Combatant Opt-In

I've been really thinking about how the Corruption system is going to play out and it just seems like an annoyance from a group/guild pvp perspective. What I mean by this is, in the event there are mutual parties roaming for PvP it seems unfair or simply just out of place that the corruption system may play a part in this combat in a negative way. For example if two groups of 16 players are looking for combat and the first group stun locks a target or multiple and they die before they can "fight back" to initiate combatant mode this will cause corruption for 1 (or multiple) players in addition to added death penalties for the dead player(s) - all while it was the intention of all parties involved to engage in combat.

I would like to propose the option to OPT IN to combatant mode at any time to welcome PvP and avoid non-combatant death penalties due to stun lock, low health or other circumstances when being killed by another player.

I really can't see a downside to allowing players to opt-in at will for PvP content. I know for a fact I would likely prefer to be in combatant mode for almost all game play, though if for some reason I didn't want to be I could toggle it just like the heal mechanic to avoid the corruption thing.

Can anyone see a reason not to allow players to opt in to be flagged combatant at will? I would suggest it has the same "cool down" when toggling it as stepping out of normal combat would, what ever that ends up being (2 minutes, 5 minutes 1 hour etc).

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Nerror

The suggestion is to have an auto-combatant toggle, right?

Basically, instead of the player having to push the "I want to be a combatant and fight back" button manually, it auto-toggles the combatant state to ON, whenever attacked by another player.

This seems really trivial to code, and it saves a single key press or click for the player who is attacked, and perhaps saves them a second better used for fighting back. Obviously this shouldn't be known to the attacker beforehand.

I see no downside at all. I would definitely like @Steven Sharif to add this to the game if it isn't already

Tyrantor

Nerror wrote: »

The suggestion is to have an auto-combatant toggle, right?

Basically, instead of the player having to push the "I want to be a combatant and fight back" button manually, it auto-toggles the combatant state to ON, whenever attacked by another player.

Well it wasn't to have an auto toggle, though that would at a minimum prevent anyone who selects that to avoid non-combatant death which is 50% of the problem I see with corruption for groups willing to engage each other. I want to manually check myself into combatant mode.

Here would be an example of when this may come into play and so @Noaani can understand since he thinks everything open world is meaningless.

Group A is farming/leveling in an area outside of their node.
Group B shows up and decides they want this farming/leveling area for themselves and kills Group A.
Group B is now flagged for combat, possibly some corrupt - others may flag back to non-combatant after X duration.
Group A wants retaliation for their death and regroups.
Group B understands that Group A may come back and attack them. They decide to flag for combat because of this to avoid any first shot kills while in non-combatant mode (while they are farming/leveling).
Group A knows they will be going into a potential fight and decides to go into combatant mode for the same reason.
The two groups engage in combat for the rest of the night or until one side concedes defeat.
Outside of potentially the first engagement when Group A was caught off guard the PvP was expected from both parties and involved no random "roaming" and killing.

Now think about it like this - do you think that the members in Group A who may have suffered additional XP loss and material loss would have preferred to be flagged before combat to avoid the additional death costs? Even if you can't get your head around doing this yourself can you see the logic for other people to do this?

I want to point out that in multiple videos released there are constant occurrences in these videos when multiple groups are present that about half of the players on screen are flagged purple and the other half are flagged green - co-existing and not ruining the game or the dynamics of the game. If you watch the video posted up in this thread earlier you can see them actively killing mobs in the dungeon together. In the video with Summ1t multiple groups are killing some drake at the city entrance while most of them are flagged purple. It has no impact on the game outside of either allowing player freedom to choose for yourself. In a game designed specifically around risk/reward it would seem that allowing players to choose this option for themselves would be justified.

Now you can continue this crusade to argue your opinion but your point seems to now be that the "feel" of the game changes if groups of players are flagged for combat moving around the open world. How exactly is this different than groups of players not flagged for combat moving around the open world? The threat of PvP is absolutely 100% the same in both scenarios since there is nothing stopping either party from attacking each other.

I'll leave you with this quote so you can sink your mind around it @Noaani
Hunting grounds are open-world PvP corruption-enabled areas that encompass most of the map.[60]

Hunting grounds refer to killing monsters or NPCs in the open-world.[60][61]
This also refers to contesting resources.[59]

One of the interesting components of Ashes of Creation and our flagging system is that it presents the potential for two conflicting parties to have open conflict in the open world over pretty much anything that they may want or disagree with; and if that pertains to a hunting ground, not just the caravan or the castles or the nodes or whatever, it can exist in that area.[62] – Steven Sharif

"Over pretty much anything" sounds like the more appropriate way to say "meaningless pvp" I mean anyone that views pvp in a positive light would likely never call it meaningless so I can see why we haven't seen a direct quote from Steven to the effect.

