Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
So attack a random player every 5 minutes, but don't kill them.
I mean, this is such an edge case we are talking about here that it isn't really worth altering the game to accommodate.
That said, I wouldn't actually care about this if it only applied to solo players. My issue with it is the changes it would make to the feel of the game if it were large groups of players all flagging up and running around.
But, if the Corruption system is designed to decrease the likelihood of players getting randomly attacked, then that goes against that whole concept.
That isn't what it is designed to do, that is just a thing that it will do.
It is designed as a punishment to people that *kill* non- combatants, it has no design intention in relation to people simply attacking others, which is why it doesn't really do anything if you simply attack another player.
I mean, if the idea of the corruption system was to prevent people from attacking other players, then surely the penalty associated with corruption would be applied when you attack other players, not when you kill non combatants - wouldn't you think?
Why would you ever want to attack another player without wanting to kill them? Is there a benefit to it that I'm not aware of?
A punishment itself is a system to deter players from carrying out an action. Having a deterrent is a way of trying to decrease the frequency of the action, and decreasing the frequency decreases the likelihood of it happening. Look, we can debate semantics all day, but you've still not come up with a solid reason against being allowed to open yourself up to being attacked if you so choose to do so. It's getting to the point where you're just trolling for the sake of it.
You are saying that there may be one player out there somewhere that really wants to harvest with the combatant flag, I simply provided you with an easy way in which that player can achieve that without needing to make a change like this that would have somewhat more far reaching effects on the game as a whole.
That's what this entire thread is about. Gaining the Combatant flag without having to piss off other players.
No.
This thread is about a toggle that players can switch on at will. This is a bad idea, and not at all necessary.
So, if this was a choice you made at character creation that stayed with you for the rest of the game, would you have a problem with it then?
Yeah I agree the guy gathering berries probably isn't going to flag for combat but how about this. If you've got a group of 8 farming a dungeon (or other xp area) it's been my general experience to continue until I'm encumbered before "banking" - now lets say the entire group has full inventory/mules and you decide you want to go back to your node. This group of 8 will essentially be carrying the same amount of resources as a single personal caravan can hold no? So what is the difference here if the same 8 players would have to flag for combat to transport the same amount of goods with a caravan versus flagging themselves to ride back to town? You understand the irony here is that the Caravan gives everyone who wants to attack it the option to also toggle into combatant mode by accepting attack on the prompt right? So by definition it's the exact same thing. You've got 8 players who opted into combatant mode by initiating the caravan and X # of players also opting into combat just by accepting to attack the caravan. To further illustrate the point these will likely be groups of players "roaming" the open world for PvP go figure.
You very clearly do not understand the conversation - if a player flags themselves as combatant it opens them up for being attacked with no penalty for the attacker to do so. Which is exactly the same thing as fighting back but the attacker has additional risk in that scenario. If I'm the player making the decision to flag myself I create more risk for myself and less risk for anyone who wishes to attack me. If you're trying to equate the "core" system of the game i.e. corruption system to being tied to a player "fighting back" it's not true. Player agency is the core aspect of the game and if that is the case then flagging ourselves for combat should be allowed.
Here is a quote you should digest.
You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[32] – Steven Sharif
Right now as you wish the game to be it will give the attacker all of the player agency in the sense of risk vs reward. For example if the attacker believes the benefits to go corrupt outweigh the risks of doing so they can attack and kill anyone they want where as if the non-attacking player would prefer the risk of forfeiting any corruption protection to avoid the additional death penalties they can not without having to actively react once another player chooses to attack them. Frankly it seems ass backwards to me from a player agency perspective since the decision isn't available until after being attacked for the defending non-combatant versus available as a decision before anyone has attacked anyone.
You absolutely don't understand group PvP if you believe players need to get better if they can't "fight back" in every single situation - though if a player is really that bad shouldn't they be given the option? I mean if they suck at the game so much they never get a chance to fight back then that means they have no player agency.
The general TTK outlined for live game is currently 30s to 1m in a 1v1 scenario. If it's 3v1 or 8v1 or 16v1(this ratio is intended as an example of a target being called in group v group combat) etc it would seem probable that after an opening attack, sustained or long CC that a focused attack on one player could result in death prior to having any ability to "fight back" again removing all player agency from the defending side of the equation. While it's understandable that 1 or more targets may go corrupt as a result of this however that doesn't justify removing player agency from one side of the equation as a punishment for the player who was killed, this becomes a double punishment for the non-combatant imo.
