Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
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.
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.
Comments
it is also used for the players to "choose to avoid maximum death penalties" from a charging red player, effectivelly bypassing the games design for concequenses of actions
in order for the victim to feel like they have a choice on how to... victim, you know because fighting a red player as a green player and losing will totally give you the full death penalty experience, even though you were just fighting, but the devs dont know that.
Great stuff, keep em coming.
14 pages filled mostly by 4 names, for for the sake of the coding of an additional button which does what hitting a player (turning purple) does, fightout having to hit anybody.
I mean, my bad for making an assumption, but I would have thought that if you were going to argue that there were more assumptions that could be made for remaining a non-combatant, you would at least list assumptions that made the toggle worth adding as opposed to providing more reasons as to why it shouldn't be added.
Lol. You asked a question. I answered it. Any additional assumptions you had are on you. 😂
I did literally say it was my bad for making that assumption.
I do, however, finding intriguing that a list of reasons to not have toggle would be in anyway used as an argument for it to be added.
My bad, brother. I misread your tone. 🙂
I’ll reply to your second point later when I’m not multitasking.
Because you do not become a combatant by pressing a button, you become a combatant by entering combat. Literally, hitting another player is entering combat. Clicking a button is not combat. Why in the world should it be framed as combat? Why can’t you find combat like everyone else can? Why do you feel like a toggle is a benefit to the game?
Omg.......
Imagine failing that hard.
Read my last sentence from the post you quoted. Slowly.
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
Does this mean you'll be communicating with your in game character through some digital form of telekinesis - not sure the rest of us can compete with you sir. I mean.. a button to attack or a button to flag sort of both buttons.
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
We know that their intention is that if you are a non-combatant and are attacked by a non-corrupt player, the system is set up to incentivise you to fight back. If you fight back, at the very least you will suffer half the death penalties. We all know this, no one is debating it - yet the toggle suggestion breaks this and no one asking for the toggle wants to address that fact.
Now, even though we know this is the intention of the system in this circumstance, your above statement would ONLY hold true if that was also the intention when a player is corrupt and is attacking a non-combatant. We don't know for sure that this is the case - it may well be that there are other things that Intrepid have placed a higher importance on in this situation.
Again, we do not know, and so this one situation can not really be used as literally the only situation in which people wanting this toggle point to as a reason to add it to the game.
The other thing to point out here is that if it is NOT Intrepids intention to put players in this situation, a toggle is not the only means to avoid this situation, and even if a toggle was teh desired option, they could simply make it a toggle that only applies if you force attack a corrupt player - which would then prevent the entire notion of the flagging system being broken by this toggle as I mentioned above.
While this is true, by bringing this in to the conversation, you are essentially pointing out that in order to add in this toggle, Intrepid would need to completely alter their open world PvP system - as this change fundamentally changes how it would function.
So, are you saying that Intrepid should completely alter their open world PvP system in order to accomodate this toggle, or will you go back to the point I was making and attempt to refute it within the context of the system we have now?
Once again, you are only looking at it from the perspective of people using it, not from the perspective of what that means for everyone else. It's interesting that this is how you view this thread.
The way I see this thread is a few people talking about a system that would work well in some games, but not in Ashes.
I'm wondering if you still consider all the posts you made in relation to how you thought it was Intrepids current intention to have a toggle as you "owning" me, and also how you view the posts I made in relation to how that isn't a current part of the plan.
I mean, at the time I know you thought you were "owning" me, but that is a fairly hard stance to maintain right now.
When you do get around to asking this question in a Q&A and the answer that comes back as a no - will you still think all of the posts you have made on this topic in reply to me are you "owning" me? Because that is the answer you will get, a toggle alters too many incentives that Intrepid have set in to the system, and so won't be implemented.
Failing to what? People literally think that occasionally attacking a player is so unreasonable that they think toggling on what should be an active and temporary state is somehow necessary. The generalized “you” isn’t some new thing, and the people insisting a toggle would be useful still haven’t answered the questions I posed.
Are you really going to pretend that engaging another player is the same as opening your menu to use a toggle? Your UI isn’t a player.
Ah I see you don't understand what "generalized 'you'" means.
edit: Here's a definition for you
Hahahha spare me the effort to appear knowledgeable mate.
You jumped the gun there and now you play spin doctors.
Anyway. Im out again. Keep argueing with the other three and try to reach 20 pages by friday on this topic.
Which reasons for not adding it?
You have been told many times.
You just dont get it.
I get your points fine, @George Black I just don't agree with them.
Specifically the ones you listed - when asked to give examples of what a player remaining as a non-combatant should a toggle like this exist, you gave 5 examples. Of those 5, one was something that is not needed (baiting others in to PvP), three were outright player confusion, and one was using the feature to see what the point of the feature is.
Now, while you were listing ways that the toggle could mean something other than that non-combatant status would indicate that a player doesn't want PvP at that point in time, what you really did was list two neutral things and three negatives in regards to the idea of having a toggle over all.
I mean, if three of the five things you are able to think about in regards to what it would mean to be a non-combatant with this toggle can be described as player confusion, that is not a good argument as to why it should be added to the game.