Nerror

Oh actually the auto-flag when attacked is only really useful when AFK I see. A non-combatant auto-flags as soon as hitting back anyway. I had it in my head that the non-combatant had to do it manually.

Anyway, all this is a bit moot right now. Steven has asked us to test the system as-is for now, and if changes are warranted, it'll happen in alpha 1 and 2 if the current system has flaws.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I feel like what is being recommended hear and LFG is an apple and oranges comparison.

It absolutely is.

The only reason it is valid here is as a means to point out how QoL changes to a game (because LFG really was a QoL change) can drastically affect player behavior. It works as a comparison in that sense, but only in that sense - it is, as far as I know, the most obvious case of a QoL change in a game that altered player behavior.

As for duels, as long as they don't result in a death penalty (including resource shifting, experience debt, and having to respawn), then it's fine. Such activities can barely even be considered PvP imo. I once had someone try to tell me that playing the games market was a form of PvP, as you are actively going against other players - I think that player has about as much of a valid point that this is PvP as someone that duels does in claiming tht duels are PvP.

Yes, QoL changes can have a drastic impact but that's why we need to look at what the change is.

All the change does is allow players to flag up without having to attack another player. There isn't an advantage to this outside of what I view as some un-intended scenarios that can happen with the current system. If someone goes out to pvp, they will be flagged purple the moment they attack someone anyways. All this means is someone can flag themselves up so they can be killed as a combatant without having to attack someone.

It changes nothing for the attacker, only a minor change for those being attacked.

How is that going to drastically change things?

daveywavey

mcstackerson wrote: »

All the change does is allow players to flag up without having to attack another player.
...
If someone goes out to pvp, they will be flagged purple the moment they attack someone anyways. All this means is someone can flag themselves up so they can be killed as a combatant without having to attack someone.

It changes nothing for the attacker, only a minor change for those being attacked.

How is that going to drastically change things?

Exactly this! I don't know what the big problem is with the idea. It just stops them having to annoy someone to get their purple Combatant status by attacking them and then leaving them alone.

Caeryl

I’m against this because you would effectively half all your PvP death penalties even when a team coordinates so well that you die before getting to flag.

daveywavey

Caeryl wrote: »

I’m against this because you would effectively half all your PvP death penalties even when a team coordinates so well that you die before getting to flag.

But, before you left the last city, you swiped a random passerby with your axe and turned purple, so you're already a Combatant. And you made that poor person have to go and repair their armour, for nothing.

Orrrrr, you can save them the bother and just have this toggle.

CROW3

Caeryl wrote: »

I’m against this because you would effectively half all your PvP death penalties even when a team coordinates so well that you die before getting to flag.

Sorry, I'm not following. Are you saying you want more unflagged folks to receive the full penalty? You want the coordinated group to get more corruption? Both?

If I have this option enabled, it basically removes whatever timer unflags me. So I'm therefore flagged until manually turned off. I've made a choice to halve my death penalty while increasing the risk I'll be attacked in the wilds.

It all seems relatively straight-forward, so can you help me better understand your point?

perseus01

IDK, but your post just made me love the corruption system even more again. Thanks, lol.

Caeryl

CROW3 wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

I’m against this because you would effectively half all your PvP death penalties even when a team coordinates so well that you die before getting to flag.

Sorry, I'm not following. Are you saying you want more unflagged folks to receive the full penalty? You want the coordinated group to get more corruption? Both?

If I have this option enabled, it basically removes whatever timer unflags me. So I'm therefore flagged until manually turned off. I've made a choice to halve my death penalty while increasing the risk I'll be attacked in the wilds.

It all seems relatively straight-forward, so can you help me better understand your point?

If a group coordinates to take out the healer of a competing group, and successfully 100-0’s them before they can react (which will be very difficult considering the intended TTK is 30+s) then they do deserve to get the full material drop and inflict 100% of the penalties on that player. Corruption is the kickback, but one kill’s worth of corruption will not severely hinder their combat effectiveness.

However that scenario will almost never happen in a group v group because group combat is typically around objectives people will defend and thus everyone will be a combatant anyway.

In general o just don’t see it as useful for group PvP and in solo PvP it provides a guarantee that they only take half a penalty even if they are successfully 100-0’d.