Lastly since we're going to actively flag into combatant for every other aspect of PvP (Caravans, Sieges, Guild Wars and Arena play) Why then should Hunting Grounds be any different? If the game is at it's core designed around risk and reward and player agency why then should this be limited or restricted in a single aspect of 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
thank you for summarizing all the key points that myself and many of the people on this thread are thinking but don't have the time or eloquent speech to express
I'm not sure how a choice like this at character creation would even look. That makes no sense.
In a caravan, you are putting the entire caravan and it's contents at risk.
If you are killed as a non-combatant, you are likely to drop 10 - 20% of the raw materials and certificates you have on you (this percentage is not yet known - 10 - 20% is pure conjecture on my part). If you are flagged as a combatant, that amount would then be 5 - 10%. This is as opposed to the 100% loss if you lose PvP while runninga caravan.
You asked what the difference was between someone running a caravan and someone flagging up to run back to town after filling their inventory in group content - I think the above fairly clearly illustrates that difference.
If you fill your inventory in a dungeon and have to run back to town to empty that loot out, what right do you have to halve the risk you are getting yourself in to? If my friends and I are able to kill you before you have time to react, then we absolutely deserve to get that full value of items you drop, as well as the corruption that goes with it.
If I am raiding an instanced raid zone and need to run the loot myself and my guild earned in there, we should also not have access to a mechanic that halves any potential loss we may see if we are attacked and killed. If you are able to kill us before we can react, then you deserve that same full value.
I will point out now that we are a long way from the original suggestion of adding this flag so that parties roaming around the game looking for PvP can find each other easier.
Also, another major sticking point that I haven't felt a need to even bring up yet - if there is an automatic way to flag as a combatant at any time, in any location, that means people that know they are about to die in PvE will simply flag up to halve their death penalty. Even if they make it so you can't flag while in combat, there are many, many times in PvE when you know you are about to die before you are in combat. I understand the conversation perfectly well.
If you are flagged, you stand to suffer less penalties as you are unable to be killed as a non-combatant. You may see a small increase in the number of people attacking you, but that isn't guaranteed (nor even really that likely).
Additionally, if you are flagged, your potential attacker faces both less risk and less reward. They will know they won't gain corruption, but they also know they will only get that 5 - 10% from you.
Basically, you are lowering the risk and the reward for all parties involved.
However, it is neither the person flagging nor the person that would attack them that is my concern with a system like this - it is the bystander that all of a sudden finds themselves playing a game where most people are flagged as combatants, rather than just those few that have been involved in PvP in the last few minutes.
If you are flagged as a combatant and you come across some lone player harvesting materials, it is a much easier decision to attack them and take some stuff than it is if you come across that same player in that same location, but you are not flagged as a combatant.
This is a mental barrier, nothing more. It is similar to how driving 10 minutes to a shop is much more of a chore if you are at home than the same drive to the shop is if you are already in your car. Getting in your car isn't hard, but it is a mental barrier - just as flagging for combat is to most players in an MMO.
Now, I am not saying that this will result in people being attacked that don't want to be attacked, and that PvP in Ashes should be concensual or what ever, because that isn't true. Ashes needs (and will have) a lot of players attacked and killed that would rather not.
The thing is, while that absolutely will happen, it needs to be rare enough that the game and the players in the game can still function. If players have even a 25% expectation of being attacked if they go out to harvest, they won't go out to harvest - at least, not in Ashes.
My main concern (though clearly not my only concern) with this is that removing that mental barrier will make attacking other players too easy. You do not need to actively attack a player to flag as a combatant, so CC shouldn't really prevent that from happening. If you are stunned, you can still target an attacker and attempt to activate an ability on them. The ability may not fire, but the fact that you attempted to activate it is enough to flag you as a combatant.
Your argument here only really works if it is the player being CC'd, as opposed to the character - which could make for an interesting game mechanic a few decades from now.
The main reason for this is because you can force me in to PvP in the open world (hunting grounds), but you can't force me in to any of the other activities.
This one fact means open world PvP absolutely needs different rules to other forms of PvP, and this is one such rule.
Oh good now you're just flat out lying to try and make points and save face (everyone reading enjoy counting the lies).
