Well ideally if you attack someone and they don't fight back, they should at least leave. Just walk away. But if they stand their ground and just get killed like some sort of protest, well they're essentially griefing me at that point. If you don't want to fight that's fine by me, but then you need to leave.
I like this logic lol. If you aren't playing the way i want to play, then you can go home! But honestly if I'm killing someone and they don't fight or flee, then they deserve to die. It's just basic human cognition.
Call me lacking of basic cognition then.
I would feel horrible attacking someone who just stands there and are letting me kill them without doing anything. But if you fight or run away, then I would gladly hunt you down.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
Corruption system is plenty of protection. "Never PvPers" are just gonna have to deal with being killed in a video game every so often.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
This is an open world pvp mmorpg. What dont you understand?
6
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
that not how the game is meant to be played
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
This is an open world pvp mmorpg. What dont you understand?
I understand that most people the game is angling for as customers simply wont subscribe to it if they cant actually play without being constantly griefed. The corruption system is much too weak, and it is simply too easy (and fast) to "work off" the corruption. Also, to make being killed while green cost more in penalty vs. being killed while purple is the exact opposite of how it should be, so that's another strike. If you are going to force PvP on people, at least you can make it "fun" for them (not just the griefers), and also give them many ways to avoid it. PvP is "niche"; all of the most sucsesful games int he MMO genre are NOT PvP-centric. Something to think about.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
This is an open world pvp mmorpg. What dont you understand?
I understand that most people the game is angling for as customers simply wont subscribe to it if they cant actually play without being constantly griefed. The corruption system is much too weak, and it is simply too easy (and fast) to "work off" the corruption. Also, to make being killed while green cost more in penalty vs. being killed while purple is the exact opposite of how it should be, so that's another strike. If you are going to force PvP on people, at least you can make it "fun" for them (not just the griefers), and also give them many ways to avoid it. PvP is "niche"; all of the most sucsesful games int he MMO genre are NOT PvP-centric. Something to think about.
This one will have PvP and the corruption system is plenty. Buckle up and enjoy the ride with us pal.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
I say this with all due respect.
Suck it nerd. That's how the game will be. You cant control gamer nature to that degree or you kill your playerbase.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
I say this with all due respect.
Suck it nerd. That's how the game will be. You cant control gamer nature to that degree or you kill your playerbase.
Diverse opinions/input are what the producers want from their forums. That's especially important when they develop symptoms of becoming an echo chamber.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
I say this with all due respect.
Suck it nerd. That's how the game will be. You cant control gamer nature to that degree or you kill your playerbase.
Diverse opinions/input are what the producers want from their forums. That's especially important when they develop symptoms of becoming an echo chamber.
And toyota is worth 260b while ferrari is worth 40b.
The point remains this is what the game is designed for. And it's not for everyone.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
I say this with all due respect.
Suck it nerd. That's how the game will be. You cant control gamer nature to that degree or you kill your playerbase.
Diverse opinions/input are what the producers want from their forums. That's especially important when they develop symptoms of becoming an echo chamber.
And toyota is worth 260b while ferrari is worth 40b.
The point remains this is what the game is designed for. And it's not for everyone.
Interesting analogy. IRL Toyota (which also produce Lexus) is thousands of times more reliable than Ferrari, cheaper to repair, easier to work on and find people to work on them, and Toyota grosses many, MANY times more in sales than Ferrari.
The game is clearly "designed" to take my concerns into account. The only question is tweaking the balance a bit. The rabid, hostile response by a few people to depriving griefers of their prey is indicative that there is going to be a serious problem with the system as currently proposed, since one guy can ruin the fun for dozens of people in a day.
since one guy can ruin the fun for dozens of people in a day.
How so? Given the current PvP flagging and corruption rules, how do you see this playing out step by step? I and I think several others disagree and feel like the system will provide an appropriate balance and risk vs reward for both sides making it fair. How do you disagree - in detail so I can understand what I may be missing in this thought process?
You don't get someone else's loot from killing them. They lose a portion of stuff and that's it.
No, if you kill someone you get a portion of their raw materials and certificates (which are turned in for coin).
