Corruption system in relation to auto-flagging in open sea

We have not received permission from Dolyem to share the quoted post.

That sounds like the interesting political/strategy based risk gameplay Steven was aiming for to me. But how is this more likely at sea than land?

Also I think I might have missed an assumption you were making. I didn't realize you were proposing the scenario as 'ships gain corruption'.

We have not received permission from Dolyem to share the quoted post.

AoE attacks don't work on greens though. Destroying a ship vs boarding it was going to be one of the main strategic decision making processes in naval in my opinion for precisely that reason. So again I'm not seeing how the scenario would have come up in the way you are describing. Even if AoE did hit greens, that'd be way more likely of a strategy on land than on sea. Got any other thoughts on how it'd come up more frequently in the old system?

If you think corruption is meant to be only a limiter not a weapon, I respect that. I think about game design/fun a little differently than you which is why I highly encouraged IS during that one dev discussion to find a way to nerf karma bombing as it benefits me immensely and that'd be kind of unfair/unfun for people who don't enjoy that style of play. It's definitely an important topic that needs to be addressed.

Also now that you've made me think about it more I'm starting to dislike this change (I didn't care before since it mostly only benefited me.) Because you just pointed out to me that this change indirectly simplifies the boat meta of the game. Long ranged potion launcher attacks are now way more powerful and will now probably be more difficult to balance since everyone is forced into purple and can now be more easily effected by AoE.

We have not received permission from mcstackerson to share the quoted post.

We have not received permission from Dolyem to share the quoted post.

Above all else, we have what I consider another problem.

Are coastal battles between ships subject to all of this or not?

If the result is 'hey don't fight in coastal waters you might get KarmaBombed', that's not great in my opinion. Similar to if you get 'well, coastal battles don't really involve ships', because there are probably quite a few players who would want to do this.

Steven gives the argument about Cross Continental Trade opportunities, but I don't really see why because Naval Caravans should have been PvP zones anyway. Maybe it's for 'preventing scouts who are out there looking for hypothetical red pirates' from being effective?

This decision definitely isn't 'causing' any new technical problems with Corruption, but it definitely seems to be getting into a weird space.

If I use my ship to bring my crew to the edge of open water and they jump off and go attack a coastal fishing boat and sink it, who gets Corruption for boat-sinking, if anyone?

We have not received permission from Dolyem to share the quoted post.

Right but can you prevent the Galleon from doing whatever it was that it was trying to do? And if you could, who needed a Galleon?

It's definitely not that the scenarios are the same, but even in terms of how one might hope or expect this type of world to 'feel', it seems to me that it'd be more beneficial if 'big boat can be chased off by flotilla of smaller boats'.

If your sloop fleet is able to seriously bring down a Galleon, and that's the only Galleon in the enemy group, isn't that a standard encounter problem of 'being swarmed by quick enemies'?

Similarly, this seems like it could be 'easily' resolved by disabling the 'Greens can freely attack Reds' rule on the Ocean, rather than making the whole zone autoflag.

We have not received permission from Dolyem to share the quoted post.

I think you made a jump I was not making. So let's see if I can briefly explain how I assumed naval combat was going to work. Assume ships have hull levels and individual component health that can be damaged by either canon fire or player attacks. Assume potion launchers can deal structural damage as well as normal aoe damage. If you shoot the launcher at the ship's rails it'll do structural damage to the rails and a percent damage to the hull. But if a green is standing right there, they won't really get hit. In order to hit a green you'd need to board or destroy the ship so you can get close enough to them to use single target attacks (or just let the sharks eat them.) Maybe you can have ballistas that count as single target attacks to help with engagement threat range a bit. This was the very basic model of what I was assuming navel was going to be like. To me this is very functional and balanceable naval combat.

I agree if you assume potion launcher aoe can kill greens there is some risk involved with firing at people who you don't know the level of. But then I gotta ask, why are you aiming at greens instead of the ship at that range. Why are the greens wanting to get killed. Seems pretty obvious that you should just be aiming at the hull when you can. And why does it matter that your cannoneers are corrupted in this model? Lots of potential interesting questions.

But I think you can now possibly see why I was not understanding why you thought greens were going to die by potion launcher? I just never saw it as a necessary component of naval combat. So it's at least clarified to me why you think there might be a karma bombing problem in the old model. I disagree that this was going to be the case. We may never know (except we will because coastal naval combat is still going to be a thing.) I'm looking forward to that particular presentation from IS.