If a caravan is destroyed (becomes a wreckage) it will drop a portion of the goods it was transporting.[4][65][66]
I'm not sure how this illustrates anything except for your complete lack of knowledge of the game you've been involved in discussions in for years and years and years beyond mine.
Here you are contradicting yourself in the same post thank you for making this easy.
So you've suggested you deserve the loot if you can kill someone before they can react and at the same time you've flat out lied about another game mechanic you have absolutely no knowledge about, but with that same lie you've countered your own arguement as there would be no possible way you could kill someone before they can just click their own ability right? I mean you've told us how rare it's going to be to kill people before they can react unless of course it's just me personally and you know how bad I am at games I can't save myself everyone else can do this right?
What do you expect people who are hunting caravans to be doing?
This was mentioned earlier in the thread and while I can't confirm or deny this it's something that doesn't seem like the developers are going to intend for PvE death to be affected by it. For example a guild could just bring an alt that is untagged and have this alt attack them to flag their group before any hard pulls. You know PvE players exploiting the system.
This is inherently untrue (again). If I increase the risk i'm attacked by flagging how am I lowering risk for everyone? I would say it's fair to say you don't understand it (still).
Ok so you're worried about the bystanders that see purple tags now?
Another lie. The combatant faces the same corruption penalty if they are flagged or not so how does it make the decision easier? Also even in this scenario of yours proved to have any relevance to reality the combatant would go from combatant to corrupt so there would by in large be signifigantly more corrupted players in the world which of course was one of your prior arguments on how the game is going to need more corrupted players and this toggle system would lower that count - so glad to see you can talk out of both sides of your face.
Another lie. Players will have a 100% expectation of being attacked (regardless if flagging is an option) since there is no safe zone to "go out and harvest".
The open world already has different rules in the fact YOU could remain non-combatant which is the entire point of this system it doesn't affect YOU only the people who want to toggle it on.
I sort of lost count but that was about 6-8 flat our lies in your reply... must be getting desperate.
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 caravan will drop a portion of the items contained, sure.
However, the rest are destroyed (as per current understanding). Additionally, the caravan itself is destroyed - and caravans contain several equipment slots in themselves that can be crafted and upgraded. So you will not only lose all of the materials in your caravan (surrendering a portion over to your attackers), but you now also need to either repair or rebuild your caravans along with all upgrades you have made to it. Actually, if you read what I said, I said that you and I should both have to subject ourselves to the exact same level of risk, and neither of us should have an option where we can lower it. Additionally, if either of us were attacking the other, we should both have the oppoprtunity to increase our chance at rewards if we and the people we are with are able to do so before the other can react.
This is the oppposite of contradicitng myself - I am literally saying things should be the same for both of us.
Additionally, every time I have said that we should get full value rewards if we are able to kill someone before they can react, I have been specifically saying "we", as in multiple people. It absolutely will be impossible (based on Stevens claims on TTK and player power) for one player to kill another that quickly. However, a coordernated group should be able to do that, if they so chose.
That is the power of cooperation in an MMO. You can do things individual players can not do.
However, the comment you quoted of mine when saying this was specifically in reply to you saying that prolonged CC will take player agency from others. It won't.
I don't expect to see people hunting caravans. At least, not after the first few months of the game being live.
Taking on a caravan will almost always be due to randomly happening upon one and deciding that you have enough people on hand to take it down.
People may set up ambushes in choke points - but I don't really consider that hunting.
Actively going around looking for caravans won't be efficient enough to bother with, expecially considering players running them will quickly catch on to who is attacking them and simply not run caravans when they are online.
This is essentially how it happened in Archeage as well - the game the caravan system is modeled on. That game had bands of people hunting caravans for the first few months, but then after a while people just stopped running them in dangerous areas while those people were online - going as far as logging in at 3 or 4 am to run them more safely.
If you are able to automatically flag as a combatant without entering actual PvP combat, then the risk to me is lowered as I know I can attack you without gaining corruption. That is an automatic and obvious lowering of the potential risk I have to contend with, and is even something you seem to grasp when you say that flagging will increase the chances of you being attacked.
Additionally, since you are automatically flagged as a combatant, if myself and my friends come along and see you, we no longer have the ability to coordernate attacks and kill you before you have time to react, something we should be able to do if we have that level of coordernation. As such, you face less risk, as you will not be able to be killed before you can react.
