Combatant Opt-In

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

We have been given several examples of what players need to do in order to be able to attack another player. One example is to use an attack directly on a player, and thus you are now able to attack this player.

Another thing we have been told is that you can manually select players and enable attacks to land on them via a key combo (ctrl+f, for example).

This doesn't even make sense. If you can simply just "attack" another player why would anyone need to primitively "enable" attacks on another player? lol. Unless this enables attacks on group/guild mates to allow for duel/messing around mechanic I can see no reason why anyone would use this in a potential hostile pvp situation.

Neither of these options solve the issue or explain your designation above related to "flagging up" before combat. You specifically used the words "plenty of time to flag up" and "could have flagged up" which again if a character has no range attacks, limited range attacks or of course if they're not the person in the group who should be initiating the fight to begin with I'm not following how they had plenty of time or could have flagged up. Your explanation here does nothing to resolve the fact there will be non-combatants in a party when pvp starts that could and likely should be priority targets.

Tyrantor

Caeryl wrote: »

No it really isn’t presumptuous to assume that every class will have some method of becoming a combatant when engaged in active combat. It would be a rather large failure on Intrepid’s part if their final state of balance left it possible for one class to completely evade another for the entire duration of a mostly even fight. If such a situation begins occurring in alpha, I have full faith they will address it, and not with a toggle that would warp the PvP landscape for the worse.

Simply flagging combatant upon hostile casts on another player instead of requiring a damaging hit solves most of that issue.

Caeryl wrote: »

You're being intentionally dense again. Removing the requirement for the ability you cast to do damage before flagging you is exactly that, moving the flag condition from ability hit to ability cast. Please explain where from that you think all range requirements and cast conditions are suddenly null and void. I could not possibly make this any simpler.

I'd appreciate if you don't call me dense seeing as I'm just reading the words you wrote. See again your own words above. "left it possible for one class to completely evade another for the entire duration of a mostly even fight." If this player is "evading you" are they not out of range? Are they some how dodging your tab target abilities? Explain this and maybe i'll understand how it's not a range requirement issue.

Is it uncommon for certain classes to have kite abilities vs others in MMOs? They've made it very clear that the classes are not going to be balanced in 1v1 combat so it's arguably reasonable to assume some classes will be able to dirt nap others which may involve being able to "evade" their attacks. Lets just take a quick example here.

Ranger Kiting a Tank - while the tank may get some version of "charge", "stampede", "jump", "lunge" etc etc there is no guarantee this ability would be a max range option or equal to the rangers bow range. We also do not know how the skill/ability trees will rank up by points. Is it possible the more points you spend in your bow skill (or passive bow abilities) that my give your character additional range, while the tank could theoretically do the same thing if he hasn't spent his points there do you not think it's possible he could get kited? If he is getting kited - per your example of "cast button" vs "hit requirement" it seems reasonable to consider this an "out of range" cast, yes?

There will be no pure balance since you will be given choice on build and how it plays. Maybe this tank is really strong vs other melee classes but suffers vs range. The point being is he should be given the option to flag regardless of his build and your opinion if it sucks or not.

Caeryl

My eyes are gonna roll back into my skull if I keep trying to addressing dead end points with those who are determined not to see the whole picture. Just play the game as intended, where flag state is tied to player behavior and you don’t get to safeguard the “fought back” benefits by opening your UI.

Tyrantor

Good explanation

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

This doesn't even make sense. If you can simply just "attack" another player why would anyone need to primitively "enable" attacks on another player?

This is why I said we may end up with either, most likely the enable attack (force attack, as Steven has called it).

This is what I was talking about when you questioned what I was talking about - a question I am still unsure of the reason for, as surely you knew this.

If you are unaware that "flag up" in terms of an action would be the same as enabling force attack in Ashes, I am not sure what more to say.

Again, this is either total ignorance on your part, or another attempt to divert the conversation away in to the mundane.

You really need to try to stay on the actual topic and not try to take us all on these little side tangents of yours.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

If you are unaware that "flag up" in terms of an action would be the same as enabling force attack in Ashes, I am not sure what more to say.

Again, this is either total ignorance on your part, or another attempt to divert the conversation away in to the mundane.

Wait so I'm supposed to understand that when you say flag up it means the same thing as some obscure reference to "enable force attack" while neither relate to the other for the purpose of this thread in general? right....

Lets do this since you're claiming enabling force attack would be the same thing. Here is your paragraph but let's use the right words instead of "flag up" since that is clearly not what you mean right?

Noaani wrote: »

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 enable force attack . On top of those several seconds, there was another 4 seconds in that clip in which Steven could have flagged up enable force attack. 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.

Noaani wrote: »

This doesn't flag you as a combatant, it simply means your attacks are now able to land on the player in question.

