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

George_Black

There will be many times that one player attacks you, you fight back and another player comes to backstab you.
And there will be times that you will win 1v2 or 1v3 and that will be the best feeling in your gaming days ever, and you better had the recorder on.

George_Black

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeKhbtog_pI
Here is the flagging system of L2 in action.
Steven has played organized in L2 for many years and I applaud him for using the best open world flagging system instead of wasting resources re-inventing the wheel.
Obviously improvements need to be made if we are to have ACTION COMBAT.

There is no flaw. It is designed to offer players freedom of choice, rather than handhold them.

I wrote more info here about what happens when you kill players that dont fight back
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/44745/the-corruption-idea-prevents-random-killing-not-pvp-so-carebares-and-gangers-alike-chill-out#latest

Bleebz

It seems strange to be forced into a decision between your resources, or justice. I’m going to keep thinking about it.

In UO there was a sharp distinction between a combat focused character, and an artisan character. It was a skill based game and each character had to choose their skills. If you chose to be a fisherman on a character (5 characters per server) you were practically not a combat character.

Bleebz

@George Black thanks for that, very helpful for understanding the intent.

This is a very similar system to the game that I grew up with. Slight differences. Nuance.

I think the core of my objection is the ability to fight back against naked aggression without the requirement that you’re flagging to be ganked. It still looks like an excellent system compared to most modern MMORPG’s.

Bleebz

I am seeing a bit of a trend here. Most of you are thoughtful and balanced in your replies, but your arguments tend to focus on the impact to your resources, whether you flag back or not.

If you are innocent and are attacked, is that truly arbitrary? Why force a decision between your silly pixels... and justice

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

If you are innocent and are attacked, is that truly arbitrary?

There is no notion of innocence in Ashes.

Bleebz

@Noaani i think that’s probably the appropriate differentiation here. It’s a difference in language.

I struggle with that idea, as a roleplayer.

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

I struggle with that idea, as a roleplayer.

Look at the setting for Ashes.

The world we are in was abandoned eons ago, and unaccessable since then.

We are essentially the first people back in Verra for thousands of years, and the only people that are there are basically people that are volunteering to go through a portal that is absolutely a one way journey - which also means we had no real idea what to expect on the other side when we set out.

Based on that, there is no system of laws, nor are there people to maintain the peace - initially.

Now, as we progress nodes, we will develop cities and have guards and such. However, these are only in specific regions, and since there is still essentially no laws, they are not there to actually enforce law, but to protect people and property.

Once you are out of sight of these guards, you are literally in a lawless land, with no one to enforce laws even if they existed.

WIthout law, there is no concept of guilt or innocence.

This is why corruption is more a part of nature in Ashes (albeit corrupted nature), rather than actual crime points or some such that Archeage has. As there is no inherent sence of balance, it also isn't karma that games like BDO have.

Hopefully that helps.

Bleebz

This is no rational argument for an absence of the concept of innocence. Ignorant and innocent, perhaps.

I reject your claim that an absence of socially organized law forgoes the concept of innocence or guilt.

The very fact of corruption in the world proves differentiation between innocence and guilt.

Non-combatant, combatant, and corrupted are direct identifiers of this virtually manifested paradigm.

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

This is no rational argument for an absence of the concept of innocence. Ignorant and innocent, perhaps.

I reject your claim that an absence of socially organized law forgoes the concept of innocence or guilt.

Laws are the test of innocence or guilt, so without being subject to that test, you can't determine which state you are in.

As such, all players in Verra are at all times innocent and guilty, as there is no system by which to make any distinction between the two.

I mean, this only applies if you insist on the concept of innocence being accounted for. If you understand that it isn't a concept the develoeprs have in mind with the game, then none of this matters.

Bleebz

there is a system between corrupted or not, built-in. I think that speaks to the point I’m making. We can mince definitions, but corruption tends to be polarizing.

Also I think it’s important to note that role playing tends to scaffold off of the systems in place. We can argue system definitions, but my endeavor was to reach beyond that.

I’ll never win that argument though

If your intent with the role playing counter- argument is to enforce the impossibility of innocence, I think you’re imposing an artificial sense of what’s possible in the environment provided.

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

Also I think it’s important to note that role playing tends to scaffold off of the systems in place.

I'm at the point now where I don't understand your complaint.

You say you want RP to be based on the systems the game has, yet you are talking about innocence as if it is the flip side of corruption.

It is not.

Bleebz

Innocence isn’t a system, as you already provided. Indeed, I think you purposefully missed my point. Nuance.

Characterizing it as a complaint is noted

Blandmarrow

I rarely agree with Noaani but in this I do.

In nature there is no such thing as innocent or guilty, it's merely something humans have agreed upon in social terms to enforce for our own safety.

Any sentient being is subject to another's actions, whether you deem it right or wrong, it's kill or be killed which it always have been and always will be.

The corruption system is not in place for RP reasons, it's there as a game mechanic to discourage malicious behavior such as ganking low levels or bullying someone over and over by killing them.

In short, it's there to protect the weak or unwilling from reality to make the game more enjoyable.

In reality we also have a corruption system, it's called The Law alongside what is socially acceptable, which is enforced by the community, loosely.

Bleebz

It sounds to me like you’re talking cross purposes. You’re describing a lack of an event in nature while associating it with the imposition of a game mechanic. This is why I am as also confused with nooani’s response.

Bleebz

Perhaps I commented too quickly. You are differentiating between the harsh reality of nature, and the game mechanic which might make the game tolerable to the weak?

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

Indeed, I think you purposefully missed my point.

Nope, I am looking for it, I just can't find it.

You say you want roleplaying to be characterized by the games systems.

We don't know much about the lore of the game, but I'll give you a rundown of what I do know lorewise in regards to corruption.

First thing is The Essence. The Essence is basically life-force. it flows through Verra (and most of the other planes of existence) like a river. This life-force can be manipulated in to what we accept as magic. Gods are masters of The Essence, and both mages and clerics are known to be users of it as well.

Corruption is the negative aspect of The Essence. This means that corruption is magical in nature - perhaps even the source of some forms of magic.

It isn't just players that get corruption - corruption is a force of it's own. Mobs can be corrupt, plants can be corrupt, corruption can just exist as a storm.

This is why innocence simply isn't the flip side of corruption - corruption is the flip side of The Essence - or magic.

Bleebz

@Noaani i didn’t say that... I typed that role playing is best scaffolded on the game’s existing systems. It was an abstraction.

Bleebz

@Blandmarrow I’m interested in what you wrote. The concept of nature vs. game mechanic. Would you prefer a very brutal and open system with no repercussions?

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

Noaani i didn’t say that... I typed that role playing is best scaffolded on the game’s existing systems. It was an abstraction.

Quote what it is you are talking about here.

Saying I didn't say that is incredibly unhelpful without defining what "that" is.

Child Item