These are all things you know and understand, and even agree with. I am not sure how it is that you can say they are true, and then when I say they are true you disagree with them all of a sudden. Sure, flagging may increase the chances of PvP happening, but it will lower the quantity of materials you are putting at risk, thus lowering the risk.
You say it is removing player agency from you if you can't make the choice to pre-flag to lower your risk, I say it is removing player agency from me and my friends if we don't have the option to attempt to kill you before you can flag - that is the issue with player agency in regards to PvP, every decision is taking it from one party and giving it to another - this is why player agency is a poor argument to use in a PvP discussion.
I have always been mostly concerned about the feel of the game as a whole - or the bystanders, as you claim. I've been saying this whole thread that this was about 90% of my concern with the suggestion. This change would drastically alter the feel of the game.
You also completely missed my point about the mental barrier of flagging. As in, right over your head. I specifically said it was a mental barrier, not a systems based barrier.
Players will not expect to be attacked 100% of the time. They will know they could be attacked at any time, but if someone is planning on making 50 trips how to harvest materials and bring them back home in a given play session, they wouldn't expect to be attacked 50 times. If this were how the game plays out, the game will have a life of no more than 6 months before it is considered not worth suggesting to new players - which will see the population of the game decline sharply after 9 months.
Now, I'm sure you know this. I'm just going to assume you got confused between "expect to be attacked" and "are aware that they could be attacked".
The open world does have different rules, one of them is (and should remain) that you are a non-combatant until you are engaged in PvP combat. That should be the point at which you move from being a non-combatant to being a combatant - being in combat.
For example I suggested that Caravans would be no different than players/group(s) of players mulling large amounts of farmed resources and materials back after hours of xp because they would manually flag into combat by initiating or attacking said Caravan. You're response is they're different because there is more risk for the caravan, when it shouldn't make a difference in principle it's the same thing. (group > resources > toggle > PvP).
What exactly are you attributing risk to? Cost? Time? The loss of a caravan? You're arguement of risk doesn't even take into consideration what is inside of the Caravan, is it a bunch of level 1 items or level 50 items? This is also suggesting that what a caravan would be worth more than potential loot drops, epic mats? Flying mount eggs? You don't have a single ounce of concept to what is worth what but some how you've drawn a line in the sand to say very specifically the Caravan carries more risk. Impressive.
Now moving on you're suggesting that a group of players should be allowed to grief? The fact you're saying a group of players needs the ability to kill someone before that person can fight back so they have the "option" to take more loot if they want to is laughable. The way this reads is that the developers designed the game to allow a group of players to grief solo players if they want more loot because well that's only fair.
Can you also prove that all a player has to do while in CC is click an ability while targeting an enemy? Or is this just more brilliant opinion written as fact? You've acknowledged this twice now. Show us something on it or stop claiming bs like usual.
So you seem to think that the feel and "mental" barrier to pvp is going to drastically change because certain players opt in for PvP? By this logic should you not be making a thread to suggest that there needs to be a 10 hit rule before you flag for PvP? I mean let's make the barrier to entry mean it. Like 1 hit's not much of a mental barrier but 10 now we're talking. The only "barrier" to attacking someone currently is the corruption system and again this does not change if you don't opt into combat it's really simple. You want to make up barriers to entry keep kidding yourself.
Let's see how this plays out in Noaani's head: Group A attacks Group B. Group B defends themselves and is now flagged for combat - well shit now that they're flagged they see a bunch of solo non combatants walking by and say "Well our barrier for PvP is down lets kill them too" right.
The non-combatant / combatant / corrupt player status is there to protect the non combatant not to stop people from flagging for combat. This is why it's a PENALTY to die as a non combatant and a corrupted player and the combatant has the least death cost. Why is this concept hard to grasp?
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
Everything is subject to change however, and, test aspects could survive to the end product. We will see what happens when the NDA Lifts and Alpha 1 actually starts.
The important point is the amount of what ever material you are carrying is being put up in the name of risk. If you have 100 of *any* material, and you are putting 20% of that material at risk, that risk is inherently less than if you are putting 100% of that material at risk.
The question as to what material, or even what value I am using to dictate risk (or value, or what ever), only makes sense if there is a check of some kind on what materials players have before flagging and/or before starting a caravan.
