Combatant Opt-In

I've been really thinking about how the Corruption system is going to play out and it just seems like an annoyance from a group/guild pvp perspective. What I mean by this is, in the event there are mutual parties roaming for PvP it seems unfair or simply just out of place that the corruption system may play a part in this combat in a negative way. For example if two groups of 16 players are looking for combat and the first group stun locks a target or multiple and they die before they can "fight back" to initiate combatant mode this will cause corruption for 1 (or multiple) players in addition to added death penalties for the dead player(s) - all while it was the intention of all parties involved to engage in combat.

I would like to propose the option to OPT IN to combatant mode at any time to welcome PvP and avoid non-combatant death penalties due to stun lock, low health or other circumstances when being killed by another player.

I really can't see a downside to allowing players to opt-in at will for PvP content. I know for a fact I would likely prefer to be in combatant mode for almost all game play, though if for some reason I didn't want to be I could toggle it just like the heal mechanic to avoid the corruption thing.

Can anyone see a reason not to allow players to opt in to be flagged combatant at will? I would suggest it has the same "cool down" when toggling it as stepping out of normal combat would, what ever that ends up being (2 minutes, 5 minutes 1 hour etc).

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Songcaller

There will be Node Wars and Guild Wars. Corruption system does not apply to Node Wars and Guild Wars. Furthermore, there will be the Caravan System where the corruption system does not apply.

You can choose whether to fight in Guild Wars, Node Wars and Caravan Systems in terms of defence or offence. I do not see a need to have a toggle and no toggle is currently planned.

Sathrago

Remember that they do not want to promote ganking in such a manner and that the corrupted system is there explicitly to curb this ganking mentality that players might get into. Every other part of the game will have pvp for you to go and do so honestly just focus on that.

I will say though that in my other thread talking about going to war with other organizations we did hit on the point about this that might help you. Basically if you wish to go around and kill players as much as you want, you just have to go to war vs every other guild/alliance.

Bricktop

Neurath wrote: »

There will be Node Wars and Guild Wars. Corruption system does not apply to Node Wars and Guild Wars. Furthermore, there will be the Caravan System where the corruption system does not apply.

You can choose whether to fight in Guild Wars, Node Wars and Caravan Systems in terms of defence or offence. I do not see a need to have a toggle and no toggle is currently planned.

Node and castle sieges happen maybe once a month right? Maybe more node sieges will happen in the early days of launch but after metros get built up node sieges won't be as often. As stated in the other thread Guild Wars have a very really possibility of only lasting a few hours at a time with the information we currently know. Caravans could for certainly be a more constant source of PvP but there's also the chance you don't find any to try and jump and the world of Verra will be vast no? BGs and Arenas aren't anywhere near as exciting as the open world since they are instanced so that's not a good recommendation.

You can also choose to toggle with the option he presented, and nobody is forcing anybody to toggle for 24/7 PvP. Why not give the players who want the option for PvP to happen at any given time without any consequences happening to either party the option of PvPing if everything is completely mutual? I too would like to hear some actual downsides and not just "Well there's PvP already in the game"

The only downside I can think of is it's not risky or rewardy enough for the vision of the game, but one could argue since you can still loot each others materials nothing would change

Songcaller

There is a toggle for Bounty Hunters. I do not know how prevalent the corrupted will be, however, if you enjoy PvP you can always become a Bounty Hunter. Little stops you from going corrupted too. There will often be opportunities and reasons to go corrupted in general play.

Tyrantor

Bricktop wrote: »

You can also choose to toggle with the option he presented, and nobody is forcing anybody to toggle for 24/7 PvP. Why not give the players who want the option for PvP to happen at any given time without any consequences happening to either party the option of PvPing if everything is completely mutual? I too would like to hear some actual downsides and not just "Well there's PvP already in the game"

This 100% - how does my (our) opting into combat negatively affect you (others)?

