Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Combatant Opt-In

1101113151618

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    daveywavey wrote: »
    It doesn't mean that the defender is a good PvPer
    On balance though, it does.

    Remember, I have been saying for a while now that the individual doesn't matter to statistics. Unless you are trying to suggest that this scenario would be so common as to skew the number of combatants vs non-combatants on the server at all times, then it is statistically insignificant.

    Again, I am talking large scale, game wide. I am not talking about - nor am I concerned with - the individual. I mean, the best PvP'er in the game will at times be a non-combatant harvesting materials - but that doesn't mean I have to assume that all non-combatants harvesting materials will be the best PvP'er in the game.
  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    It doesn't mean that the defender is a good PvPer
    Again, I am talking large scale, game wide. I am not talking about - nor am I concerned with - the individual. I mean, the best PvP'er in the game will at times be a non-combatant harvesting materials - but that doesn't mean I have to assume that all non-combatants harvesting materials will be the best PvP'er in the game.

    And yet, you're happy to assume that all purple-flagged players are good at PvP, just because they're purple.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/


    giphy-downsized-large.gif?cid=b603632fp2svffcmdi83yynpfpexo413mpb1qzxnh3cei0nx&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy-downsized-large.gif&ct=s
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    It doesn't mean that the defender is a good PvPer
    Again, I am talking large scale, game wide. I am not talking about - nor am I concerned with - the individual. I mean, the best PvP'er in the game will at times be a non-combatant harvesting materials - but that doesn't mean I have to assume that all non-combatants harvesting materials will be the best PvP'er in the game.

    And yet, you're happy to assume that all purple-flagged players are good at PvP, just because they're purple.

    Nope, not all, just the majority.

    If you are a combatant and are not either running or hiding, chances are you just won PvP in some form or another. You can consider some of these potential results to be a draw, I'm not overly concerned - the point is that a player that is happily farming away at either mobs or resources was recently successful in either taking over that spot, or in keeping that spot.

    As such, there is a better target in the general area - such as the player that just lost.

    It may well be that both are great PvP'ers, or it may well be that both are not very good at PvP. This doesn't really matter to this discussion - as the fact that this player is flagged as a combatant means you know for sure there is someone that is easier than them that is close by.

    If you are presented with 1000 scenarios of two different targets where one is a combatant and one is a non-combatant, the non-combatant is - on balance - going to be the easier target.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    There’s still been absolutely no mention of justification for wanting to separate the flagging system from player behavior.

    “I want to be purple all the time” is not a reason. “I want to protect half my stuff at all times without having to fight back” is not a positive addition. “I want people to see me as willing to PvP“ means you are fine with greens being viewed as unwilling to PvP.

    Why in the hells would the developers approve of a toggle that adds nothing beneficial, removes the information flag-state is supposed to provide, and is unneeded to fulfill a player’s desire for PvP? There has quite literally been no decent reason presented for feeling a toggle as needed.
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    I just wish Steven would come in and tell us if there will be a toggle or not so this insane back and forth can be put to rest.

    stop watching us squirm!!! lol
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    I just wish Steven would come in and tell us if there will be a toggle or not so this insane back and forth can be put to rest.

    stop watching us squirm!!! lol

    Intrepid very rarely weigh in on discussions in that manner - I can only think of one time they have, and the discussion in question had been going on for actual years by the time they said anything.

    Not that I'd be against it, I just wouldn't expect it.

    Besides, debate is fun. If not for the occasional thread of disagreement, these forums would be significantly quieter.
  • Caeryl wrote: »
    (...) “I want people to see me as willing to PvP“ (...)

    That would make a good guild name! It would always be on display under the character's name... no uncertainty of intents! :p
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Noaani you spent 1.5 years+ playing a MMO as a solo playe
    I don't think that means as much as you think it means.

    First of all, that equates to 7.5% of my total MMO play time. As you know, the bulk of the rest was either in or running top end raid guilds - you can't run a top end raid guild without knowing what those in your guild want. Not successfully, at least.

    Both of these responses highlight your complete lack of player vs player interaction.

