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

I don't believe the corruption gained from a solo kill will be enough to be concerned over. In fact, if you have a group on group fight at say a grind spot (Its not clear at present how effective grinding will be but we must all make money from Certificates at some point) then the corruption can be worked off quite simply. Most of the corruption consequences are applied at death but a skilled player could avoid death entirely if the combat is well coordinated and the group verses group is won.

I understand the desire to PvP and the nuisance the extra considerations may cause. However, the tactics and strategies will be complex at first and become second nature at best. The issue I have with Toggles revolves around regret. I would hate to regret flagging or not flagging which is why I advocate for freedom. It is more conducive to free-flow PvP if you can flag through action and not through pre-requisites. In terms of Caravan PvP you will have to select whether you want to attack the caravan or not, and, in terms of open world PvP you will have to select whether you want to attack a non-combatant or not.

The issue is complex because I have only theory to match theory. I have no practical applications to show and no NDA should be lifted until Steven agrees. I'm all for the adrenaline rushes and rewards PvP can offer. In my opinion, the risk of corruption is extra adrenaline and another layer of complexity to the PvP Systems. We can refine the Open World PvP Structures throughout the upcoming tests, I'm not saying the current system is either infallible or perfect. The issue remains that the Open World PvP Systems are complex and relate to other core systems and should not be changed in blanket terms.

A PvP Toggle works in games like WoW because WoW has defined lines between factions. Ashes has no pre-defined factions and so the pseudo factions are more fluid. A PvP Toggle is static and not fluid. I would rather have the fluid nature of the current proposed system than a rigid disposition which will narrow the on-the-fly responses and outcomes.

Tyrantor

I think this is the issue that you pointed out with a single kill not being "that bad" as you say, but since this could happen daily over the course of years and years coupled with multiple kills, purposeful kills all causing corruption, the back-end "Karma" system is going to eventually compound these single instances into something that may be concerning. Which a lot or most of them could have been the result of unintentional corruption or outside of the purpose for the corruption system to begin with.

Regret seems like an odd thing to base your stance on the issue around especially since you could choose to not flag for combat and the game wouldn't change from the current system for you at all. I'm not suggesting anyone who wants to flag for combat has to actively toggle it themselves I'm suggesting that those of us who would prefer to be flagged (nearly all the time) should be allowed to do so manually. If you or anyone else wants to play the game under the "fluid" concepts of the system by all means, but I see no reason to inconvenience other players to flag myself OR receive punishment due to a flagging system that (imo) is flawed by not allowing this to create a more target rich environment, more player agency and limit the abuse on low level and solo players.

I'm completely fine with waiting to see how the game plays out through the Alpha/Beta process however this is also the time for "discussion" is it not?

Songcaller

I have no official references for Karma in Ashes of Creation. I'm aware Karma works in Black Desert but Black Desert Karma was a joke. Even if Karma exists in Ashes, there would be means to improve Karma even if there are ways to reduce Karma. Much like Black Desert.

How would you expect a Toggle to interact with other systems in Ashes?

If you are Toggled as Combatant, I foresee exploits occurring. At present, you are protected from Green Griefers by the fact you have to force attack a non-combatant. If you are automatically toggled as a Combatant and always active in PvP as a consequence then a Green Griefer can stand in your attacks and give you corruption if they are killed.

There are situations and areas where you will be toggled as a Combatant for the duration in the current system. A toggle in such a circumstance would be redundant. Also, you would still have to force attack Caravans and would find your Toggle won't work against Affiliated Players. A toggle implementation will cause massive upheaval to the system and the system is complex already.

A Toggle would in effect require a 4th Condition to be coded and the 4th condition would have to be synched to the other 3 conditions. In my opinion it would be a lot of work for such little gain. You won't lack PvP even without a toggle. In fact, you would lose the element of surprise with a toggle.

Tyrantor

I don't follow how the toggle would have any added condition requirements considering combat flagging is already a condition in the game?

Songcaller

What conditions will the toggle have? You haven't explained the point very well because in the current system you have to force attack to become a combatant in a green vs green fight. You want the ability to run around as Purple right? Well, to become purple in the current system you have to force attack. I'm not sure what your toggle would do? Does the toggle remove the force attack from the initial engagement?

