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
No, the "focus" was to get you up to speed on what was discussed several pages back.
As I said back then as well, *IF* Intrepid see this as an issue (they may, they may not), the a toggle isn't the immediate remedy for it, as a toggle as suggested is a large sweeping change to the game, when all that is needed is a small alteration to address one potential scenario that could be handled better.
Rather than a toggle per say, how about a button that flags your character as a combatant for an amount of time equal to if you hit another player but with an equivalent cooldown. In addition, if you are a green player and deal damage to a red player this goes on cooldown, meaning you can choose to stay as a green or immediately turn purple.
I believe this would retain the players consent for pvp, choice to punish a corrupted player if they kill them, and make sure they can't exploit such a button to reduce loot drop when they start to lose a fight.
However, I still question the need for it. It is needing to address too many issues that it is creating itself, and is also trying to address an issue that should be addressed elsewhere.
I personally think the remedy to the corrupt player fighting the non-combatant needs to be something that keeps the non-combatant status on that player - unless the corruption system is altered so that a corrupt player attacking a combatant still gains corruption (which would have other consequences that I wouldn't want to go in to right now - and so wouldn't suggest).
To me, this is the biggest change the toggle would have - and I don't think the implications of it can be overstated.
This is why my suggestion several pages ago of altering the death penalty (at least in terms of resource drops) for a non-combatant that is killed by a corrupt player seems to still make the most sense to me.
It surely isn't the only remedy, I don't for a second doubt that. However, it is the only remedy suggested here that retains the snowballing effect of corruption that is designed in to the game at present - and as such that we have to assume is intended. The toggle being asked for here does not in any way need to be the remedy to this specific situation.
What I could see, as a means of providing what was actually asked for in the OP, is the ability to place an icon above your characters head signifying that you are open to any and all PvP. No mechanic or system implications, just a signifier that the player is up for a fight. Since this is what the OP actually wanted - a means of letting others know they are up for PvP - I see no real reason to make a system that does any more than letting others know they are up for PvP.
Surely that would have the same effect as what you've been worried about. Players with it would be seen as the harder target, and players without it would be seen as the easier target.
It would, but the effects of it would be much more slight, because significantly fewer people would use it.
The issue with the toggle is that using it would technically be "the best" thing for most players to do most of the time, even if they are not specifically wanting PvP at the time.
An icon that says a player is open to PvP would only be used by those open to PvP, as there is no reason to use it other than that.
Yeah, it's crazy how the simplest ways to find pvp is not seeking random people in the world but actually participate in pvp oriented activities that flag you, and your opponents, as combatants. Who would have thought hehe.
You can't reduce the death penalty for the non-combatant dying at the hands of a corrupt player as then the consequences for killing a non combatant should be reduced as well. In addition that seems like an odd suggestion considering one of your arguments related to the toggle was then the player would just toggle and not fight back.
My OP while it mentions the need to let others know you're open to combat, the primary purpose of the post was to avoid unintended non-combatant death and corruption on groups of players who were consensual to combat. A icon would not require any risk, while the flagging toggle would. For example if you remain a noncombatant while having an icon placed above your characters head if you were attacked by someone or someone's whom you knew in advance was going to crush you there would be the opportunity for the non combatant to never flag up which causes the corruption.
The system needs to be a firm combatant flagging period. In terms of the button to flag for the same duration as current combatant lasts for with a equal or longer cool down, I can't really say until we're given more information on that. Personally I like the idea of opening myself for combat until I choose not to be instead of having to juggle a timer. Since the timer could burn off and have the same negative consequences the current non-combatant state would have in relation to group combat, focus fire and stuns.
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 reason I suggested a button that you need to juggle is basically to have it cut out the middle man issue of "attacking another player to flag". The idea is to give you the freedom to turn on combatant at any time but prevent you from exploiting the system for mechanical bonuses outside of their intended use.
This is the most updated information regarding guild wars per LT Toast response after the Q&A last month: Guild wars will likely be within that primetime window based on victory/surrender conditions, but this will almost certainly be subject to further testing.