    In summary.
    1) Solo player for years (avoiding conflict on purpose).
    2) PvE player for years

    Can you provide any feedback that actually relates to player vs player combat? Something that would justify you're ability to understand how players that actually pvp, grief, siege etc has relevance to your understanding of how you know so vividly how the "large scale game wide" player base is going to play?

    You don't think it's telling how your own example from the pvp perspective was that you would (again as a solo player) run around looking for solo non combatants gathering resources? It's also interesting that you would seek out "soft" targets with no consideration for what measure you're using to decide this based on the rock/paper/scissors class system, armor, levels etc. The logic you use here seems odd to me. On one hand you're suggesting this would be "for profit" by going after solo farmers/specific resources, yet at the same time you would risk the potential for 4x corruption (4 non combatant kills) which would then invite others to attack you freely, track you and you would lose all that "for profit" loot you just took including additional penalties.

    In my example of 4 farmers with one being toggled combatant you said you would avoid that person completely - quite literally makes no sense if you're doing this for profit. What if that person was 5 levels below you? Had no armor? Was afk? Your class wins 95% of fights vs that class? You're avoiding the combatant toggled solo farmer 100% of the time just because their purple? Huh? Right..... it makes sense because you don't want flagging.
    Noaani wrote: »
    It seems that you are missing the very first aspect in the target acquisition process here - which is excluding all combatants. If I enter an area that has 4 solo players, and only three of then are non-combatants, then there are three targets - if my aim is PvP for profit.
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    CROW3 wrote: »
    The cake is over there @Noaani.

    46272152.jpg
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    CROW3 wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    How dare you belittle the power of cake. It may be pie season but cake will have it's day again.

    CakevPie1.jpg

    73012684.jpg
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    bwhahahahahahaha! Nearly a coffee through the nose laugh, but it was worth it.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    In summary.
    1) Solo player for years (avoiding conflict on purpose).
    2) PvE player for years
    Also member of well regarded PvP guild for years - which is what I did in Archeage after deciding I'd had enough of being a pirate (well, after making friends with some people in the guild and them persuading me to join).

    But hey, ignore that if it isn't convenient for you.
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Your class wins 95% of fights vs that class?
    Again, you are looking at the individual.

    You realize there will be more than one player that will potentially attack others per server, right? While a particular class may be the paper to my rock, there will be someone around that is rolling scissors that is more than happy to take them on.

    Both of us will be looking at flagged state though.

    Things like level seem irrelevent to the point here, to be honest. I'm assuming I'll be playing the game for years, and the vast, vast majority of that time people will be max level. As for things like coming across an afk or armorless character in an open world game with PvP is also so rare as to not be worth even bringing up. Again, that won't happen so often as to skew the numbers - why even bring it up?
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Noaani wrote: »
    Again, you are looking at the individual.

    You realize there will be more than one player that will potentially attack others per server, right? While a particular class may be the paper to my rock, there will be someone around that is rolling scissors that is more than happy to take them on.

    Both of us will be looking at flagged state though.

    Things like level seem irrelevent to the point here, to be honest. I'm assuming I'll be playing the game for years, and the vast, vast majority of that time people will be max level. As for things like coming across an afk or armorless character in an open world game with PvP is also so rare as to not be worth even bringing up. Again, that won't happen so often as to skew the numbers - why even bring it up?

    I'm looking at the individual per your example what is confusing to you about that?

    Your entire argument was "if there is a purple player you avoid them and only attack the 3 green players" because purple = scary.

    What you failed to take into account are any other circumstances or risk factors. The class system, in all likelihood should be the first thing you consider when evaluating a fight in the 1v1 scenario that again (you) suggested. In that situation it will most certainly be irrelevant what flagging state their character is in if in fact you can beat that character under normal or relatively equal circumstances.

    The other examples I gave you, may be more limited however I find it fairly reasonable that some players may choose to harvest gatherable materials without equipment especially if their mindset would be to offer the attacking party corruption over fighting back. You see this gives them additional incentive to not fight back as they would not lose any durability for equipment. The point however was simple - you make a broad statement that you will ignore these players simply due to their decision to flag.

    At this point the only thing that seems irrelevant is your logic for determining targets. You completely ignore the response about going corrupt while trying to profit? What good is this going to do you?