Bricktop

Sathrago wrote: »

Remember that they do not want to promote ganking in such a manner and that the corrupted system is there explicitly to curb this ganking mentality that players might get into. Every other part of the game will have pvp for you to go and do so honestly just focus on that.

I will say though that in my other thread talking about going to war with other organizations we did hit on the point about this that might help you. Basically if you wish to go around and kill players as much as you want, you just have to go to war vs every other guild/alliance.

This idea wouldn't promote ganking as it would be fully opt in. I personally have seen many posts on these forums asking for full loot zones, zones where full PvP is permitted etc. Clearly there are players who would subject themselves to 24/7 red free PvP or more than what the game offers.

The problem with the wars right now @Sathrago is that the information we currently have suggests that wars could only last for a few hours in the span of a night, and there will be a limit to ongoing guild wars a guild can be in to my knowledge. If wars can last for long periods of time I don't think an opt in toggle would be necessary at all, as you could just go to war with the people of the server you don't like freely for long periods of time and there would be plenty of open world PvP through that.

I would love to see more information about the guild war system personally. I have a feeling they will last longer than a night if you can have multiple ongoing at once.

Dolyem

I mean, I don't see why a toggle to switch combatant mode on would be a downside. Just make it so if you turn it off if doesn't kick in for like 10 or 15 minutes, and you can still become a combatant if you fight people, or corrupted if you fight people and they don't fight back. It really would be a simple addition that doesn't have any downsides I could think of.

Tyrantor

I just want to be clear as people respond to this thread it's completely separate from Guild wars, Caravans and Sieges - any mention of these game systems is frankly derailing or missing the topic in it's entirety.

The corruption system is in place to try and limit grieving or the killing of players who do not wish to participate in PvP and as such the risk/rewards associated with that are designed.

What i'm suggesting would not change this for anyone who does not toggle the combatant opt in. It would however make consensual open world pvp easily identifiable and without the corruption system playing a role in PvP from a gameplay perspective that would not need it.

winner909098

I guess that would help, but it needs to be clear what it means. I don't want noobs to click it because they are testing what stuff does, get killed, and then complain on the forums.

Warth

winner909098 wrote: »

I guess that would help, but it needs to be clear what it means. I don't want noobs to click it because they are testing what stuff does, get killed, and then complain on the forums.

who cares? give them a basic description, if they are stupid enough to click it despite that then they'll experience some pain.

Maybe they will finally learn to read then.

These kinds of players will leave anyway sooner or later. Maybe once they are killed, but at the latest when their Node/Caravan is destroyed.

Games that try to cater to these kinds of players will end up right in the garbage bin of most other players

George_Black

The part of the global population that would like to place a "free gang" mark on them would be extremelly small.

It isn't worth spending resources to work on this feature, which would have to synergize with the rest of the game.

George_Black

Now, it has worked on other games, such as Tera Online for example.
But the games that have opt in PvP status, don't have depth, hardships or time devotion requirements.

It is important to understand that, and see why players in a game like AoC, which will be required to sink time, wont make use of this casual "lets random PvP a bit".

I am a hardcore PvPr btw.

Noaani

The current mechanic for this in Ashes is that players need to specifically flag against each individual player they wish to attack in open world PvP in Ashes.

This is because such PvP is designed to almost always be small scale. Any time there are actual reasons for large groups of people to fight each other, the flagging system is likely to be bypassed.

This is by design because Ashes is *NOT* a PvP game. The developers don't want people running around the game fighting each other for no reason - and if a reason exists, the flagging system does not.

This suggest may seem small, but it would drastically alter the game, taking it from a PvX game to a PvP game.

If you have 16 people together to do something, go do something productive, something that introduces new resources to the server.

Tyrantor

@George Black I do not follow your logic in either post but thank you for the reply. Also just so you understand something. It's not an opt in PVP feature it would be an opt out non-combatant feature. There is a distinct difference since you can already PvP when ever you want.

@Noaani Would you care how to explain how this would change the game for you? What exactly do you think this changes in the flagging system other than people walk around purple instead of green?