As it stands this would mean that if you're logged in the game during a non-prime time window there may be no guild war or guild war flagging system available. Furthermore we have no current understanding of how many guilds can declare a guild war on - there are too many unknowns related to that at present. Furthermore I believe that open world pvp with consenting groups should not be subjected to a corruption system regardless if you can guild war everyone on the server 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
Frankly I'm open to either option as I think they both at a minimum provide additional player agency.
The concern I have about the timer situation is more to do with the unknown duration(s). For example if the duration is only 1-2 minutes it seems likely that you could be running around the open world in a group, see another group in the area move to engage them push the timed button - then they flee to avoid you while they heal/buff etc only to have them turn and engage you after your timer burns and if you got stun locked and killed while non combatant because your timer burned out while you were trying to catch them meh... lol
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
Well if the cooldown timer is equal to the amount of time you were flagged then they would not be able to game it in that situation. I believe the ideal time for the flag will be between 5 to 10 minutes but it would naturally need to be tested for mistakes in its design.
The reality is a general hunting ground could turn into a constant or near constant battle ground for a potential exp area, conflict outside of guild wars or other designed systems that require combatant flagging and having non-combatant as the designated toggle at anytime during is the problem with that. There was a live stream where Steven mentioned a L2 memory that played out over 8 hours in a random zone with 3 primary guilds fighting each other based on the information he provided it sounds like he died approx 200 times during that 8 hours lol. Now in L2 it's likely the guilds were possibly at war with each other and the flagging may have been a mute point, however in AoC again without understanding the guild war scenario or of course it could be random guilds that have never met that engage each other for hours in a zone the idea that corruption could play into that scenario is from my point of view outside of the design for corruption.
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
But, Han shot first!
Had a good chuckle at that one, thanks
Amazed this thread is still going on too.
Personally I want a toggle, and I want it to be the only way to be the aggressor. None of that cowardly BS attacking from green status to get the first blow on an unsuspecting target.
We know there'll be an option to not hit combatants if you're a non-combatant, right? So people with that turned on will have to toggle combatant status to fight back. I think it's fair that people without that turned on only have to fight back in order to flag as a combatant themselves. Essentially saving them a single click.
As I wrote in the beginning of this thread, I would also be ok with a different option in settings to auto-flag as a combatant if attacked. It's not a huge deal, but in certain situations where you either have to go afk or you're being ganked by 10 people and barely have time to react, and you want to minimize the death penalty, I can see it would come in handy.
No matter what you think of my opinion, this whole discussion is all an utterly moot point until we get to seriously test the game and perhaps try it all a few different ways. Unless you disagree with my opinion, in which case you are factually incorrect
I'm not saying that a reduction to death penalties for a non-combatant killed by a corrupt player is the only solution to that situation - in fact, I specifically said it wasn't the only viable solution.
I am still of the opinion that it is by design that a non-combatant can't flag up against a corrupt player, as this means they have no reason at all to not fight back - encouraging these people to do exactly that.
As soon as you give people a means by which to halve their penalty, you give them a means by which to cut and run.
I'm having a really hard time picturing the use of a toggle as you are suggesting it right now.
You suggest that it is for use during off peak times when guild wars and such aren't available, yet also suggest that it is to prevent unwanted non-combanat kills - a feat which would require a good many players attacking you at once.
I just can't quite square those two off - we are talking about 16+ players needed to instantly kill a player before they have time to react, which in off peak times is not only unlikely, but is somewhat suspicious if you see them heading towards you.
If the idea is to eliminate unwated non-combatant kills, then I would suggest the best solution to that specific issue is to notify players when an opponent engages force attack on you. This gives players a second or two warning before any attacks land, meaning players still need to maintain some level of reaction time in order to not be killed while a non-combatant by the group of 16 players that have suddenly surrounded them during off peak time, but a need for a reaction time of a few seconds is not unreasonable.
I mean, all of the reasons for wanting this toggle may well be valid issues, but the toggle itself isn't the best solution to any of them. Since it clearly creates other issues, game altering issues, the best thing to do is state the issues you see, and then see what resolutions others can come up with.
This whole thread seems more like arguing for a toggle than it is arguing for a fix to a specific issue.