    You should really seek a new approach here it's obvious you are digging a deeper hole.
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Tyrantor wrote: »

    Your entire argument was "if there is a purple player you avoid them and only attack the 3 green players" because purple = scary.
    No it wasn't. That was you misunderstanding an example I was making to attempt to illustrate to you a concept you obviously didn't udnerstand - the fact that you now think that was my entire point just makes me think you aren't even reading what is being said - you are simply skimming through, picking up a few words, assuming what the argument is and running with it.

    It is blatantly obvious that you actually haven't been following the discussion for the last 2 pages at least.
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    As I have said several times - if I am looking for a target, the first thing I look for is their flag state. If they are combatants, I move on.

    This means that all of the remaining players, that 90 that are left, are all more likely to be attacked simply due to not flagging.

    I'm not sure how clearer I can be on this point, it is basic middle school level statistics.
    Noaani wrote: »
    It seems that you are missing the very first aspect in the target acquisition process here - which is excluding all combatants. If I enter an area that has 4 solo players, and only three of then are non-combatants, then there are three targets - if my aim is PvP for profit.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding what it is you are saying in this last part. If so, feel free to reword it to be clearer and I'll have another look at answering it for you.

    I mean... feel free to re-read what you said. You very clearly said this is "the very first aspect in the target acquisition process". Explain to me how you're validating that statement. Because you can't then say "it increases the chances of the non-combatants getting attacked" as a follow up to non sense. Especially in a scenario when everyone in that zone is max level as you apparently assumed the majority of the game play will be. If every player in the zone is max everything, there is zero relevance to the characters flagging state at that point from a "target acquisition" outside of avoidance of corruption so the idea that you would endure the corruption to avoid attacking a combatant flagged character is priceless.

    You've clearly missed the point that others here have pointed out to you. There is no defined result from the non combatant response. You can assume 50% of them will not fight back, but you're basing that on what? If they make the XP debt and % drop high enough it will be encouraging people to fight back - I mean it's why you want to attack them in the first place is it not? You can't have it both ways, you attack non combatants 100% of the time "for profit" but only 50% of them fight back to save their "profit". It doesn't just get to slide in your favor because you can dream it up in your "basic middle school statistics" class.
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Tyrantor wrote: »

    I mean... feel free to re-read what you said. You very clearly said this is "the very first aspect in the target acquisition process". Explain to me how you're validating that statement. Because you can't then say "it increases the chances of the non-combatants getting attacked" as a follow up to non sense.
    I'm still not sure how you can not understand - other than the fact that if you admitted to understanding you would need to come up with a new argument.

    If I am looking for a target, any target, in an environment that is somewhat target rich (as in, there are more targets there than I am likely to attack), then I will look for the best target that meets my needs.

    If my needs are targets that are profitable, I want easier targets.

    Green players are generally easier in PvP than combatants - again we are talking as a general rule here, something that if one player follows 1000 times, will see them end up with over all easier targets than if they didn't.

    Since combatant status is something that can be seen from a great distance, it becomes the first of a list of criteria you look at when determining a target. Since all otehr criteria are different for different people, but the combatant flag status will be the same for all players wanting to PvP for profit, it stands to reason that if there was a toggle for players to flag as combatants, players that do not flag as combatants will be the people that those looking to PvP for profit go after.

    This is not a complex idea.

    You want an easy target in PvP, you are presented with someone welcoming PvP, and someone not welcoming PvP. If you are given this choice 1000 times and always pick the player that is not welcoming PvP, you will generally have an easier time than if you always pick the player that is welcoming PvP - as such, with your system, non-combatants would be obvious targets for peopel wanting to PvP for profit, and if they opted to flag as combatants to try and get around this they would then be mistaken for players that are inviting PvP.

    It leaves them in a lose/lose situation.

    To your credit, I refuse to believe you do not understand this basic premise - you are not that stupid, we both know this. That means you are refusing to understand on purpose - you can't make someone understand something if it is their best interests to not understand it.

    Feel free to drop that act now.
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Noaani wrote: »

    If my needs are targets that are profitable, I want easier targets.

    Green players are generally easier in PvP than combatants - again we are talking as a general rule here, something that if one player follows 1000 times, will see them end up with over all easier targets than if they didn't.