Also, this is not BDO, we have no reason to assume there won't be enough mobs to go around, and fighting over resource spawns is pointless since we can only hold a small amount in our inventory and would need to go back to town to deposit them well before the harvest is depleated.
Everything I've read/watched only says you drop items, but it doesn't say anyone else can loot anything unless the person is red/corrupted. So for any standard PvP fight, if the person dying is green or purple, my understanding is that they merely lose items, but not that anyone can actually pick up those items.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
I say this with all due respect.
Suck it nerd. That's how the game will be. You cant control gamer nature to that degree or you kill your playerbase.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
This is an open world pvp mmorpg. What dont you understand?
I understand that most people the game is angling for as customers simply wont subscribe to it if they cant actually play without being constantly griefed. The corruption system is much too weak, and it is simply too easy (and fast) to "work off" the corruption. Also, to make being killed while green cost more in penalty vs. being killed while purple is the exact opposite of how it should be, so that's another strike. If you are going to force PvP on people, at least you can make it "fun" for them (not just the griefers), and also give them many ways to avoid it. PvP is "niche"; all of the most sucsesful games int he MMO genre are NOT PvP-centric. Something to think about.
We still don't know how strong the corruption will be or how easy will be to work it off...
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
This is an open world pvp mmorpg. What dont you understand?
I understand that most people the game is angling for as customers simply wont subscribe to it if they cant actually play without being constantly griefed. The corruption system is much too weak, and it is simply too easy (and fast) to "work off" the corruption. Also, to make being killed while green cost more in penalty vs. being killed while purple is the exact opposite of how it should be, so that's another strike. If you are going to force PvP on people, at least you can make it "fun" for them (not just the griefers), and also give them many ways to avoid it. PvP is "niche"; all of the most sucsesful games int he MMO genre are NOT PvP-centric. Something to think about.
Hummm, don't really agree you are "forcing" PvP on anyone. Once you have agreed to play the game, you have already given your consent to PvP. Period, end of story. It's an accepted part of how the meta of the game itself functions. If you venture out into the world, encountering hostile players is one of the accepted risks. If that's something you just can't handle, please don't play AoC.
I also don't think people are going to be constantly griefed. Oh it will happen, just not every second of the day. If you get jumped just let others know and I'm sure there will be bounty hunters more than willing to come avenge your death.
And if you are worried about it, DON'T go out alone. Really simple rule. Find a group coop to go farm an area and support each other. Nothing deters a ganker more than uneven odds against them.
Last...PvP is not "niche" as you put it. The many of the most successful games have PvP as a major element in them. If it were no so, then why do game Devs continue to add PvP into their games as a basic, hardwired part of their game? If what you say is true, every major MMO would be like Final Fantasy. It has it's place to be sure but is not the norm. Just look at a game like EVE or even WoW. You don't spend all that time re-gearing every expansion just to do nothing. I guess you could but that seems pointless. I can name a near endless string of MMOs with PvP as a big part of the game. Think about it.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
I think you over estimate how much you'll be targetted.
It remains to be seen though, and I'm sure they'll make adjustments if Killing Sprees become common.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
I think you over estimate how much you'll be targetted.
It remains to be seen though, and I'm sure they'll make adjustments if Killing Sprees become common.
I think it depends on the player. Some players are good at keeping cool and finding traditional and obvious ways to avoid PvP, and are good at accepting when they die to PvP and moving on from it (leaving the area or coming back with friends, etc.). Some people get worked up about it and end up unknowingly causing more people to PK them either via provoking words in chat or provoking actions to other players nearby (again, unintentionally).
Some people just quietly go about their night gaming just fine and avoiding the PvP they so dislike, and others are seemingly a PvP magnet.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited December 2020
The traditional way to obviously avoid non-consensual PvP combat is to play on a PvE-Only server.
Players who typically play on PvP servers seem to think the Corruption mechanic is too harsh.
Players who typically play on PvE-Only servers seem to think the Corruption mechanic is not harsh enough.
We will have to play to truly know.