In the current system you can't be purple when you engage a red, unless, you are already purple and you engage a red. In such a circumstance, the loot and experience debt would be lessened because you are never in green condition, merely purple condition. In terms of PvP it would be an exploit because you won't ever be green. Furthermore, a Corrupted Player wouldn't gain more corruption for killing a Purple.

From my perspective, you'd be better off becoming a Bounty Hunter and living in a Military Node. Bounty Hunters can flag and Corrupted have no combat penalties against Bounty Hunters. I myself will be a Bounty Hunter because I love to PvP. There are options to cater to multiple playstyles in Ashes of Creation.

Edit: I appreciate multiple options and I'm pleased with the current options.

Tyrantor

Players will be able to opt-in (via a checkbox) to allow their beneficial or non-beneficial AoEs to hit flagged players. If this is checked then AoE heals or damage will affect flagged players. If it is not checked then the AoE will not damage or heal any flagged players, and as such will not cause the caster to be flagged themselves (if they are not already).[11]

^ Exactly the same thing. A check box to flag ourselves for combatant (if checked) or unchecked the game plays under the current flagging system with no changes. Checking the box would forfeit non-combatant safety within the corruption system from other players without having to attack another player to activate combatant status.

Songcaller

The quote relates to PvP Combat for Heals, Buffs and AoEs...the player is enabling force-attack or not enabling force-attack...You will already have the ability to do the same. The trigger for the flag is action and its to protect healers and buffers from potential corruption if a flagged member in their party is killing a non-combatant.

Non-Combatants have no safety. Combatants have no safety. Corrupted Players have no safety. The system is not about safety at all. If a toggle was introduced then everyone would use the toggle because the toggle would reduce the losses by half. No-one would ever go corrupted and no-one would ever stay green. PvP would be on rails and the whole Hunting Grounds system would be a side note.

ThatFaithGuy

Tyrantor wrote: »

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).

Opt in ruins the PvP overall experience. It just doesn't make sense in a world where the entire concept is that you've made your alliances. There's no reason why I'd ever be able to run past someone in a rival guild and NOT be able to kill them. It doesn't make sense.

Tyrantor

Again I'm lost - of course I know what the quote relates to I'm using it as a prime example of how I imagine a "combat toggle" would work - a opt-in checkbox simple as that. You understand the irony of one opt-in protecting healers and buffers from flagging but then arguing against another opt-in that would prevent unintentional corruption?

Here we go again another person suggesting that EVERYONE would toggle into combatant - you really are proving my point that the system is backwards and we should be in combat mode at all times unless the player opt-in to non-combatant or kills a non combatant and flags corrupt. Edit: Players should start with the "lesser" penalty and have to actively choose to receive a harsher penalty not the other way around.

Songcaller

The system isn't backwards, the system imitates real life. A Soldier isn't a combatant until combat ensues. The reason Healers and Buffers are protected is because Healers and Buffers should not be forced to become corrupted through the actions of others.

You don't argue for a toggle, you argue for the complete removal of certain players from the Hunting Grounds System. It would be the same if a player asked for the ability to auto-loot or auto-harvest. Everyone would auto-loot and auto-harvest. MMOs are competitive places and as such competitive people will not handicap themselves if they do not have to (Those that want a handicap will go Corrupted).

You haven't played Ashes yet or experienced the hunting grounds. There is little reason to add a toggle to the systems and most backers haven't asked for a toggle. Most games with toggles do not have comprehensive PvP Systems and the comprehensive PvP System in Ashes should not be replaced by a toggle.

Bricktop

Neurath wrote: »

The system isn't backwards, the system imitates real life. A Soldier isn't a combatant until combat ensues. The reason Healers and Buffers are protected is because Healers and Buffers should not be forced to become corrupted through the actions of others.

You don't argue for a toggle, you argue for the complete removal of certain players from the Hunting Grounds System. It would be the same if a player asked for the ability to auto-loot or auto-harvest. Everyone would auto-loot and auto-harvest. MMOs are competitive places and as such competitive people will not handicap themselves if they do not have to (Those that want a handicap will go Corrupted).

You haven't played Ashes yet or experienced the hunting grounds. There is little reason to add a toggle to the systems and most backers haven't asked for a toggle. Most games with toggles do not have comprehensive PvP Systems and the comprehensive PvP System in Ashes should not be replaced by a toggle.