CROW3

Caeryl wrote: »

In general o just don’t see it as useful for group PvP and in solo PvP it provides a guarantee that they only take half a penalty even if they are successfully 100-0’d.

Got it. Just wanted to clarify why you disagreed.

Tyrantor

Caeryl wrote: »

If a group coordinates to take out the healer of a competing group, and successfully 100-0’s them before they can react (which will be very difficult considering the intended TTK is 30+s) then they do deserve to get the full material drop and inflict 100% of the penalties on that player. Corruption is the kickback, but one kill’s worth of corruption will not severely hinder their combat effectiveness.

However that scenario will almost never happen in a group v group because group combat is typically around objectives people will defend and thus everyone will be a combatant anyway.

In general o just don’t see it as useful for group PvP and in solo PvP it provides a guarantee that they only take half a penalty even if they are successfully 100-0’d.

I do like the point you raise about getting more loot from a non-combatant however the developers have stated multiple times that they want to incentivize players to fight back so the only reason the "more loot" exists in the first place is essentially there to motivate the person who gets attacked to fight back instead of just running or dying in vain to cause corruption. The mechanic to get more loot is not in place as a benefit of the attacker it's a punishment for the defender.

Can you explain why it would not be useful in group pvp especially as a way to prevent unintended corruption? Why should the attacking side gain corruption for 1) being better than the side they attack IF they're able to 100-0 the target? 2) Why should people willing to accept the risk of being attacked not be allowed this without having to engage non-combatants?

Also you and maybe I've called it a half penalty by mistake but its just the "normal" penalty. Dying as non-combatant is double penalty.

For your reference I believe more people would be willing to flag themselves as combatants I mean hell you're going to have to do it just to run a caravan through the open world to protect resources. Why would you be unwilling to also toggle this just while your farming gathering the same resources you would willingly toggle combat on to move later? The more players flagged for combat the more healthy pvp the game has. The more non-combatants dying and causing corruption the more unhealthy pvp the game has plain and simple. It benefits anyone willing to accep the risk which is the point of being rewarded for encumbering the risk associated with it.

Therealnightblade

I like the idea of flagging pvp. It seems a good way to bypass griefing a green just to get flagged for pvp. With that option though, if a green attacks another green they should become corrupted. I hope they implement this feature and get world pvp right. IMO their needs to be incentives for being green, purple, bounty hunters, and even corrupted.

CROW3

Therealnightblade wrote: »

With that option though, if a green attacks another green they should become corrupted.

Well, to clarify - this flag wouldn't change the green, purple, red system at all.

If a green 1 attacks a green 2, green 1 becomes purple 1, if purple 1 kills green 2 - and green 2 doesn't fight back - purple 1 becomes red 1.

If green 1 had this flag enabled they would always be purple 1, and the system would again work as normal.

Make sense?

Songcaller

There won't be a toggle because it means you can avoid half the risk and protect half of the reward just with a toggle.

It was stated a long time ago there won't be a toggle. You must flag to fight in PvP but the system is not a toggle, its an active state. If you attack another player you will be Purple or Red. You will only remain Green if you attack Red in green status.

Therealnightblade

If you can manually flag for purple out of green anytime then any green who attacks another green should go straight to red because they could’ve flagged to purple anytime.

Songcaller

If a green (Non-Combatant) attacks a Purple (Combatant) then the green becomes purple. Then both parties will be purple and no one will turn red from a death.

The only time you will turn red is if you are purple and you kill a green (Non-Combatant).

I think you will find most players will fight back and thus the system will work. I do not believe we require a toggle because if we required a toggle IS would've given us a toggle.

CROW3

Therealnightblade wrote: »

If you can manually flag for purple out of green anytime then any green who attacks another green should go straight to red because they could’ve flagged to purple anytime.

I suggest reading this so you're clear how the system works: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption#Player_flagging

Therealnightblade

CROW3 wrote: »

Therealnightblade wrote: »

If you can manually flag for purple out of green anytime then any green who attacks another green should go straight to red because they could’ve flagged to purple anytime.

I suggest reading this so you're clear how the system works: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption#Player_flagging

I’m already familiar with the current system. I think you misunderstood my post.

Therealnightblade

Neurath wrote: »

There won't be a toggle because it means you can avoid half the risk and protect half of the reward just with a toggle.

It was stated a long time ago there won't be a toggle. You must flag to fight in PvP but the system is not a toggle, its an active state. If you attack another player you will be Purple or Red. You will only remain Green if you attack Red in green status.

I was expressing my opinion on how they should change it. We can agree to disagree.

Child Item