6
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The traditional way to obviously avoid non-consensual PvP combat is to play on a PvE-Only server.
Players who typically play on PvP servers seem to think the Corruption mechanic is too harsh.
Players who typically play on PvE-Only servers seem to think the Corruption mechanic is not harsh enough.
We will have to play to truly know.
I can just see when the game comes out and after a week or two no one will care about corruption
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
Do you have suggestions to go with this concern or just replying to reply? Immunities seems like an odd word choice considering there are no real safe zones in the vast majority of the world by design.
If the hunting ground pvp is active/responsive and available relatively easily then there will be less need for griefing. If most/many of the people in the hunting grounds refuse to pvp then it's going to cause a compounding effect on more players being griefed by result of supply/demand.
Tyrantor
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
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Hummm, don't really agree you are "forcing" PvP on anyone. Once you have agreed to play the game, you have already given your consent to PvP. Period, end of story. It's an accepted part of how the meta of the game itself functions. If you venture out into the world, encountering hostile players is one of the accepted risks. If that's something you just can't handle, please don't play AoC.
If the devs did not consider it forcing, there would be no penalty for non-consensual PvP combat.
Players who don't consider the Corruption mechanic to be enough of a deterrent for non-consensual PvP combat won't play. And then we will have to see if there is enough of a playerbase left to support the game without changes or whether there will be significant changes - as there have been with the New World PvP combat design.
I also don't think people are going to be constantly griefed. Oh it will happen, just not every second of the day. If you get jumped just let others know and I'm sure there will be bounty hunters more than willing to come avenge your death.
If I am griefed by gankers, I don't care what happens to the gankers afterwards.
Avid PvPers seem to not understand that view.
Last...PvP is not "niche" as you put it. Just look at a game like EVE or even WoW. You don't spend all that time re-gearing every expansion just to do nothing. I guess you could but that seems pointless. I can name a near endless string of MMOs with PvP as a big part of the game. Think about it.
EVE is a niche, PvP-centric MMORPG - an exception rather than the rule. WoW is not a PvP-centric MMORPG.
If open-world PvP weren't niche, New World would not have changed tack to focus on PvE and...Shadowbane would be just as popular now as EQ or WoW.
The responses in this thread make it very clear that people who refuse to engage in PvP need to have more protections and immunities from griefers in every aspect of the game.
Do you have suggestions to go with this concern or just replying to reply? Immunities seems like an odd word choice considering there are no real safe zones in the vast majority of the world by design.
If the hunting ground pvp is active/responsive and available relatively easily then there will be less need for griefing. If most/many of the people in the hunting grounds refuse to pvp then it's going to cause a compounding effect on more players being griefed by result of supply/demand.
Well I think most of the PvP in the game is of an organized fashion and of those, there are an insane amount of types - caravans, guild wars, node wars, castle sieges, etc. You'll have a lot of time taken up with stuff like that. The world PvP is available when it's needed (fights over mobs, world bosses, dungeons, resources nodes, dealing with a misbehaving player, etc.) but it's not intended as the primary source of PvP.
As a sidenote, I'd like for there to be something indicating when a player is already flagged for PvP (but still a Green name, since we know Purple status is quite temporary when not already in PvP combat). Maybe just an icon next to their nameplate. That way we know better whose essentially already opted-in and willing to fight before we engage instead of feeling like we're being blindsided later.
As a sidenote, I'd like for there to be something indicating when a player is already flagged for PvP (but still a Green name, since we know Purple status is quite temporary when not already in PvP combat). Maybe just an icon next to their nameplate. That way we know better whose essentially already opted-in and willing to fight before we engage instead of feeling like we're being blindsided later.
Their name will be purple when they are flagged and red when they are corrupted.
2
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
As a sidenote, I'd like for there to be something indicating when a player is already flagged for PvP (but still a Green name, since we know Purple status is quite temporary when not already in PvP combat). Maybe just an icon next to their nameplate. That way we know better whose essentially already opted-in and willing to fight before we engage instead of feeling like we're being blindsided later.