As such, of the five things you listed, three of them are direct reasons as to why the toggle should not be added to the game, and the other two are totally neutral in this regard.
Ah, ok – let me go back and provide some context so we’re at least on the same page. Here is the question I answered: Your question wasn’t “Give me additional reasons why a green would find the toggle useful,” but “If this toggle exists, what are other reasons a player would be flagged green besides ‘I don’t want to pvp’”
These are some other possible reasons.
Can we agree that’s the progress of the discussion thus far?
I like that I'm bringing truth into the conversation, which means either your previous statement was false or that you were unaware of the conceptual elements of the corruption system all together. It's obvious I view the change to be within the current system.
If you can share what exactly would be considered needed to "completely alter" the open world pvp I can respond to your phrase, as it's worded that is a very vague and biased question which I do not believe has any merit in a general sense.
I'm actually not sure how your response even correlates with what I said. I mean what perspective does everyone else have who chooses not to use it? My statement in theory encompasses everyone in the game as they would have the option, just as they do under the "fight back" encouragement that you've so proudly pointed out. How is it different? If a player could be encouraged to fight back why then could they not be encouraged to flag themselves if given the option to do so if both scenarios have the same result? The result of flagging for combatant is not creating a 3rd dimension that is going to alter the system.
Hmm out of curiosity what games would it work well in if not Ashes? It's interesting to me that you're conceding it would work well veiled by the generalization of other games (or rather "some" games). Does it not seem like you've been owned when you have to then conceded the same situation you've included as an example of proof can not be used?
The points you raise are weak and flawed at best and should the development team confirm no toggle I would still consider your points to be mute on the basis of presentation based on the current information presented. Throughout this thread you've raised your hand and said "yeah but" only to then ignore the response you received completely or take a fragment of the response and try to divert the discussion nearly at all times never addressing the counter point raised to your discussion.
As a prime immediate example, you've still yet to explain how the non-combatant who initiates the attack of a corrupt player is in fact no longer "incentivized" to do so with the toggle being an option in the game.
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
Each of the points you make absolutely are reasons why a player may be flagged green in the presence of a toggle. No doubt.
The problem is, if these are the reasons a player may be green, this is a further reason to not have the toggle.
Rather than a toggle being an indicator that a player is not wanting PvP at that point in time, it is now essentially an indicator that the player either doesn't want PvP, or is confused about the game.
So, you absolutely answered the question asked of you. That isn't the point I am making. The point I am making is that in answering the question, you kind of proved one aspect of the point as to why a toggle is a bad idea.
I am unsure if you are doing this on purpose, or if you truely are not comprheniding the over all discussion.
A prime example of this can be found further down in your post, right here This specific situation is not something that needs to be discussed in this thread, as the toggle has no specific impact on it.
Your insistence that I am attempting to avoid this point is an attempt at misdirection, as far as I am concerned, as this is not a point that needs to be discussed in this topic.
It is not taking in to consideration the perspective of those that actualyl do not want PvP at that point in time.
These people would have to remain as non-combatants - obviously - and with a toggle like you suggest, non-combatants would be like a beacon to players wanting PvP for profit (as I have explained to you in the past - where again you attempted to misdirect the point in to the inane - and also attempted to claim that disproving an analogous example I gave to assist in explination would disprove the entire point).
The change to these players is that non-combat status has moved from being the default status that everyone not in combat with another player recently has, to being a status that only those specifically not wanting combat for a specific reason would have, making them obvious targets.
This is a fundamental change to the game. Archeage is one game, mostly because it has a toggle (though it is short duration, rather than always on).
Since Archeage is the most recent game Steven has played, and a lot of the systems in Ashes are based around it, you can be sure that he considered the possiblity of a toggle, and has already rejected it. I didn't come up with that situation, @Sathrago did. I simply agree that it is potentially (note - potentially) the one and only valid reason to want a toggle - though there are also other ways to deal with that situation that wouldn't require a toggle.
If you were actually following the conversation rather than trying to find little bits where you can attempt to trip me up, you would have known that.
This is why you claiming to be "bringing truth to the conversation" is so amusing to me. You aren't even following the conversation, let alone bringing truth to it.
This is what you said in a response to @daveywavey and while the general concept has been raised by @Sathrago - it wasn't him who suggested that the incentive "goes out the window".
I've been asking you to clarify this for 2 pages now remember where I said "am I missing something"? Did you find that to be some form of misdirection?
How then does the incentive to attack (not just fight back) "go out the window" when a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player? Did you misspeak here? It's OK if you did but please own up to it rather than just claiming I'm using your response as some form of misdirection - how absurd.
I'll get to the rest of your response after you clarify as not to misdirect you further.
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
That text you pulled is talking about two incentives from two scenarios, not one. Again, something you should have picked up if you were actually following the conversation - the context for it all was right there.
The incentive as the game is now when a non-combatant sees a corrupt player is to attack.
