and such from corruption. And how corrupted players are treated as monsters, i would imagine a currupted player isnt able to use features on a ship either.
This is assumptions about how "completed" systems would interact. And we arent there yet in development. But i imagine, everyone on a ship as sea is a combatant. Is a simple change, to keep things simple. Over the alternatives.
You can safely travel between areas with ways in game where you can't be flagged on.
I think this is a typo? "You can't safely travel where you cant be flagged on", as you can always be flagged on yes.
But green players, who think of the curruption system as a shield for them. I think its easier to say, your shield is gone at sea. That trying adapt the curruption system to navel content?
Idk. Maybe my first impression isnt correct in general. But that was my first thoughts of it.
Ill expand a bit as well.
What happens when a ship sinks? Do the players on board die, or are they left in the ocean? I would like boarding parties, and being able to leave a ship with an aquatic mount. So i would think players are left in the sea.
If players are left in the sea, and hostile creatures are in the sea, and they die to those mobs, and never flag, even tho a player sunk their ship. No one gets currupted. So those players stayed green to try and persuade their attackers to leave them alone, and did not force curruption on their attacker?
These kinds of issues and situations, i think are easier to be rid of, by just making everyone in the ocean flag.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So my take on the change. I flip perspective a bit.
Depending on how the flagging happens, its not too much difference than caravan flagging. Approaching international waters, i imagine a banner shows on screen, alerting you, to flag or turn back.
Auto-flag is signifcantly different than manual flag.
I wouldn't be playing the game, either, if Caravans auto-flagged people.
It's not that a shield is gone. Players with manual flag/default Non-Combatant can still be attacked. The primary difference is adventuring with a flag that says "I am in a mood to fight, come at me..." rather than adventuring with a flag that says, "I am focused on other stuff; not PvP - you might be severely punished if you kill me."
With Caravans, PvP can be happening in the area near me and I can choose to adventure in that area without flagging as a Combatant. In the Open Seas, I cannot even explore that area without advertising that I'm in the mood for PvP combat - I'm going to want to explore the Open Seas without advertising that lie.
And...if I can't do that...I just won't play at all. Just as I don't play on PvP servers.
Even though I like objective-based, opt-in PvP - I typically move from PvP-Optional servers to PvP-Only servers.
So... it was always unlikely that I would play Ashes in any case - Corruption would have to succeed as a sufficient deterrent to frequent PKing in order for me to be willing to play. Zones with no Corruption is an automatic fail... for me.
But, it's a great ruleset for people who enjoy PvP combat.
(Yes. There will be warning messages alerting that auto-flag is imminent.)
I dont mind either way, for it to be flagged or not. But with coastal waters using the curruption system, i dont understand the need for the auto flagging.
Like... who is going to be at sea, and not prepared to fight back? If you are out there to be a pirate, then you'll be attacking whoever.
If pirates are out there, anyone moving goods will be prepaired to fight back...
Unless you enjoy different kinds of pvp content you won't understand the change. It adds layers to the game. In this form pvp will be much more common on the sea and control of it.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
People don't have to enjoy different kinds of PvP content to understand that this change adds "layers" to the game. Pretty sure it's well understood that PvP will be much more common on the Open Seas than on land.
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
I disagree 100%. Greater rewards should entail more danger in obtaining these rewards. The danger is other players competing and trying to take those rewards. Truely organic competition.
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
I disagree 100%. Greater rewards should entail more danger in obtaining these rewards. The danger is other players competing and trying to take those rewards. Truely organic competition.
How is competition dangerous?
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
The risk for pvpers in the ocean is actually time tbh more than anything. The ocean are not realy know form being popping with content even in archage u could be sailing around for an hour before you manage to get 1-2 minutes worth of content.
Land generaly offers more content close together the ocean is rather vast and u can be out there for long time for little gameplay experience.
I mean... that's an interesting assumption...
But, time is not a risk.
Time is always a risk there nothing more valuable than time. if somone offers you a job for $10 and hour its not worth your time, farming mobs for gold is always calculated as gold per hour in games for a reason, Xp gain per hour everything comes back to time.
Time is what makes the world go round if anything its the most valuable currency in the world when it comes down to it.
I definitely think time combined with the chance of me losing a lot of my loot upon death, maybe even my presumably expensive ship, would deter me from venturing out there without significant insurance and if there’s not consequences like corruption; I feel like everyone will just be killing everyone else all the time, because of the added incentive that isn’t in other games. If there isn’t corruption out there, there should at the very least be a bounty system.
Why not join a group to less the risk of dying? Join a guild who will organize groups to do this content? There are ways to lessen your risk in this content if you so choose. Or why not just stay in the coastal waters, they will have similar content with no risk.
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
I disagree 100%. Greater rewards should entail more danger in obtaining these rewards. The danger is other players competing and trying to take those rewards. Truely organic competition.
How is competition dangerous?