Their name will be purple when they are flagged and red when they are corrupted.
what he said
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
As a sidenote, I'd like for there to be something indicating when a player is already flagged for PvP (but still a Green name, since we know Purple status is quite temporary when not already in PvP combat). Maybe just an icon next to their nameplate. That way we know better whose essentially already opted-in and willing to fight before we engage instead of feeling like we're being blindsided later.
Their name will be purple when they are flagged and red when they are corrupted.
No, if you watched the stream the other day you'd notice Steven clarified that we were all wrong in making that assumption. That's why it's been a hot topic the other day. Here I made a clip of that bit - https://clips.twitch.tv/ModernEnergeticPepperoniTheRinger
There's two parts to it.
1. Flag, making your character capable of hitting other players. If you don't first flag, you can't hit players at all. At this point you're still Green and most people will be Green almost all the time.
2. Only after you actually land an attack on another player does your name turn Purple, and I believe only stays that way for a few minutes or so after fighting ends before going back to Green. Combatant is always a temporary status.
He talks more about it beyond just this part and how you won't know if someone has flagged before you attack them, so you don't know if you're getting corruption or not until you're already fighting (and if they attack back I suppose). Also you won't know their HP, either (so you better pray you're not about to one shot them).
As a sidenote, I'd like for there to be something indicating when a player is already flagged for PvP (but still a Green name, since we know Purple status is quite temporary when not already in PvP combat). Maybe just an icon next to their nameplate. That way we know better whose essentially already opted-in and willing to fight before we engage instead of feeling like we're being blindsided later.
Their name will be purple when they are flagged and red when they are corrupted.
what he said
Really does nobody around here watch the streams? Even Jeffrey said "WHAT?!" after he heard this and still none of you knows.
As a sidenote, I'd like for there to be something indicating when a player is already flagged for PvP (but still a Green name, since we know Purple status is quite temporary when not already in PvP combat). Maybe just an icon next to their nameplate. That way we know better whose essentially already opted-in and willing to fight before we engage instead of feeling like we're being blindsided later.
Their name will be purple when they are flagged and red when they are corrupted.
No, if you watched the stream the other day you'd notice Steven clarified that we were all wrong in making that assumption. That's why it's been a hot topic the other day. Here I made a clip of that bit - https://clips.twitch.tv/ModernEnergeticPepperoniTheRinger
There's two parts to it.
1. Flag, making your character capable of hitting other players. If you don't first flag, you can't hit players at all. At this point you're still Green and most people will be Green almost all the time.
2. Only after you actually land an attack on another player does your name turn Purple, and I believe only stays that way for a few minutes or so after fighting ends before going back to Green. Combatant is always a temporary status.
He talks more about it beyond just this part and how you won't know if someone has flagged before you attack them, so you don't know if you're getting corruption or not until you're already fighting (and if they attack back I suppose). Also you won't know their HP, either (so you better pray you're not about to one shot them).
As a sidenote, I'd like for there to be something indicating when a player is already flagged for PvP (but still a Green name, since we know Purple status is quite temporary when not already in PvP combat). Maybe just an icon next to their nameplate. That way we know better whose essentially already opted-in and willing to fight before we engage instead of feeling like we're being blindsided later.
Their name will be purple when they are flagged and red when they are corrupted.
what he said
Really does nobody around here watch the streams? Even Jeffrey said "WHAT?!" after he heard this and still none of you knows.
What you are asking for is a silly thing to ask for. You shouldn't get to read my mind when I hold down the force attack button combo. The flagging system in place should be fine enough.
What you are asking for is a silly thing to ask for. You shouldn't get to read my mind when I hold down the force attack button combo. The flagging system in place should be fine enough.
Well knowing if someone wishes to PvP allows me to avoid PvEers if they don't want to fight, and it also let's me know when I'm at risk of corruption so I can choose to intentionally take corruption or avoid it depending on the situation. Right now, it's a risk attacking anyone because you don't know if they'll fight back, if they have their flag on at all, how much HP they have and how many attacks you might get in before they die. The idea apparently just goes along with the Risk vs Reward that the rest of the game is built on and I get that, but if I'm risking something, I should at least know that going in so I can make an informed decision. As the system is right now, I have no idea what will happen if I choose to attack someone.
