Combatant attacks non-combatant

Hello. I am a veteran Ultima Online player and I thought they had an excellent flagging system. I was looking over the proposed flagging system of AoC and found a point of confusion. If a combatant attacks a non-combatant, the non-combatant can’t even defend themselves lest they become a combatant? This seems like an oversight.

If you’re innocent and someone attacks you, I think you should be able to defend yourself without the possibility of being ganked by a third party.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Talents

It's not an oversight, it's to encourage PvP. If someone attacks you, you attack back and either A. Win, or B. Lose but lose less resources than if you had not flagged back and attacked the player.If you don't Flag back then the other person will become corrupted.

Bleebz

I can understand the thought process, but the question would be if flagging back to the player would make you a combatant to everyone.

If that’s the case, then the original combatant attacks you freely, you could then fight back, and the friend of the combatant can now attack you with no repercussions. The proposed system would actually encourage less PVP. People will stand there and wait to die, and pass out the corruption.

Attacking innocent players should cause corruption even if the innocent chooses to fight back and then dies, and the innocent should not then flag to everyone.

It’s a subtle point of nuance in an open PVP system that will allow for more PVP rather than people just waiting to die and giving corruption to the attacker.

Ostaff

Bleebz wrote: »

I can understand the thought process, but the question would be if flagging back to the player would make you a combatant to everyone.

If that’s the case, then the original combatant attacks you freely, you could then fight back, and the friend of the combatant can now attack you with no repercussions. The proposed system would actually encourage less PVP. People will stand there and wait to die, and pass out the corruption.

Attacking innocent players should cause corruption even if the innocent chooses to fight back and then dies, and the innocent should not then flag to everyone.

It’s a subtle point of nuance in an open PVP system that will allow for more PVP rather than people just waiting to die and giving corruption to the attacker.

Aye. I agree, I have seen too many times that a player dies because they had to toggle on PvP mode to defend themselves instead of being automatically enabled once they are attacked. And any player attacking another player (regardless of PvP mode) should automatically receive an amount of Corruption for injuring another player. The corruption should come from both initiating a fight (meaning you attack a player who has not previously attacked you). looting or stealing form the player. and even more corruption should come from killing a player (finishing them off).

George_Black

You are confused because you want to feel safe from other players.

There is no guarantee for your safety. Life isnt fair.

There is no oversight in the system, open world PvP is not optional.

I am a Lineage 2 veteran and the system works fine for those that want an open world game as opposed to those that want instanced or zoned content.

You are not innocent in my eyes if you occupy an area that I want to grind.
Your interests are in conflict with mine, and since this is a video game I can use ingame violence.
I will attack you.
If you dont fight back I will make the choice to bear the concequences.
If you do fight back, you better try to win or go back to the nearest village.

If you are sick of losing, join a guild and find safety in numbers. This wont be a pacifist game.

Bleebz

Nothing about my suggestion would make you safe in the world. You can still be attacked and killed just as easily. I identified myself as a veteran UO player. If you thought we were safe in the world with this nuance in the system, you would be mistaken.

mcknightrider

that's where corruption comes into play. If someone attacks and kills you without attacking back they become corrupted. Gain harsher death penalties, diminished stats to their gear after enough corruption (or possibly if you just kill someone in such a huge lvl. differences. Think lvl. 50 vs. lvl. 5) and the probability of dropping gear.

maouw

@Bleebz
If you can't protect yourself solo, travel in a group. <--- this is healthy MMO behaviour.

if people gain corruption from every form of PvP then corruption is no longer a useful punishment and turns the game into PvE only.

L2 has proven this system works, and AoC will innovate on top of it.

Bleebz

Hello again. It could be that I don’t have a good understanding of Lineage 2 PVP or what the intent here is.

Ultima Online (1997-2001 or so) had faction-based PVP that could occur anywhere, and then an innocent, criminal, murderer system. Killing an innocent allowed for them to report you as a murderer. They were allowed to fight back when attacked, and if you died to them, they could loot everything you were carrying.

A criminal was anything from a thief, someone who loots an innocent, someone who heals another criminal or murderer, etc. Attacking a criminal was fair game, anyone could attack a criminal. The timer for being a criminal was 2 minutes.

A murderer was someone who killed enough innocents that they could no longer visit towns, save one or two towns without guards. Dying as a murderer would cause stat loss. Becoming a murderer was a very serious choice for that reason, and it took a long time to decay.

This was a very robust system. There were lots of innocents, criminals, and murderers, and characters in the game were far from safe. I had 2200 murder counts on my PK. From the standpoint of killing innocents, I don’t like the idea that I can attack them, and to apply corruption they’re forced to just stand there and take it.