Sathrago

George Black wrote: »

The part of the global population that would like to place a "free gang" mark on them would be extremelly small.

It isn't worth spending resources to work on this feature, which would have to synergize with the rest of the game.

I think this is probably the best retort so far. You have to think about this as well, if you flag up with this option that means you are essentially going to be attacked by everyone that looks at you just like a corrupted player would be. You are creating an option that screams free loot for a zerg of non-flagged players.

Bricktop

Sathrago wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

The part of the global population that would like to place a "free gang" mark on them would be extremelly small.

It isn't worth spending resources to work on this feature, which would have to synergize with the rest of the game.

I think this is probably the best retort so far. You have to think about this as well, if you flag up with this option that means you are essentially going to be attacked by everyone that looks at you just like a corrupted player would be. You are creating an option that screams free loot for a zerg of non-flagged players.

I disagree that this is scope creep. Theres already toggling for bounty hunters to my understanding and this would just make it so you are always flagged (purple). Doesn't seem like a lot to code to me but I am 100% not a game designer.

Tyrantor

Sathrago wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

The part of the global population that would like to place a "free gang" mark on them would be extremelly small.

It isn't worth spending resources to work on this feature, which would have to synergize with the rest of the game.

I think this is probably the best retort so far. You have to think about this as well, if you flag up with this option that means you are essentially going to be attacked by everyone that looks at you just like a corrupted player would be. You are creating an option that screams free loot for a zerg of non-flagged players.

It may come as a surprise to you, but some of us have played games that had no restrictions on PvP I have no concern about being attacked who cares? Or rather back to my original question to you why do you care if I, ME, MYSELF gets attacked? How does this change the game for you? How does it make the game worse for you in any way?

Sathrago

Tyrantor wrote: »

It may come as a surprise to you, but some of us have played games that had no restrictions on PvP I have no concern about being attacked who cares? Or rather back to my original question to you why do you care if I, ME, MYSELF gets attacked? How does this change the game for you? How does it make the game worse for you in any way?

I care mostly because once you have this feature many people will complain about the ganking and want the game balanced around surviving as a player vs many other players. You create a dynamic in the game similar to Albion Online where the players want more help surviving these scenarios and this all pulls attention and design time on the other parts of the game that I feel are more worthwhile.

Even when its a choice on your part that will not stop the complaints and people asking for crap that doesn't benefit the rest of the game.

Bricktop wrote: »

I disagree that this is scope creep. Theres already toggling for bounty hunters to my understanding and this would just make it so you are always flagged (purple). Doesn't seem like a lot to code to me but I am 100% not a game designer.

I don't entirely understand why a bounty hunter needs to be flagged in order to hunt corrupted players. Can't they be attacked by anyone without the attacker gaining corruption?

Bricktop

Sathrago wrote: »

I care mostly because once you have this feature many people will complain about the ganking and want the game balanced around surviving as a player vs many other players. You create a dynamic in the game similar to Albion Online where the players want more help surviving these scenarios and this all pulls attention and design time on the other parts of the game that I feel are more worthwhile.

Even when its a choice on your part that will not stop the complaints and people asking for crap that doesn't benefit the rest of the game.

There will be no extra ganking that comes from the feature since you would still go red on unflagged players.

Sathrago wrote: »

I don't entirely understand why a bounty hunter needs to be flagged in order to hunt corrupted players. Can't they be attacked by anyone without the attacker gaining corruption?

If you look at the wiki it says that bounty hunters will flag for an hour when they activate their pathfinding ability towards corrupted players. This is so corrupted players can fight back against bounty hunters without further penalties. Since there is already an ability to toggle for flag in the game this isn't scope creep.

CROW3

I want to make sure I’m understanding your idea. Basically, ‘I always want to participate in open world pvp with anyone in the world, and don’t think my opponent should suffer corruption when I’m eventually killed.’

If I got that correct, makes sense to me. In an indirect way, that flag may further reduce killing non-combatants by creating a more ‘target rich environment.’

Child Item