Comments
Call me lacking of basic cognition then.
I would feel horrible attacking someone who just stands there and are letting me kill them without doing anything. But if you fight or run away, then I would gladly hunt you down.
Corruption system is plenty of protection. "Never PvPers" are just gonna have to deal with being killed in a video game every so often.
This is an open world pvp mmorpg. What dont you understand?
that not how the game is meant to be played
I understand that most people the game is angling for as customers simply wont subscribe to it if they cant actually play without being constantly griefed. The corruption system is much too weak, and it is simply too easy (and fast) to "work off" the corruption. Also, to make being killed while green cost more in penalty vs. being killed while purple is the exact opposite of how it should be, so that's another strike. If you are going to force PvP on people, at least you can make it "fun" for them (not just the griefers), and also give them many ways to avoid it. PvP is "niche"; all of the most sucsesful games int he MMO genre are NOT PvP-centric. Something to think about.
This one will have PvP and the corruption system is plenty. Buckle up and enjoy the ride with us pal.
None of us thought about it, not even the people that spent money building this game.
Now if you will excuse me Ill go buy winter clothes while it's 40 degrees where I live, and complain about feeling too hot.
I say this with all due respect.
Suck it nerd. That's how the game will be. You cant control gamer nature to that degree or you kill your playerbase.
Diverse opinions/input are what the producers want from their forums. That's especially important when they develop symptoms of becoming an echo chamber.
And toyota is worth 260b while ferrari is worth 40b.
The point remains this is what the game is designed for. And it's not for everyone.
Interesting analogy. IRL Toyota (which also produce Lexus) is thousands of times more reliable than Ferrari, cheaper to repair, easier to work on and find people to work on them, and Toyota grosses many, MANY times more in sales than Ferrari.
The game is clearly "designed" to take my concerns into account. The only question is tweaking the balance a bit. The rabid, hostile response by a few people to depriving griefers of their prey is indicative that there is going to be a serious problem with the system as currently proposed, since one guy can ruin the fun for dozens of people in a day.
How so? Given the current PvP flagging and corruption rules, how do you see this playing out step by step? I and I think several others disagree and feel like the system will provide an appropriate balance and risk vs reward for both sides making it fair. How do you disagree - in detail so I can understand what I may be missing in this thought process?
Everything I've read/watched only says you drop items, but it doesn't say anyone else can loot anything unless the person is red/corrupted. So for any standard PvP fight, if the person dying is green or purple, my understanding is that they merely lose items, but not that anyone can actually pick up those items.
don't be rude mate
We still don't know how strong the corruption will be or how easy will be to work it off...
Hummm, don't really agree you are "forcing" PvP on anyone. Once you have agreed to play the game, you have already given your consent to PvP. Period, end of story. It's an accepted part of how the meta of the game itself functions. If you venture out into the world, encountering hostile players is one of the accepted risks. If that's something you just can't handle, please don't play AoC.
I also don't think people are going to be constantly griefed. Oh it will happen, just not every second of the day. If you get jumped just let others know and I'm sure there will be bounty hunters more than willing to come avenge your death.
And if you are worried about it, DON'T go out alone. Really simple rule. Find a group coop to go farm an area and support each other. Nothing deters a ganker more than uneven odds against them.
Last...PvP is not "niche" as you put it. The many of the most successful games have PvP as a major element in them. If it were no so, then why do game Devs continue to add PvP into their games as a basic, hardwired part of their game? If what you say is true, every major MMO would be like Final Fantasy. It has it's place to be sure but is not the norm. Just look at a game like EVE or even WoW. You don't spend all that time re-gearing every expansion just to do nothing. I guess you could but that seems pointless. I can name a near endless string of MMOs with PvP as a big part of the game. Think about it.
I think you over estimate how much you'll be targetted.
It remains to be seen though, and I'm sure they'll make adjustments if Killing Sprees become common.