    Easier target for you will be based on classes that you can beat not based on flagging status. This is where your entire point falls apart. If there is a hard counter for your class their non combat status has no viability for being an easier target. The fact you don't understand that classes are going to be the biggest determining factor in finding easy targets for your own class is sad.

    I would think it's reasonable to assume most of us that went out to gather solo probably wouldn't toggle for combatant unless we preferred the idea of pvp while doing so. Which means that the majority of the server population would be non combatant doing that activity - even if the majority of the server population prefers to pvp more often than not. You can't quantify green as being a passive player since all players will toggle back and forth. You will have no measure of reason to expect a player to be bad at pvp based solely on their flagging status.

    In the same way do you consider all Red's the hardest to pvp against? Your logic should be that in a zone of 100 people you would seek out the corrupt players as they would drop the most materials and possibly gear and if they're corrupt it means they killed people which also gave them the most loot. Your reasoning is flawed beyond measure.
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
  • for love of steven.. no pvp toggle. It takes away from the games flavor, is abuseable, creates this pressure to opt out of pvp since when opting into pvp your at an disadvantage.
    Stoic. Tradition. Forge. :
    tumblr_my6no12Xrg1s5muieo1_500.gif
    Kappa

  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    How is it abusable?
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Keern wrote: »
    for love of steven.. no pvp toggle. It takes away from the games flavor, is abuseable, creates this pressure to opt out of pvp since when opting into pvp your at an disadvantage.

    its not a toggle to opt-out of pvp, just to switch on a constant combatant status
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • LieutenantToastLieutenantToast Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Hiya folks - ty for chiming in with your thoughts on flagging in this thread!

    While this whole system and the corruption mechanic in general are something we'll be heavily testing with your help during Alpha and beyond, if you wanted to ask more specifically whether or not we were planning to implement a combatant opt-in that didn't require you to attack first, I might recommend dropping it in an upcoming live stream Q&A thread so our team can dive in further!

    community_management.gif
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Hiya! In the original example you provided:
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    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.

    If both groups were originally flagged as non-combatant, they wouldn't gain corruption just for killing another non-combatant :smiley: they would simply become combatants. If you were a combatant to begin with though and your opponents weren't, they would flag combatant as soon as they attacked you - to be more fair about giving them an opportunity to fight back if they weren't expecting it prior to their death!

    While this whole system and the corruption mechanic in general are something we'll be heavily testing with your help during Alpha and beyond, if you wanted to ask more specifically whether or not we were planning to implement a combatant opt-in that didn't require you to attack first, I might recommend dropping it in an upcoming live stream Q&A thread so our team can dive in further!

    Bruh you’re a mod and the info you just gave on flagging is completely wrong

    A non-combatant group engaged on another non-combatant group, one group kills the enemy healer before they can flag up, the killing blow on that healer causes corruption.

    This has been the way it’s been stated to work since day one. If you have access to sources that directly conflict the established understanding as stated by Steven and the rest of the development staff, please share. But as is, your info is just not accurate.
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I think the chart said you become purple if you attack a green (not kill).

    But best let Toast confirm.
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Hiya! In the original example you provided:
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    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.

    If both groups were originally flagged as non-combatant, they wouldn't gain corruption just for killing another non-combatant :smiley: they would simply become combatants. If you were a combatant to begin with though and your opponents weren't, they would flag combatant as soon as they attacked you - to be more fair about giving them an opportunity to fight back if they weren't expecting it prior to their death!

    While this whole system and the corruption mechanic in general are something we'll be heavily testing with your help during Alpha and beyond, if you wanted to ask more specifically whether or not we were planning to implement a combatant opt-in that didn't require you to attack first, I might recommend dropping it in an upcoming live stream Q&A thread so our team can dive in further!

    Bruh you’re a mod and the info you just gave on flagging is completely wrong

    A non-combatant group engaged on another non-combatant group, one group kills the enemy healer before they can flag up, the killing blow on that healer causes corruption.

    This has been the way it’s been stated to work since day one. If you have access to sources that directly conflict the established understanding as stated by Steven and the rest of the development staff, please share. But as is, your info is just not accurate.

    Maybe she was referring to this topics proposed flagging toggle (a guy not in combat but flagged for combat).
    Otherwise....
    Toast!
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Looks like it was probably a typo regarding the non-combat killing attacking non-combat.

