Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Proposal for slight change in the PVP Flagging System ~ (determined unnecessary)
ArchivedUser
Guest
Note:
After speaking with a few people and really looking at the system over and over. I think I have come to the conclusion that the system may be perfect just the way it is. Thanks to the people for further explaining the system to me for a better understanding. 
I will leave this up for now for people that may have similar doubts so they can learn from the replies as I have.
Proposal for slight change in the PVP Flagging System
I think the original Flagging system is great with one exception.The way it is written:
Here are my thoughts, if a Non-Combatant is attacked and defends themselves by attacking back they should not be flagged as a combatant.
Also the old system heavily penalizes non-combatants. This is a PvX game with a diversity of elements and game diversity. But based on existing systems it will in fact most likely become a PVP game cause it almost forces people into PVP due to non-combatants having heavy penalties. This I think could end up causing some unforeseen consequences. Instead of having a diverse game with great PVP elements it will be come more of a PVP game and could lead to harassment of players wanting to enjoy other aspects of the game besides the PVP.
I think with some small changes it could still have great PVP while at the same time greater diversity.
Seems people attacking other people have the most to gain and should have the higher risks.
Someone is farming a Node, Waiting on a Placeholder, etc. By attacking the person that was there first they should take the higher risk not the person that was originally there.
This is what I came up with:
New Proposal:
There are three levels of flagging for world PvP.
Non-combatant (green) - Everyone in the world starts as a non-combatant.
Defendant ( Dark Green) - Temporary during battle. A non-combatant that is attacked.
Combatant (purple) - If a non-combatant enters a PvP zone (see above) they are automatically flagged as combatant while in the zone and for a period of time after leaving that zone. Players are also flagged as combatants if they attack another player, unless they are a defending non-combatant. If the attacked players fight back, they are also flagged as combatants unless they are a Defendant, otherwise the attacked player will remain flagged as a non-combatant. Players can kill combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so. (See Player death below).
Corrupt (red) - If a combatant player kills a non-combatant player, they will be flagged as corrupt. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player, the non-combatant will not flag as a combatant.
Party members, raid members, guild members and alliance members do not flag each other.
Player death
A non-combatant who dies suffers slightly less penalties during PVP, which include experience debt, durability loss, as well as dropping a percentage of carried raw materials.
A combatant who dies suffers normal game penalties, which include experience debt, durability loss, as well as dropping a percentage of carried raw materials.
A corrupt player suffers penalties at three or four times the rate of a non-combatant, and has a chance to drop any carried/equipped items based on their current corruption score. This includes weapons, gear, and inventory items.
Corrupt players respawn at random locations in the vicinity of their death, not at regular spawn points.
Original and Proposed Flow Chart:
Now if the majority of the players and the developers do not agree with this that is fine
No one can make a game that pleases everyone. Based on current system I have my concerns and playing it is the only way to see if they are warranted or not.I think my proposal as a more over balanced system.
Let us know what you think.
Comments
- If Player A does not fight back, they risk their gathering spot, a percentage of the resources they are carrying and death penalties.
- If Player A fights back, they still risk death penalties, but at half the rate as a non-combatant. They also have the chance of defending their gathering spot and not only keeping the materials they carry, but gaining any drops from Player B.
The goal of the current flagging system is that all players have risks and rewards associated with their actions. No player can gain a reward (gain resources through gathering or through PK) without corresponding risks.If Player B decides to stop the attack to avoid corruption, then Player A gets to keep their reward (the resources they gathered).
If Player B kills Player A, they are rewarded by the resource drop and the farming spot, but they are now corrupt and they risk losing gear and being a prime target of bounty hunters and non-combatant players who can attack and kill them without penalty.
Ok after what you said I looked through rules again and what I found:
A non-combatant who dies suffers normal penalties, which include experience debt, durability loss, as well as dropping a percentage of carried raw materials.
A combatant who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant.
So yeah this part makes no sense to me LOL
I would think it would be the opposite:
Player death:
A combatant who dies suffers normal penalties, which include experience debt, durability loss, as well as dropping a percentage of carried raw materials.
A non-combatant who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a combatant.
I was assuming that Non-Combatants would suffer the least amount of experience lost. Which honestly makes the most amount of sense.
Based on the current system you are penalized if you die as a non-aggressor (non-combatant) compared to an aggressor (combatant)
I guess I would have to amend the proposal with the added changes.
Honestly for a game that wants to encompass a full range of game play it seems they want to encourage and reward people who attack other players and penalize players that do not attack other players. This to me makes absolutely no sense.
I can understand risk vrs reward and risk vrs reward would still be in place with the slight changes that could lead to a more balanced diversity in game play.
As it stands the system in place the way it is could lead into more ways of "working the system" and encourage bullying. Bullying does not necessarily have to involve being killed or killing.
To me in this scenario based on current system If player A just wants to gather and Player B wants to take that gathering point. If A does not fight back and dies suffers a bigger XP Penanlty and loses the Gather point but could possible attack the the other player when corrupt and possibly take back the resource and player loot but has suffered heavy XP loss previously.
If Player A attacks back and dies does not sufferes much xp loss as if he did not attack back. Player B since Player A atcked back is now combatant so does not get corrupt from killing A. Player B gets to take the resource. Player A did not lose as much XP as he would have had he not attacked back. Still loses the resources.
To me Death penalty should be from low to high:
Non-Combatant < Combatant < Corrupt
In this situation if Player B attacks Player A, Player B becomes Combatant Player A defending themselves remains Non-Combatant. If the Aggressor B losses the fight he risks losing more XP and does not gain the loot. If the Defender attacks back loses the fight loes the least amount of xp but loses the resources.
This is a much fairer system and stile provides Risk Vrs Rewards. Decreases the chance of bullying and a more Diversity in game play at the same time.
----
How is victory determined?
There seems to be a distinction between attacking and killing someone.
If battling over a harvest node per say, and a fight happens how is ownership determined?
Obviously victory happens with death but at a cost.
But, in this situation how can the battle result in victory without death?
High risk vrs High reward People engaging in PVP are going after the high reward and have the mid level penalty, they are after all trying to steal or take over someone loot, Place Holder, Gathering node. People who are non combatant should have the normalized penalties for death. Corrupt should have the highest penalties for death. This is what I would consider a more balanced game that will definitely still encourage PVP but limit the chance of over harassment and allow people to enjoy a larger diversity of the game. That is of course my view point.
Here is a slight change proposal that I think would still have High Risk High reward but lower the possibilities of over-bullying and a more diverse game play environment.
The Main Post has been edited:
Thank you for your replies, it has let me re-read and rethink the situation and come up with something new.
Not sure if people will agree most may not
Cheers
Thanks for posting your comments
UnknownSystemError,
lexmax
Zastro
VmanGman21 from reddit
They have said that it will be difficult for someone to focus purely on either pvp or pve, so yes, PVErs should go in knowing that they may be involved in pvp from time to time and PVPers should go in knowing that may be involved in pve from time to time.
Edit: And another thing. If something is incentivized that does not mean you are penalized if you don't do it. Dying as a green gives you normal death penalties. Dying as purple is incentivized by giving you half the normal death penalties. Dying as red gives you triple to quadruple the death penalties. Green is normal, purple is incentivized, red is penalized. You are not penalized for being green; whether you die to a mob or to a player you receive the same death penalties.
TY for your reply.
Yeah I have added a Note to the top of the post I think originally I just really didn't fully understand it and it took running the scenario through my head quite a few times and reread people post. Yup system is good as is