Here is a great example of what I'm getting at Visual only at this timestamp 6:47 (not Jahlon's dialog) so you can picture it. I can't get the video to link at the exact time stamp once I paste it here on the forum for some reason however fast forward to 6:47 - you'll see the two groups engage. Steven manages to get 1 attack off before he is focus fired, CC'ed and then he tries to escape with a blink ability just to die immediately after the CC wore off. This was in a measly 5v5 scenario. Imagine how easy it will be to focus fire people in larger group(s).
Understanding that this is likely representative of low level combat it's reasonable to figure that the health/damage/CC is going to scale with abilities and levels. Add in larger group(s) and the reality of melee characters or just random players getting overwhelmed before having any alternative to fight back is plain as day.
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 situation you are talking about involves players that have not yet enabled force attack on you. This in itself gives players a few seconds. That in itself should be enough to prevent players paying attention to be killed as a non-combatant if they do not want to be - especially if you take in to consideration my suggestion above about a motification that someone has enabled force attack on you.
Then if we look at that clip you posted, there is a 10 second+ period where Steven would have been able to flag up for PvP if he needed to - despite the fact that he was outnumbered almost 2/1.
Assuming all opponents were attacking Steven (why wouldn't they be?), the 6 second TTK (by my counting) seems about on par with the 30 - 60 second TTK that is expected in a 1v1 situation. 6*7 is 42, which is almost right in the middle of that desired range. However, it is worth noting that as this is pre-alpha, there is no real balance as yet.
This is why I still don't see the need for a toggle. You are taking a clip that starts after everyone knows they are in a fight, and even then there is a 10 second period of time in which to flag up. Add in the 5+ seconds before the point that clip cut in where there would have been no doubt that PvP was coming, and that gives players 15 seconds to flag up.
If someone is unable to flag up in 15 seconds in a 7v4 situation, they don't deserve the option of what state they die in.
The point was to illustrate how fast a target could die in open world pvp it had nothing to do with the caravan specifically.
Furthermore your ratios are WAY off if you look at the video there were 2 maybe 3 people attacking Steven in total look at all the other players not even engaged in combat, one was running away 3 were too far away from the fight to even do anything lol. Yes its pre-alpha combat in addition to low level combat which is what we just saw no doubt about it however there will be no balance for 10 people focus fired on 1 person in a group combat situation.
This is why a toggle needs to exist for open world pvp plain and simple.
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
Yeah see, I don’t consider a successful focus fire to be an issue that needs preventing. I think it is perfectly fine that a coordinated attack in which someone will gain corruption, will also reap double the rewards as they would from a combatant. This is by design and isn’t a problem. It certainly isn’t a problem that warrants upturning the flagging system.
I don't think this falls into the scenario he is talking about as this can and would still happen.
The scenario Tyrantor is talking about is one where two groups are committed to fighting each other. Instead of both groups being able to go all out on the engage, in the current system, there would be this awkward engage where you start attacking but want to wait to make sure the person you are attacking has a chance to flag.
When looking at the system, I don't think the scenario where a person wanted to be a combatant but wasn't able to because they couldn't get an attack off is intended. If someone wants to be considered a combatant, i don't see why they shouldn't be able to declare themselves as one without attacking.
Because a want is not an action, which seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding behind this whole thread. The flagging system is there to reflect player behavior. It’s not there to safeguard your stuff when you’re successfully 100-0’d in a gank. It’s not there to show off your desire to PvP. It’s simply here to show the recent PvP behavior of a player, and treat them with appropriate buffs or penalties based on that behavior.
Groups are generally going to flag all at once due to the simple fact that buffing, healing, and otherwise affecting your combatant groupmates flags you as well. I just don’t imagine two groups engaging on each other will have that awkward wait time if their intention is to take over a contested spot, which is the primary sort of open world PvP Intrepid have said they want to encourage.
I disagree that the purpose of the system is to reflect the actions a player has taken. It is not a karma system. If that was the case, it would be a more permanent flagging system where people stay red/purple for longer. Instead, we have a temporary flagging system where you become a combatant after attacking someone or entering a battlefield zone and it will drop off after a period of time.