Since that is obviously not something that should happen, what I am attributing risk to is immaterial to the conversation.
As to the cost of the caravan itself - while it is likely to not cost more than the value of materials it contains, it likely will be a not insignificant cost. Regardless of exactly what it does cost, one thing for sure is that it is a cost that only applies to the caravan situation of these two scenarios that we are - for some reason - talking about.
I never said a group of players should be allowed to grief. Fact is, unless Intrepid adds in a cheesy mechanic to limit how quickly a player can take damage, there will technically be a means for people to be killed quick enough to not be able to respond.
I said that if a group of players are able coordernate and cooperate enough to kill a player before that player has a chance to react, then more power to them. That isn't griefing - and as a PvP player I would expect better from you (you don't want me to start calling you the carebear now, do you?).
As to saying that players will be able to flag for combat if CC'd, while we have no reason to assume that will be the case, we also have no reason to assume it won't. We do, however, know that Intrepid are not keen on players being able to be stunlocked, so if it turns out that players are being stunlocked too much, while that one suggestion may not eventuate, we can be somewhat sure that something will.
Mental barriers are absolutely massive. Almost every action people take - in game or in life - is controlled in part by mental barriers. Most of the control developers have on players in games is due to where they place these mental barriers.
Secondly even if the Caravan is 100% loss, unless the Caravan is required to be 100% full then it's reasonable to consider a group or multiple groups of players (say raid party) come back from a dungeon run could easily be carrying more materials and drop more on death (risk more per your explanation) then a single Caravan.
For example if I start a Caravan with a single mat and even if the Caravan would then loose 100% of a single mat it's substantially less than (I'll use your random %) 20% of 100 of the same item(s) that a player or group could be carrying.
You might say "why would anyone start a caravan with 1 mat" simple to find PvP or maybe a guild wants to run a "fake/decoy" Caravan leading the way for their real loot to follow behind in a seperate one, "Let's see if X guild is honoring the alliance" or "If this Node is raiding our Caravans". Etc there will be plenty of reasons once the game launches, once the cost to build a caravan eventually becomes irrelevant which seems inevitable.
So now your Caravan has less risk - thank you for explaining the reason for it.
No the fact is Intrepid doesn't need to add a "cheesy" mechanic, simply letting players toggle into combatant mode removes the loss of player agency from your "coordinated group attack" and then your group and that player both have agency. If your group is only looking for "more loot" targets then you'll have to move on from the player who flags themselves that simple. Or do you believe that everyone will flag themselves and the toggle option makes non-combatant an after thought? Lastly how does your group know how much material someone is carrying? How are you justifying this coordinated attack for "more loot"?
Oh so players can't toggle to combatant mode while in CC now? I'm sure the development team doesn't want players to "stun lock" people in 1v1 scenarios but as your "coordinated group" points out it will be impossible to stop it from a GvG stand point which was my initial point in the OP so I'm glad you agree with me, however you're suggesting it should be allowed for griefing purposes by removing player agency if the group can kill you fast enough and I'm suggesting to let the player make the decision if they want to forfeit their safety for less penalty.
The mental barrier in the game is the current design of risk vs reward and it is only in relation to the corruption system. You're argument has no merit.
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
Caravans are currently 100% loss for all mats held within if they are successfully destroyed.
A group (no matter its size) will realistically never be at risk of losing more by running all their materials on foot, than if they all used a caravan. The major reason being they simply can’t carry as much on foot as they could with a caravan.
Not that this extremely niche case has any bearing on the fact that removing an aspect of risk and reward 100% of the time via a toggle goes against the design philosophy of this game.
You have already stated a reason people would use this toggle is to reduce their death penalties even in the face of them failing to fight back whether by choice or because they afk’d or because the attacker(s) had enough skill to kill them before they could flag.
That is not a healthy thing to introduce, no matter how much you would find it convenient. The same as we absolutely do not need a group finder, even though people swear up and down the convenience is worth the negative impact it has on the game.
What aspect of the risk and reward is being removed? Considering combatant is firmly entrenched in the current game aspect of risk and reward I do not understand what your thinking here?
I would never suggest people use this for AFK that makes no sense unless of course they view less death/item loss more important than flagging for combat so anyone can attack them. AFK the non-combatant would make the most sense because an attacker would most likely stop attacking them before killing if they're just sitting there afk and don't fight back unless that person doesn't care about going corrupt and in that case this person was going to get attacked regardless of how he flagged.