The corrupt player has stat loss, and should they attack you anyway you are in no position to flag as a combatant and so will suffer full death penalties. Fighting back against a corrupt player is the best bet you have to hold on to as much of your materials as you can. You may lose, but on balance it is your best option.
Should a toggle exist, toggling is likely the best bet you have for holding on to as much of your materials as you can, and there is no specific incentive to fight back. Since the scenario in question was a player that is most likely going to kill you, the best thing a non-combatant could do in this situation is flag up and wait to be killed.
It is also worth pointing out that a corrupt player attacking a combatant doesn't gain additional corruption, and a big part of the detraction to gaining corruption is how easily it can snowball. A part of the reason it can snowball is because non-combatants can attack you without becoming combatants, and thus killing them will require you to take on even more corruption.
Change things so that a non-combatant can simply flag up as a combatant in order to suffer half penalties and all of a sudden the sting of being corrupt is a lot less painful.
I'm really not sure how people could see this as anything other than a fundamental change to the core of teh open world PvP system in Ashes - one that would require multiple other alterations in order to make work.
Since the first 4 paragraphs of your post was you simply repeating yourself i'll reply to this.
I'm even more confused now, "the sting of being corrupt is a lot less painful" does it not seem like it would be worse for the corrupted players? All of the non-combatants could attack them with less risk no? Seems more likely to me that non combatants would be more incentivized to attack corrupt players if they could mitigate their losses at will.
If the corruption system is in place to discourage going corrupt it should be about that and not about snowballing further corruption or penalizing non-combatants by forcing a non combatant state on them in the ironic fashion of "saving them" from the combatant state to avoid baiting for other people to kill them.
Do you agree or not?
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
The thing is, the sting to corruption is in how it can snowball. A small amount of corruption isn't an issue - a lot of corruption is a big issue. The reason a small amount of corruption should be avoided is not because of the penalties of a small amount of corruption, it is because of how easily that small amount of corruption could turn in to a large amount of corruption.
Make it so players can flag up as a combatant to take on a corrupt player, and you kill that snowball effect, taking the sting out of corruption.
As I said several pages ago, the reason we can not assume that Intrepid would want players to be able to flag up against corrupt players is because it is essentially a part of the design that corruption snowballs. Allowing players to flag up removes that snowballing, and as such is a fundamental change to the system.
Now, it may well be that Intrepid want to give players a way to lower their penalty against corrupt players. However, if they did decide to allow players to do that, they would need to do it in a way where the snowballing effect of corruption were kept in place, which means the toggle system as proposed absolutely would not be the method they would look at.
Again, this is the point I conceded where a toggle could potentially make things easier for one group of players in one situation, but as I also said at the time, it seems as if Intrepid are focusing more on the corrupt players in that regard, not the non-combatants. Additionally, as I also said, if it did turn out that Intrepid wanted to do something for these players, there are things that they could do other than a toggle, or they could even do a toggle that only workd on corrupt players, so as an arguement as to why a toggle should exist, this particular point (even though I concede is a singular case where a toggle could be useful) is not really pointing to said toggle being the best answer. I'm not sure what the part you want me to agree to here is - because I disagree with the "if" part of what you are asking here.
The corruption system is not designed to discourage players going corrupt, it is designed to stop players being murder hobos.
The way it stops this happening is by being a penalty that snowballs.
The penalty for killing one or two non-combatants is essnetially trivial. The penalty for killing 10 or 20 is crippling. This is by design.
Look you clearly missed the entire concept of the corruption system as spelled out currently. The corruption is 100% in place to discourage someone from killing a non combatant first and foremost. This in part is designed to punish a player that removes player agency from another. However the ironic side of the whole corrupt player attacking a non-combatant is then the corruption system removes player agency from non combatants who get attacked (or initiate the attack) by forcing a flagging state on them.
I'll spell this out for you.
Non-combatant Tyrantor kills non-combatant Noaani - Tyrantor removed player agency from Noaani.
Tyrantor becomes corrupt.
Tyrantor attacks non-combatant CROW3 - Corruption system removes player agency from CROW3 if he attacks back or not by forcing non combatant flagging on him.
Do you see the flaw in the system design here when player agency is removed? No probably not?
This means that once I'm corrupt anyone I attack (or that attacks me) the game then is forcing death penalties on the player base regardless of their actions all because I'm corrupt. Once I go corrupt the game actually punishes the player base the same way the game is trying to "protect" the player base.
I'll agree that the punishment for continuing to kill non-combatants is that the corruption get's worse for the corrupt player by no means however should this be the basis for the game removing player agency in the same way that killing a player does.
The toggle does not remove a snowball effect it just gives the attacked or attacking non-combatant the option to then force further corruption on the corrupt player (a.k.a) player agency - which you know is the primary reason for causing corruption in the first place.
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
I see this as the one and only time there could be a valid reason for a toggle - however, there are other options that would only apply to this singular situation that Intrepid could look to use in order to fix this singular situation - if they deem it to not be as they intend it to be.
Is that clear enough for you?
They do not need to add in a fundamental change to the PvP system in order to solve this one potential situation - which is what your argument now seems to be focused on them doing.
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