Kinda depends on the penalties the destruction of your ship will cost you but if 10 groups compete over something, then there is 9 who probably lost their ship over it.
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
I disagree 100%. Greater rewards should entail more danger in obtaining these rewards. The danger is other players competing and trying to take those rewards. Truely organic competition.
How is competition dangerous?
Because someone else can come in and take your resources
People don't have to enjoy different kinds of PvP content to understand that this change adds "layers" to the game. Pretty sure it's well understood that PvP will be much more common on the Open Seas than on land.
So, I don't see what the problem is. Generally land and coastal waters will be low risk of PvP
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I disagree 100%. Greater rewards should entail more danger in obtaining these rewards. The danger is other players competing and trying to take those rewards. Truely organic competition.
Perhaps it should. Doesn't change the fact that the Open Seas is not reduced risk, rather than increased risk with regard to consequences for PvP combat.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Because someone else can come in and take your resources
It's only half the normal resources. So... that is reduced risk.
We don't even know whether you get the "resources" in your inventory. Potentially they will go the AA route where you need to have ship storage to put the treasures and fish in, which you will lose upon destruction
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
I disagree 100%. Greater rewards should entail more danger in obtaining these rewards. The danger is other players competing and trying to take those rewards. Truely organic competition.
How is competition dangerous?
Because someone else can come in and take your resources
If chances are high to loose resources then I see danger. But then competition is not a word I would use.
More of game of chance. Danger = risk. Competition is skill related.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
I disagree 100%. Greater rewards should entail more danger in obtaining these rewards. The danger is other players competing and trying to take those rewards. Truely organic competition.
How is competition dangerous?
Because someone else can come in and take your resources
If chances are high to loose resources then I see danger. But then competition is not a word I would use.
More of game of chance. Danger = risk. Competition is skill related.
More players to willing to attack you = more danger.
Skill has nothing to do with that, that is another element.
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
I disagree 100%. Greater rewards should entail more danger in obtaining these rewards. The danger is other players competing and trying to take those rewards. Truely organic competition.
How is competition dangerous?
Because someone else can come in and take your resources
If chances are high to loose resources then I see danger. But then competition is not a word I would use.
More of game of chance. Danger = risk. Competition is skill related.
More players to willing to attack you = more danger.
Skill has nothing to do with that, that is another element.
If a place is visited often by many players, one has to join the bigger/stronger team. Be friend with the guy with legendary armor. Especially if his weapon has your name on it.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Perhaps turn one island into full pvp with high rewards too! for a little bit of land based enhanced conflict..
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
I disagree 100%. Greater rewards should entail more danger in obtaining these rewards. The danger is other players competing and trying to take those rewards. Truely organic competition.
How is competition dangerous?
Because someone else can come in and take your resources
If chances are high to loose resources then I see danger. But then competition is not a word I would use.
More of game of chance. Danger = risk. Competition is skill related.
I'd agree with this... skill can come in my forms. Perhaps your a popular guy and are able to form groups easily, that could be considered a skill.
We don't even know whether you get the "resources" in your inventory. Potentially they will go the AA route where you need to have ship storage to put the treasures and fish in, which you will lose upon destruction
So...you drop no personal inventory resources as part of the death penalties for being flagged Combatant? That's also less risk.
And then Naval Caravans will still be a portion of resources dropped when the ship is destroyed? Or full loot?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Comments
All I was saying is Classic WoW, before Honor and PVP gear and flying mounts, actually had an engaging world PVP experience. You would have open battles between Southshore and Tauren Mill, if you were out questing and came across an enemy, you would either run (if too high level) or attack (if somewhat equal), and yes you had gankers. But when someone was ganking Red Ridge or something, all you had to do was call in guildies or even band-up and try to take them on.
My favorite pvp memory was me as a level 40 combat (mace stun spec) rogue who answered the call to Red Ridge to stop a ganker, only to find out it was a level 60 Rogue. But after multiple fights with him, I ended up winning most of the matches and scared him off. (of course he kinda sucked in a fair(ish) fight, and I was combat mace stun spec which nobody was playing at the time).
PvP for PvP's sake works, but once you start adding in PVP gear/currency/systems, it ruins it or forces it to be instanced like BGs or arenas.
EDIT: WoW also has PvE servers so if you didn't want any PVP, you could choose not to do it. I thought I would mention that as it is relevant to this discussion.
Great summary of that large thread! It's definitely worth going through, as there are a lot of interesting perspectives.
There's a chance Steven will elaborate on the design decision further, especially when we're able to show off that aspect of gameplay. For now, it's certainly something we look forward to testing externally when the day comes, for player feedback.
Sadly that's a lot harder to do when they've been merged into other only superficially related threads. I can't imagine it's easy to undo that sort of merge action (particularly this long after), but I was disappointed to see it happen.
Ok, ok.. I'll admit it.. I exaggerated a bit with the 'Discussion is a waste of time' for comedic effect. Even if I believe we'll not reach a consensus on this, it's always beneficial to discuss subjects like this, in order to understand different points of view.