You and Noaani both make arguments as if everyone in the game is going to flag combatant is that how you see it? Everyone is going to do it?
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
You’ve implied it will be used by more than PvPers, specifically by gathers looking to reduce their potential penalties. You’ve also yet to say why it would be useful outside of protecting a portion of your materials.
In high contention areas, the majority of people will be combatants, making the toggle unneeded and functionally useless. And PvP zones everyone is a combatant while in them.
The first scenario you presented, a coordinated group 100-0’ing an enemy healer who has yet to enter PvP combat, is fully acceptable. In exchange for a significant advantage in the following fight, they accept a small amount of corruption.
Risk and reward does not stop at one player. Your toggle removes a choice of risk and reward from another player, which is the problem. Your toggle negates a portions of your risk at all times, which is also a problem. Citing psychological aspects of risk is meaningless in term of game mechanics. It’s no different than dyeing your armor red and calling that “accepting more risk“.
If you want to PvP a lot, attack people. Flag for combat the way you’re supposed to. You don’t need a toggle to show people that you want to PvP.
Edit: It’s strange you imply that people won’t be combatants if it’s not automatic. Ashes is a PvX game, with more benefit to fighting than not fighting. Of course people will be combatants in most cases where there’s something to be gained or lost. That’s exactly why this suggestion is pointless.
What do you believe the corruption system is in place for? Is it to limit griefing or to give the attacker more loot for killing non combatants? If other detail this please.
My toggle very simply makes risk/reward equal for all parties who agree to engage in pvp being that both the attacker and defender have the exact same risk/reward. Prove this wrong.
That's exactly the point the current system is "attack people to flag" this is disruptive to the people who do not want to flag - why would a system that promotes attacking non combatants be better than allowing me to focus my attention (if combatants are available) on them instead? What I've stated is that it's more entertaining to attack people who are actively looking for a fight OR open to a fight versus attacking someone on a "wait and see" approach.
I've never once implied that people won't be combatants if it's not automatic - feel free to find a quote and relay that here. You seem to think it's pointless because everyone will fight back (or almost everyone) if that is the case why do we need the non-combatant in the first place? LOL you are actually helping my point.
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
Non-combatant state is there for people who really just refuse to fight on principal. Or for people who have nothing of significance to lose and find that giving corruption is more valuable to them than the resources they would lose by dying. It’s there for people who believe it will deter attackers or for those who simply don’t care to start fights.
It seems to me that you’ve already convinced yourself that anyone disagreeing with you is just here to rain on your one-man parade. You want a PvP toggle, others want a no-PvP toggle. Neither fit into the vision of Ashes.
That very last sentence is key, it was said as a definitive, as in, this is how you become a combatant, and is the only way that will be possible.
Ok so by your own theory on what non-combatant is for, I can see you put a lot of thought into this - it sounds like it's their for the a small(er) percentage of the overall game population? So then let me ask you this. Would it make more sense to start as combatant and have the option to toggle to non combatant versus the other way around? Does the flagging not seem backward based on your own reasons for someone to be non-combatant?
Well seeing as the thread has essentially dwindled down to Noaani and myself replying in bulk there was plenty of support so you can call it a one man parade all you want or you're welcome to scroll back through the thread and count support vs not. It's fairly obviously they've essentially copied from L2 corruption system and while the system worked fine there it wasn't perfect - I believe the toggle would perfect the system.
You and Noaani both failed to counter any arguments from a player agency perspective other than "If we want to kill non combatants we deserve that option" and that argument is fine if my suggestion in the very least was saying to do away with non combatants. All my suggestion says is "give us the choice" instead of forcing it on us. You know again the player agency thing which is actual a core philosophical component to the game play design.
And don't worry Noaani it's not a quote I haven't heard before hence the reason for my post. If you keep listening you will notice that he explains "Generally we want to incentivize consensual pvp by offering less death penalty".
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
Desire does actuate whether you engage or not but desire is not the ultimate condition, action is the ultimate condition.
The Caravan System doesnt even use the Hunting Ground flags. Adding a toggle to the caravan system would push the caravan system into the hunting ground flags.
There are limited spheres of action where hunting ground flags aren't applied and I do not want the caravan system to change.
After specifically outlining exactly how to become a combatant.