So what exactly is solved by this that you felt it was relevant to bring to our attention?

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If you are unaware that "flag up" in terms of an action would be the same as enabling force attack in Ashes, I am not sure what more to say.

Again, this is either total ignorance on your part, or another attempt to divert the conversation away in to the mundane.

Wait so I'm supposed to understand that when you say flag up it means the same thing as some obscure reference to "enable force attack" while neither relate to the other for the purpose of this thread in general? right....

Lets do this since you're claiming enabling force attack would be the same thing. Here is your paragraph but let's use the right words instead of "flag up" since that is clearly not what you mean right?

Noaani wrote: »

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 enable force attack . On top of those several seconds, there was another 4 seconds in that clip in which Steven could have flagged up enable force attack. 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.

Noaani wrote: »

This doesn't flag you as a combatant, it simply means your attacks are now able to land on the player in question.

So what exactly is solved by this that you felt it was relevant to bring to our attention?

If you have enabled force attack on a character, then in theory all you need to do to become a combatant is to begin casting an ability on them.

The check for this - we have reason to assume - happens on activation, not on actual casting of the ability, so we have no reason to assume that a failed activation won't also flag you (failed due, perhaps, to being CC'd).

This means the only reaction a player realistically needs is in relation to enabling force attack,an action for which they have an absurdly long time to perform.

This means the scenario where a player is killed before being able to flag simply should never happen, unless the player was asleep.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

The check for this - we have reason to assume - happens on activation, not on actual casting of the ability, so we have no reason to assume that a failed activation won't also flag you (failed due, perhaps, to being CC'd).

This seems like a reach if there ever was one, to try and explain your version of "flag up". This is suggesting that the game is going to determine intent of a failed activation to flag our characters? I'll give you this, you will dig the hole as deep as you need to go for that reply.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

This seems like a reach if there ever was one

The check for flagging in relation to healers is being put at the start of the cast as opposed to the end of the cast.

This is a known fact. Look it up on Ashes 101 if you want.

Since this is known and not in dispute (go for it, if you want that discussion again), then we can make an assumption that this will hold true for all abilities, not just for heals. There is no need to produce a second system for the exact same purpose if there is already one in place, especially if that existing system will work just fine in all situations.

While it is an assumption until we hear otherwise, it is a fairly safe assumption to make right now. Assuming that flagging will happen at the end of the cast is also an assumption, but it is one without any current basis other than it is what some other games do.

So, you either assume one thing that has at least some grounding, or you assume something that currently doesn't. Both are assumptions, that is not up for debate, however, one has at least some grounding and one doesn't.

So no, not much of a reach.

Tyrantor

There is a substantial difference between the game checking for the flagging status at the start of a heal spell that then heals versus intent to attack that fails to attack. I'm sure you can agree with this.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

There is a substantial difference between the game checking for the flagging status at the start of a heal spell that then heals versus intent to attack that fails to attack. I'm sure you can agree with this.

Yes, I do, and you'll not I said several times that it is an assumption.

However, I am sure you will agree that it makes sense that after specifically turning on force attack on a player, the act of attempting to then attack that player should be enough to toggle combatant status, even if the hit doesn't actually land.

By that point, the intent of the player has been made clear.

Since this is a system that needs to be designed anyway for healers, there is no real need to develop a parallel system for other classes.

That said, if you go back, this isn't the point. The point is - in the situations where you think this toggle will be used, almost without exception, players have more than enough time to flag up.

Nagash

So have you made any progress yet or is this thread still going in circles?

maouw

Nagash wrote: »

So have you made any progress yet or is this thread still going in circles?

don't you necromancers have some method of reading fate?
Tossing bones or something?
What do they say?

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

That said, if you go back, this isn't the point. The point is - in the situations where you think this toggle will be used, almost without exception, players have more than enough time to flag up.

You keep saying flag up... which you're not doing by enable force attack per your own admission.

Noaani wrote: »
This doesn't flag you as a combatant, it simply means your attacks are now able to land on the player in question.

If this "enable force attack" doesn't work how you expect it to, then do you at least see the reason why flagging up as combatant before a fight is going to be important? It seems like you agree from the stand point of "players will have more than enough time to flag up" ?

Sangramoire

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

It is basically a switch that gets turned on with the game and the players determine the amount of focus it actually gets during play.

Yes, this is all basically what I am saying.

What this means though, is that because of all of this, there is no need for a toggle for the combatant status in order to aid players in finding others to PvP with without any other meaning to it - which if you go back to the OP of this thread, is what was asked for.

The focus of PvP is the caravan, siege and war systems, and open world PvP (aka, corruption based PvP) is there as well, as a secondary system, that doesn't need additional encouragement to be used because players will use it when it is needed.