    @LieutenantToast I will ask in the next Q&A thanks for stopping by.
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Looks like it was probably a typo regarding the non-combat killing attacking non-combat.

    LieutenantToast I will ask in the next Q&A thanks for stopping by.
    Yeah, I think it would have just been a typo - either that, or we just had an announcement of a major change to the open PvP system.

    And for sure, I think it's a good enough question to ask in a Q&A.

    I am somewhat intereted to see if you still disagree with anything I've said in relation to how it is not currently the plan to have a toggle though.

    Edit, I'm happy to carry on discussing the merits of the system though, if you want to carry on.
    Tyrantor wrote: »

    Easier target for you will be based on classes that you can beat not based on flagging status. This is where your entire point falls apart.
    While this may be true, it is also why I have been trying fairly hard to point out to you that I am not just talking about one attacker, or one defender. I even attempted to do this with the rock, paper, scissors analogy earlier - but I'll recap it for you.

    While some classes will be harder for me to kill based on my class, there will be other players of other classes that are also out looking for PvP for profit - and the classes that I find easy they may find hard - while the classes I find hard they may find easy. However, both of us are likely to pick non-combatants over combatants - but then I am also not only talking about 2 people attacking, I am talking about hundreds of people looking at tens of thousands of potential targets, all of whom are going to look at combatant vs non-combatant as the first thing they look for, and then break off in to the individual things that each player is looking for.
  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Looks like it was probably a typo regarding the non-combat killing attacking non-combat.

    LieutenantToast I will ask in the next Q&A thanks for stopping by.
    Yeah, I think it would have just been a typo

    GUYS!

    You just agreed on something! :)

    <3
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/


    giphy-downsized-large.gif?cid=b603632fp2svffcmdi83yynpfpexo413mpb1qzxnh3cei0nx&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy-downsized-large.gif&ct=s
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Looks like it was probably a typo regarding the non-combat killing attacking non-combat.

    LieutenantToast I will ask in the next Q&A thanks for stopping by.
    Yeah, I think it would have just been a typo

    GUYS!

    You just agreed on something! :)

    <3

    I mean I have agreed with quite a few things on other threads with @Noaani its just that sometimes we cant agree on specific stuff. I'm sure @Tyrantor is the same.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member, Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Looks like it was probably a typo regarding the non-combat killing attacking non-combat.

    LieutenantToast I will ask in the next Q&A thanks for stopping by.
    Yeah, I think it would have just been a typo

    GUYS!

    You just agreed on something! :)

    <3

    I mean I have agreed with quite a few things on other threads with @Noaani its just that sometimes we cant agree on specific stuff. I'm sure @Tyrantor is the same.

    DON'T RUIN OUR SPECIAL MOMENT!!! :'(
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/


    giphy-downsized-large.gif?cid=b603632fp2svffcmdi83yynpfpexo413mpb1qzxnh3cei0nx&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy-downsized-large.gif&ct=s
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    I am somewhat intereted to see if you still disagree with anything I've said in relation to how it is not currently the plan to have a toggle though.

    Edit, I'm happy to carry on discussing the merits of the system though, if you want to carry on.

    I won't have much to disagree with in regards to it not being part of the plan. As you may remember my original post in this thread was asking them to give us a toggle not assuming it existed. Since that opening post there have been video(s) that confirmed the toggle currently exists and a pre-alpha moderator who confirmed it would exist. My stance will still be in favor of the toggle regardless if it's part of the plan or not so no I wouldn't agree with your reasoning for not having one. I do not believe in forcing a default flagging state on everyone in the game especially when it has higher penalties for death, creates a false representation of how I want to be viewed in the open world and has adverse affects on larger group vs group open world conflict in regards to how the corruption system plays out.

    I will say this, If the development team answers the question regardless of the answer it will at that point be in front of them and which ever direction they go is what happens. I wouldn't argue with them about it. So you won't see me jump on the forums and rant about how it's going to ruin the game if they don't offer a toggle, I hope you can agree to do the same if they confirm a toggle.
    Tyrantor
    Master Assassin
    (Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
    Book suggestions:
    Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Sign In or Register to comment.