I can almost guarantee a healer or a buffer healing or buffing a flagged player will flag them.

I think @Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day. The flagging system worked incredibly well in Lineage 2. However, there was plenty of incentive for players to fight each other in that game. If the AoC devs can incentivize people flagging on each other outside of caravans/sieges/and anything else that autoflags you and the meta game doesn't become "Stand still and let them go red on me" for most of the playerbase then we all have nothing to worry about.

In Lineage 2 a lot of the world PvP was sourced from clan wars that were indefinitely long lasting and bypassed the corruption effects. Right now the information on the wiki points to guild wars in Ashes quite possibly being a few hour long event at primetime. I too am worried about this because of the sheer amount of PvP that came from clan wars in Lineage 2. As a side note, if anybody is confused and having a hard time visualizing the flagging system in action, please feel free to PM me and I can send you a video of it in action and explain it to you. Flags won't last very long after you attack a player, most likely will go away after 30 seconds-2 mins or so of not attacking anybody

Will experience debt and losing materials be enough incentive to get a majority of the player base willing to PvP? The corruption system is there to protect lowbies from being ganked and people who truly do not want to PvP from being camped and killed 15 times over to my understanding. There needs to be an incredibly strong incentive for players to be willing to PvP in AoC. If the devs do that there should be open world PvP aplenty between that and the already robust caravan system which should induce a lot of open world PvP.

If PvP isn't incentivized enough and the meta game for a large chunk of the playerbase becomes "Stand here and let them go red on me" and say "I will never PvP" like some people on the forums in the past I worry about the game personally. I truly have faith that the devs will make it so that it's better to PvP rather just stand still and let people go red on you.

Songcaller

I've stated before...if you think someone killing a non-combatant needs a heal or a buff you'd be wrong. If a healer or a buffer wants to flag to buff and heal someone fighting a non-combatant I have no pity for the fools.

CROW3

Neurath wrote: »

The system isn't backwards, the system imitates real life. A Soldier isn't a combatant until combat ensues.

Just to clarify, a soldier in uniform is always considered a combatant at any time - not just in a determined battle space or theatre. That's why military v. civilian targets are defined thoroughly in the Geneva convention, and prosecuted accordingly in cases of asymmetric warfare such as insurgencies or terrorism.

As an analog for this argument, a soldier in uniform is always flagged purple.

Edit: @Neurath - small correction. The theatre and area of conflict has to be taken into account for the definition of combatant.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule3

Songcaller

A soldier is not a combatant when he is in uniform. Soldiers have more than one uniform. Are you saying a soldier in dress uniform is in active combat? Are you saying a soldier in dress uniform at a dance with his partner is in active combat? Are you saying a soldier in uniform on the parade ground is in active combat?

Purple denotes active combat. Some may want to change this fact but at present it is a fact. I was a reserve soldier in uniform but active soldiers would not say I was an active combatant just because I wore a uniform...strange times we live in where fact and fiction seem to merge without thought or reason.

Edit: I thought the analogy was a good analogy considering Node Wars and Guild Wars. In these circumstances the Hunting Ground Flags don't apply and all related players would be in an active war state but they still wouldn't be active combatants except when engaged in actual combat. They would be In Active Service and In Active Status in preparations for Active Combat.

Sathrago

Now i want the combat toggle just to make @Noaani mad.

But seriously though this is wrong.

Neurath wrote: »

A soldier is not a combatant when he is in uniform. Soldiers have more than one uniform. Are you saying a soldier in dress uniform is in active combat? Are you saying a soldier in dress uniform at a dance with his partner is in active combat? Are you saying a soldier in uniform on the parade ground is in active combat?

Purple denotes active combat. Some may want to change this fact but at present it is a fact. I was a reserve soldier in uniform but active soldiers would not say I was an active combatant just because I wore a uniform...strange times we live in where fact and fiction seem to merge without thought or reason.

Edit: I thought the analogy was a good analogy considering Node Wars and Guild Wars. In these circumstances the Hunting Ground Flags don't apply and all related players would be in an active war state but they still wouldn't be active combatants except when engaged in actual combat. They would be In Active Service and In Active Status in preparations for Active Combat.

The comparison could not be further from the truth. A soldier in uniform is and always will be considered a combatant. Do you really think they will not be shot if they enter enemy territory or are spotted by an enemy? I would seriously reconsider having this be apart of your argument.