Players are already determining how often that system gets used - as it is purely a system that is there to be used when needed. There is no need to encourage open world PvP further than that, because the active encouragement of PvP in Ashes is in the caravan, siege and war systems. The corruption system is there to fill in the gaps, not to be any sort of focus.

This kind of thing is what happens when you argue an individual post, rather than arguing a full point of view.

You suggesting that the open world pvp is a secondary system is confusing to me. Considering the open world pvp (or rather ability to pvp) is actually the primary system in the game and all of the objective based pvp systems are in fact secondary systems designed to feed off of the open world pvp (conflicts).

The reason to allow players to flag is not to "find pvp" but rather to aid players in finding other players who accept the threat of pvp. You keep getting things twisted because you're looking at it from a perspective of someone who doesn't want to be in combat.

You're still here arguing that the toggle doesn't exist or won't exist based on contradictory proof that it currently does and will.

Im pretty sure he did not mean that open world pvp is a secondary system but that the corruption system is the secondary system, which it is. It's a system in place to help prevent griefing but they also try to incorporate it into the game naturally by also having the bounty hunter system. Flagging itself is not what the open world pvp is about. Open world pvp like Noaani has said is meant to have meaning behind it.

The caravan system is one of those ways Intrepid is introducing meaningful open world pvp into the game. There's a goal and a reward for those that attack and those that defend. There's meaning in that. Randomly attacking players is not meaningful which is why Intrepid has put a corruption system in AOC. That's the whole point of the system. You can still attack players in the open world randomly, it doesn't matter what color they are, all that matters is if it's worth it for YOU to attack them. You get more loot from players that you attack if they remain green, but then you gain corruption. You get less loot from those that flag but then you don't gain corruption. It's supposed to make you think twice before attacking someone and only encourage to attack someone if it's really worth it. Having a toggle to change your flag state undermines this system and the dangers that come with attacking someone.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

That said, if you go back, this isn't the point. The point is - in the situations where you think this toggle will be used, almost without exception, players have more than enough time to flag up.

You keep saying flag up... which you're not doing by enable force attack per your own admission.

This is semantics.

"Flag up" is the colloquial term used in every MMO ever to denote the action you need to undertake in order to engage in PvP.

In Ashes, that action is enabling force attack. Even if that doesn't change your combatant status, it is still the action that needs to be performed.

Ergo, in Ashes, flagging up is synonymous with enabling force attack.

If this "enable force attack" doesn't work how you expect it to, then do you at least see the reason why flagging up as combatant before a fight is going to be important?

If the system is drastically different from what I have attempted to explain to you is what we should be assuming it will be (based on what we have been told), then I would agree that something may well need to be changed.

That thing that may need to change does not necessarily need to bea toggle though.

The only thing necessary to make a toggle absolutely redundant is for there to be enough time for players to flag up from when PvP becomes obvious. There are many, many ways this could be achieved, and the way the system works as far as we know is only one such way. If it isn't working, Intrepid could just attempt a different method of giving players that required time.

Noaani

Nagash wrote: »

So have you made any progress yet or is this thread still going in circles?

@Nagash a bit of progress. I think we are almost there, to be honest - but I do hope someone asks about this in a Q&A.

Nagash

Noaani wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

So have you made any progress yet or is this thread still going in circles?

@Nagash a bit of progress. I think we are almost there, to be honest - but I do hope someone asks about this in a Q&A.

I'm happy to hear that

George_Black

18 pages for things that were explained on the 2nd

Tyrantor

I think Jeff was just as confused as I am with Steven's response but hey I'm sure we can resolve the issue in Alpha's/Betas when we get to test some group PvP and see how much corruption it causes before people can "force attack" lol.

George_Black

Tyrantor wrote: »

I think Jeff was just as confused as I am with Steven's response but hey I'm sure we can resolve the issue in Alpha's/Betas when we get to test some group PvP and see how much corruption it causes before people can "force attack" lol.

I am confused Jeff is confused. Perhaps it wasnt necessary coding at this stage of the production, but the flagging system and the /force attack either in the form of:
1) Holding down a key(L2 2003)
2) /force Fireball forceskill choice hotbar(L2 improvement)
3) Or 2 toggle redisigns from Intrepid to allow your action combat abilities to only apply to purple targets or any targets(if you aim to PK)
still maintains the system.

Your original proposal of /flagOn toggle, without landind a strike, dilutes many aspects of AoC open world PvP.

We can go for another 20 pages if you like, or you can pause and think about the information given to you and see the big picture of a PvP world you have not experienced before (not PvE friendly, not unrestricted PvP).

Tyrantor

No reason to go for another 20 pages the problem will be evident soon enough hence the reason for the thread and likely Jeff's confusion.