As someone who has done a lot of PKing, it seems to me like you’re opting to have less PVP threat when attacking a non-combatant.

bigepeen

Bleebz wrote: »

Hello. I am a veteran Ultima Online player and I thought they had an excellent flagging system.

Do you mind explaining UO's flagging system? I haven't played it so I have no idea how it's different than AoC's flagging system.

Bleebz

@bigepeen its very similar to the proposed AoC system in many ways, which is what has me excited (see above for a bit of a breakdown). I focused on this specific issue that differs from the version of UO I loved, because it seems like it’ll create less PVP.

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

From the standpoint of killing innocents, I don’t like the idea that I can attack them, and to apply corruption they’re forced to just stand there and take it.

The point of the system is that open PvP is somewhat desired, and definitely not discouraged.

If there were a penalty for attacking another player, people would be more reluctant to do that. This is the effect penalties have.

Rather than penalizing players for attempting to initiate PvP, Intrepid are penalizing people for continuing PvP when the opponent is not keen (which could be the case for any number of reasons).

Once a player does have corruption, non-combatants are able to fight back without flagging, and indeed are able to attack the combatant player without flagging.

If you want to make the comparison to UO, you should look at non-combatant vs corrupt player, not vs combatant.

You can then view combatants as a group of people in the middle that have recently participated in consensual open PvP.

Bleebz

@Noaani The point is well taken, and your argument is sound. I think I’m arguing for nuance and a chance at self defense without being open to a rampant gank.

Maybe where we differ in our opinions is that I think attacking innocents and taking their items should have strong repercussions. I can admit that my view might be skewed by the fact that UO was full loot, and I haven’t reviewed the proposal for PVP looting in AoC.

bigepeen

Bleebz wrote: »

@bigepeen its very similar to the proposed AoC system in many ways, which is what has me excited (see above for a bit of a breakdown). I focused on this specific issue that differs from the version of UO I loved, because it seems like it’ll create less PVP.

Thanks for the explanation. So in UO, if another player attacks you first, and you defend yourself and kill them, then you would become a criminal? And then the guy who attacked you first could report it and make you a murderer? I mean, I think I understand the system. It doesn't sound that bad, except for that scenario.

Bleebz

@bigepeen No, but that’s essentially what AoC is proposing. The tags are different (criminal vs. combatant), but In AoC, using UO terms, if you attack a criminal you are then flagged criminal.

In UO if you attacked a criminal, you don’t flag. You remain what you were previous to the attack. Same with attacking a murderer.

If you attacked an innocent, you flagged criminal. Anyone could attack you, and their flag didn’t change. If you killEd the innocent, you could get a murder count. If the innocent kills you, they can loot your inventory and you do not get a murder count.

After enough murder counts, you were semi-permanently red (corrupted) and could suffer stat loss.

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

Maybe where we differ in our opinions is that I think attacking innocents and taking their items should have strong repercussions.

It does.

If you attack a player and they dont fight back, you get a portion of the raw materials and certificates (look them up on the wiki), and that is it.

If they do fight back, you get half of the amount as the above.

There is no actual item loss to combatants or non-combatants, just harvested resources and certs.

Item loss only comes in to play when you have several kills worth of corruption.

Bleebz

It’s really not much different. The main difference is being able to defend yourself or your friends from a combatant without being subject to a massive gank with no repercussions even though you started out minding your own business.

As someone who has done a lot of PKing I don’t like that people will just stand there and die, just to give me corruption. They should get a chance to kill me, put me in stat loss, and take all my gear. That’s the real thrill.

bigepeen

Oh okay. Then UO's flagging system doesn't seem bad. Was there really no way to exploit the fact that you could attack someone without flagging in UO?

Bleebz

It depends. Most of the open PVP (occurring in town and in the world) was factions. That was basically a massive free for all (still full loot). The innocent, criminal, murderer system was for players preying on each other who might not be PVPers. Killing an innocent was considered murder.

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

It’s really not much different. The main difference is being able to defend yourself or your friends from a combatant without being subject to a massive gank with no repercussions even though you started out minding your own business.

As someone who has done a lot of PKing I don’t like that people will just stand there and die, just to give me corruption. They should get a chance to kill me, put me in stat loss, and take all my gear. That’s the real thrill.

While I am unsure, I think you may be missing the fact that if someone attacks you, and you fight back (and thus become a combatant), you suffer half the penalties if you die as you would have if you were killed as a non-combatant.

If attacked, most players are likely to flag as a combatant just to lower their death penalty, and are then in a position where they may as well at least try to fight back.

Corruption is likely to mostly be a result of a stronger force attacking a weaker force, or a player attacking someone that is pissed off with them (for any number of reasons).
Once the game is live long enough for people to understand the system, most players will fight back, as it is always to their benefit to do so.

Bleebz

Thanks for the clarification.

Child Item