Now, I agree that the system as is works fine and rather than inviting pvp at all turns it puts a real risk into attacking another player just to flag, there is a distinct risk that they say F**k it and go in on you in return. I think i like that more than a toggle system and that is purely preference and not me saying one is mechanically better for the game than the other.

CROW3

Neurath wrote: »

A soldier is not a combatant when he is in uniform. Soldiers have more than one uniform. Are you saying a soldier in dress uniform is in active combat? Are you saying a soldier in dress uniform at a dance with his partner is in active combat? Are you saying a soldier in uniform on the parade ground is in active combat?

Purple denotes active combat. Some may want to change this fact but at present it is a fact. I was a reserve soldier in uniform but active soldiers would not say I was an active combatant just because I wore a uniform...strange times we live in where fact and fiction seem to merge without thought or reason.

This is going to get off topic a bit, but let's go there for the sake of argument. Keep in mind, I'm not the one defining a 'combatant,' I'm pulling directly from the Geneva convention. So go research that if you want (here's the link: Customary IHL Rule 3).

To your points above, it sounds like there is some gray there. A soldier in any uniform that is within an international area of conflict can be determined to be a combatant. So if the dance is held on a base in Tikrit v. Chicago? If the parade ground is in Kandahar v. Benning?

Customary IHL wrote:

Rule 3. All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.

For Ashes, for this analogy, it might depend on how you define the international conflict zone to determine whether it's apt or not.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Lol so you're solution is then to punish anyone who is flagged combatant? For someone who claims to be standing up for "core" values of the game you sure are quick to disincentivize combatant flagging.

It isn't really a punishment if the combatant status only last 2 or 3 minutes.

If it turns out that people are trying to circumvent core aspects of the game by attacking random players every 2 - 3 minutes in order to maintain the combatant flag, then yes, that is the sort of thing I would expect to see happen.

However, if something along these lines did eventuate, the people to blame are the people attempting to circumvent the system.

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day.

I think this as well.

The thing is, Intrepid have taken the idea of L2 PvP and made changes to address some of the issues that game had (as they see them).

One of the issues was the almost limitless open world PvP. They don't want that in Ashes. They want all the PvP, and they want some open world PvP, but they want limits on it.

That is why they have moved the focus of PvP from open world to caravans and sieges and such - the parts of the game where PvP is not subject to corruption or flagging. That is where they want PvP players to be focused.

In terms of guild wars, I can kind of see what they are looking at in regards to making them prime time only events. If you are at war with a guild, the actual guild war system is only a small part of that. A much larger part of it revolves around attempting to deprive the guild of materials, and in destroying the node cluster they call home.

This is something that could be a multi-year endeavor if players wanted it to be, even if there isn't a single game system running through the entire length of that time. The concept of guilds and alliances being at war with each other isn't going to go away because some timer says the war is over.

By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other.

I'm not 100% sure I am behind the idea (though I am 100% sure Intrepid don't care if I am behind the idea or not), however, I can kind of see what they are thinking with it.

mcstackerson

The l

Noaani wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day.

By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other.

It's more that they think the traditional system of allowing two guilds to kill each other with a score showing up at the end is a little boring.

guild wars

As they say, they are still fleshing it out but it sounds like they want more of a risk/reward component to it. They give some examples of stealing an item a guild might have gotten from a raid or capturing a quest item at a guild's keep.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

The l

Noaani wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

I think Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day.

By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other.

It's more that they think the traditional system of allowing two guilds to kill each other with a score showing up at the end is a little boring.

guild wars

As they say, they are still fleshing it out but it sounds like they want more of a risk/reward component to it. They give some examples of stealing an item a guild might have gotten from a raid or capturing a quest item at a guild's keep.

Oh, it's absolutely going to be a fully fleshed out system, I'm just saying that if your guild considers itself to be at actual war with another guild, the guild war system isn't going to be the main focus of that war state.

Seiges and caravans are.

I see the guild war system as being used more between somewhat friendly guilds as a means of competition than I see it as a means by which you can actually hurt a rival guild.

At least, that is how I see what they are trying to do. As you say though, it isn't fully developed, and changes to how it gets developed in the future may better reflect their intentions with it if I am off.

Child Item