I think it depends on the player. Some players are good at keeping cool and finding traditional and obvious ways to avoid PvP, and are good at accepting when they die to PvP and moving on from it (leaving the area or coming back with friends, etc.). Some people get worked up about it and end up unknowingly causing more people to PK them either via provoking words in chat or provoking actions to other players nearby (again, unintentionally).
Some people just quietly go about their night gaming just fine and avoiding the PvP they so dislike, and others are seemingly a PvP magnet.
Players who typically play on PvP servers seem to think the Corruption mechanic is too harsh.
Players who typically play on PvE-Only servers seem to think the Corruption mechanic is not harsh enough.
We will have to play to truly know.
I can just see when the game comes out and after a week or two no one will care about corruption
Do you have suggestions to go with this concern or just replying to reply? Immunities seems like an odd word choice considering there are no real safe zones in the vast majority of the world by design.
If the hunting ground pvp is active/responsive and available relatively easily then there will be less need for griefing. If most/many of the people in the hunting grounds refuse to pvp then it's going to cause a compounding effect on more players being griefed by result of supply/demand.
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
Players who don't consider the Corruption mechanic to be enough of a deterrent for non-consensual PvP combat won't play. And then we will have to see if there is enough of a playerbase left to support the game without changes or whether there will be significant changes - as there have been with the New World PvP combat design.
If I am griefed by gankers, I don't care what happens to the gankers afterwards.
Avid PvPers seem to not understand that view.
EVE is a niche, PvP-centric MMORPG - an exception rather than the rule. WoW is not a PvP-centric MMORPG.
If open-world PvP weren't niche, New World would not have changed tack to focus on PvE and...Shadowbane would be just as popular now as EQ or WoW.
Well I think most of the PvP in the game is of an organized fashion and of those, there are an insane amount of types - caravans, guild wars, node wars, castle sieges, etc. You'll have a lot of time taken up with stuff like that. The world PvP is available when it's needed (fights over mobs, world bosses, dungeons, resources nodes, dealing with a misbehaving player, etc.) but it's not intended as the primary source of PvP.
As a sidenote, I'd like for there to be something indicating when a player is already flagged for PvP (but still a Green name, since we know Purple status is quite temporary when not already in PvP combat). Maybe just an icon next to their nameplate. That way we know better whose essentially already opted-in and willing to fight before we engage instead of feeling like we're being blindsided later.
Their name will be purple when they are flagged and red when they are corrupted.
what he said
No, if you watched the stream the other day you'd notice Steven clarified that we were all wrong in making that assumption. That's why it's been a hot topic the other day. Here I made a clip of that bit - https://clips.twitch.tv/ModernEnergeticPepperoniTheRinger
There's two parts to it.
1. Flag, making your character capable of hitting other players. If you don't first flag, you can't hit players at all. At this point you're still Green and most people will be Green almost all the time.
2. Only after you actually land an attack on another player does your name turn Purple, and I believe only stays that way for a few minutes or so after fighting ends before going back to Green. Combatant is always a temporary status.
He talks more about it beyond just this part and how you won't know if someone has flagged before you attack them, so you don't know if you're getting corruption or not until you're already fighting (and if they attack back I suppose). Also you won't know their HP, either (so you better pray you're not about to one shot them).
Here 1:09:07 is where the full discussion starts. He goes for a few minutes.
Really does nobody around here watch the streams? Even Jeffrey said "WHAT?!" after he heard this and still none of you knows.
What you are asking for is a silly thing to ask for. You shouldn't get to read my mind when I hold down the force attack button combo. The flagging system in place should be fine enough.
Well knowing if someone wishes to PvP allows me to avoid PvEers if they don't want to fight, and it also let's me know when I'm at risk of corruption so I can choose to intentionally take corruption or avoid it depending on the situation. Right now, it's a risk attacking anyone because you don't know if they'll fight back, if they have their flag on at all, how much HP they have and how many attacks you might get in before they die. The idea apparently just goes along with the Risk vs Reward that the rest of the game is built on and I get that, but if I'm risking something, I should at least know that going in so I can make an informed decision. As the system is right now, I have no idea what will happen if I choose to attack someone.