The purpose of the system is to deter greifing by attaching a penalty to killing someone who doesn't fight back. Combatant is a state given to someone who attacks someone and shows their desire to fight. I don't see how allowing someone to flag up outside of attacking someone contradicts this goal.
I'm still somewhat confused about the point of your toggle, is it for people that want to find PvP, or is it to prevent unwanted deaths as a non-combatant?
If it is the latter, then the clip you posted is a perfect illustration of why that won't be an issue. If that were an open world attack as opposed to a caravan attack, there would have been at least 5 seconds before that clip started in which it was obvious that PvP was about to happen - plently of time to flag up. On top of those several seconds, there was another 4 seconds in that clip in which Steven could have flagged up. If you completely discount the 6 seconds Steven was under attack, that is still at least 9 seconds from when PvP would have been obvious until it actually started.
I'm not sure how much clearer it can be made. A toggle is not needed to prevent open world PvP deaths as a combatant - a little situational awareness is (ie, don't suck). A toggle is not in any way needed for this.
Sure, it may well be that players can be killed in 6 seconds (in pre-alpha - where at least three were attacking and none of his group rendered assistance), but there is always a period of time before combat actually starts when it is obvious what is about to happen.
This means that non-combatant status all of a sudden makes it obvious you don't want to be attacked, making you an obvious target for those wanting PvP for profit.
You can argue what the greater effect of this would be if you like, but one thing is for sure, it would alter the paradigm of PvP in Ashes. Since it is so altering, there needs to be a specific need to add it that only a toggle can accomplish, which no one has yet provided.
uhhhh i wouldn't call it a need but the reason is in ops post. If two groups want to duke it out, unless they are careful, their could be situations where players get corruption because they didn't have a chance to fight back even though that was the intent.
The rest of your argument is an assumption of player behavior. If everyone walks around flagged all the time then they are opening themselves up to being killed without a chance of a penalty to the attacker. Even if the death penalty is halved, it's still a death penalty and they will be taking it more often because players will be attacking and probably killing them more often. If you are running around solo as a combatant and a group sees you, unless they know you, i see no reason for them to not attack you.
I see why you think it but in practice, i don't think it will be the logical "best thing."
And here you lay out exactly why this system is reflective of player behavior.
Non-combatant is the default because you have not engaged in combat with another player (passive behavior). You remain a combatant when engaged in combat with another player (active behavior), and for a short time afterwards before the system deems you no longer in combat. You become a corrupted player upon killing a non-combatant (hostile behavior).
You are trying to make the active status be available even while behavior remains passive. If you want PvP to be wide spread and healthy, you shouldn’t be suggesting changes that will encourage passive behavior.
The current system doesn't show off player behavior because you don't stay in the state long. You won't be able to tell which player pvp more, they are going to be green like everyone else. Even red players are encouraged to remove their corruption as soon as they can.
If the goal of the system is to show off player behavior, then i'd think players would stay in these states for longer so more than the people see them. Currently, you will probably only be seen by the person you fight and maybe the few others in the area before it the status drops off. How is it supposed to show off behavior if no one sees it?
I'm don't follow your active/passive status argument and how this would decrease pvp. With the current system, do you think people will attack each other just to get combatant status?
No, people generally wouldn’t attack other players at random just to flag purple.
And you’re failing to understand what it means to have a flag system that reflects player behavior. Logging every action a player ever takes and trying to consolidate that into what is by definition a non-permanent state is absolutely not feasible.
When I say it reflects player behavior, I say this with the understanding that player behavior changes. It is feasible to reflect semi-recent behavior such as their participation in combat, or their lack thereof. That’s what Ashes’ flagging system is designed to do.
The primary demographic who’d find this toggle useful would be passive players who now have an easy, permanent way to cut their death penalties in half with no action needed on their part. They would never have to suffer the penalties of a non-combatant in any PvP scenario. They would also be seen as less viable targets because they would never drop a full death penalty to their killer even if their attacker is successful in 100-0’ing the player who doesn’t fight back.
It would never be a “come fight me” toggle, it would be a “you’ll never get full value from me” toggle.