Thanks for the update
Depending on how the flagging happens, its not too much difference than caravan flagging. Approaching international waters, i imagine a banner shows on screen, alerting you, to flag or turn back.
Now, how do you deal with travelers vs battlers...?
Lets say there intentions for being at sea.
Travel, pirating, moving goods, and content.
Moving goods, pirating, and content, all fit into a group that would be prepaired for combat. Where traveling, does not necessarily fit into that group.
How do you deal with curruption, when a handful of level 5 players hop onto a mechant ship souly with the intention of moving to another region? If that ship sinks, does everyone on the attacking ship become corrupted? It is simpler to just make is known that pvp at sea is something you arent protected from, than to try and explain all the acceptions, changes, interactions, and such from corruption. And how corrupted players are treated as monsters, i would imagine a currupted player isnt able to use features on a ship either.
This is assumptions about how "completed" systems would interact. And we arent there yet in development. But i imagine, everyone on a ship as sea is a combatant. Is a simple change, to keep things simple. Over the alternatives.
You can safely travel between areas with ways in game where you can't be flagged on.
I think this is a typo? "You can't safely travel where you cant be flagged on", as you can always be flagged on yes.
But green players, who think of the curruption system as a shield for them. I think its easier to say, your shield is gone at sea. That trying adapt the curruption system to navel content?
Idk. Maybe my first impression isnt correct in general. But that was my first thoughts of it.
Ill expand a bit as well.
What happens when a ship sinks? Do the players on board die, or are they left in the ocean? I would like boarding parties, and being able to leave a ship with an aquatic mount. So i would think players are left in the sea.
If players are left in the sea, and hostile creatures are in the sea, and they die to those mobs, and never flag, even tho a player sunk their ship. No one gets currupted. So those players stayed green to try and persuade their attackers to leave them alone, and did not force curruption on their attacker?
These kinds of issues and situations, i think are easier to be rid of, by just making everyone in the ocean flag.
I wouldn't be playing the game, either, if Caravans auto-flagged people.
It's not that a shield is gone. Players with manual flag/default Non-Combatant can still be attacked. The primary difference is adventuring with a flag that says "I am in a mood to fight, come at me..." rather than adventuring with a flag that says, "I am focused on other stuff; not PvP - you might be severely punished if you kill me."
With Caravans, PvP can be happening in the area near me and I can choose to adventure in that area without flagging as a Combatant. In the Open Seas, I cannot even explore that area without advertising that I'm in the mood for PvP combat - I'm going to want to explore the Open Seas without advertising that lie.
And...if I can't do that...I just won't play at all. Just as I don't play on PvP servers.
Even though I like objective-based, opt-in PvP - I typically move from PvP-Optional servers to PvP-Only servers.
So... it was always unlikely that I would play Ashes in any case - Corruption would have to succeed as a sufficient deterrent to frequent PKing in order for me to be willing to play. Zones with no Corruption is an automatic fail... for me.
But, it's a great ruleset for people who enjoy PvP combat.
(Yes. There will be warning messages alerting that auto-flag is imminent.)
@PenguinPaladin
I dont mind either way, for it to be flagged or not. But with coastal waters using the curruption system, i dont understand the need for the auto flagging.
Like... who is going to be at sea, and not prepared to fight back? If you are out there to be a pirate, then you'll be attacking whoever.
If pirates are out there, anyone moving goods will be prepaired to fight back...
So i dont see the need for the change.
I disagree 100%. Greater rewards should entail more danger in obtaining these rewards. The danger is other players competing and trying to take those rewards. Truely organic competition.
How is competition dangerous?
Why not join a group to less the risk of dying? Join a guild who will organize groups to do this content? There are ways to lessen your risk in this content if you so choose. Or why not just stay in the coastal waters, they will have similar content with no risk.
Kinda depends on the penalties the destruction of your ship will cost you but if 10 groups compete over something, then there is 9 who probably lost their ship over it.
Because someone else can come in and take your resources
So, I don't see what the problem is. Generally land and coastal waters will be low risk of PvP
We don't even know whether you get the "resources" in your inventory. Potentially they will go the AA route where you need to have ship storage to put the treasures and fish in, which you will lose upon destruction
If chances are high to loose resources then I see danger. But then competition is not a word I would use.
More of game of chance. Danger = risk. Competition is skill related.
More players to willing to attack you = more danger.
Skill has nothing to do with that, that is another element.
If a place is visited often by many players, one has to join the bigger/stronger team. Be friend with the guy with legendary armor. Especially if his weapon has your name on it.
I'd agree with this... skill can come in my forms. Perhaps your a popular guy and are able to form groups easily, that could be considered a skill.
Well, we already have to caravan system and corruption as well as guild wars etc... already a lot IMO.
And then Naval Caravans will still be a portion of resources dropped when the ship is destroyed? Or full loot?