Wondering about a slight change to the flagging system

This is the current, official diagram for the flagging system:

Been thinking a lot about what the experience would be like as a PvE'er because plenty of the people I play games with are not into PvP in MMO's. I know that this the devs' intend on making this game a welcoming space for all types of players as well. So following this notion,

Would the flagging system be improved if when:
Purple ---Kills---> Green ---Becomes---> Red
changed to
Purple ---AttacksHarasses *---> Green ---Becomes---> Red

Let me know what you fellas think. I see this as mostly a good thing that prevents griefing. I can also see it being a problem with accidental flagging. I believe in the current system, purples would stay flagged for only 90 seconds, which i think would kinda fit in since it would be like a minor inconvenience. But honestly, for the current flagging system, 90 seconds is, imo, too little of a punishment.

*Changed after a discussion with a few people. Clarifies the goal and condition

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

SirChancelot

Alacrite wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

This would just remove any pvp in the open world.

I don't see how that would be the case. Purples would still fight each other freely. A green could still kill another green for any reason. The main discouragement for PvP i think that this would create is that Purples have a disadvantage because Greens can hit them first.

From my understanding of that flowchart, a green CANNOT kill a green. So I'm not sure I follow your argument.

Ludullu

SirChancelot wrote: »

From my understanding of that flowchart, a green CANNOT kill a green. So I'm not sure I follow your argument.

I think Alacrite means that a random player is still free to kill another player at any time, so the result doesn't change at the end. Even though the path to that result is different.

unknownsystemerror

Alacrite wrote: »

I know that this the devs' intend on making this game a welcoming space for all types of players as well. So following this notion,

"Ashes will not be for everyone. And that is ok." - Steven Sharif

Dygz

Greens who attack Greens turn Red, right?
Non-Combatants can't attack each other and remain Non-Combatants.

Alacrite wrote: »

That goal is still met under my conditions. And the player turning red for attacking would be met with more PvP because they can be attacked for less risk.

I see the argument for the purple state. But if this is a game that appeals to PvP'ers, then people will attack a purple player because that's what they want to do. you open yourself to the world of PvP, and anyone green around you who wants to join in, will do so.

No. The goal is not met because if I can turn purple and get half the death penalties just for attacking a Red, I have no reason to continue to attack after I turn purple. And the attacker gets 4x the death penalties just for attacking me once.
Also, I'm not going to want people attacking me while I'm Purple.

But, when you say that the player who turns Red is met with more PvP, what you are really saying is that the players choose to PvP outside of Battlegrounds will be punished with 4x th death penalties merely for initiating PvP.
Which means no one will do that.

Alacrite

NiKr wrote: »

So they'd be hanging above you for, potentially, dozens of minutes, like that one killer with a spoon from the meme video.

The dedication required for this feels higher than my example of griefing on the current system. I guess some people might feel more motivated, but in my head, less dedication means less motivation.

NiKr wrote: »

In your system there's no such decision-making. For a green player (no matter where they are on the pvx spectrum) the best decision is to wait for the second hit and then start fighting back. If the second hit never comes, you just continue farming. If it comes, you can fight back w/o becoming a freebie for all the other people around you and you have a chance at juicy PKer loot.

You are right here. Even though I stated a "second attack condition", my main goal for the condition is actually just somewhere "pre-death". I tend to simplify my point to not get so wordy. But I also see your argument for wanting death to be the condition, and I think its fair and already a good system.

NiKr wrote: »

And the current system encourages a fair fight way more than yours does. At least under the current penalties and their implementations. And I don't see a point in changing those as well, just to fit your system, when people haven't even tested the current one.

You do have the experience of L2 so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right that it does make a fairer fight. I'm completely imagining the scenarios, for a combat system that hasn't been revealed yet.

I still would like to think there's a fine balance before the PK. We also don't know how the hp visibility will work either.

I also only ask this because I have friends that I would want to like the game, even though they're very much not into PvP. But that's because most MMO's have never had a solid world pvp mode that attracts casuals. And this game is very much built for casuals just as much for hardcore players, in terms of the intention.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

Greens who attack Greens turn Red, right?
Non-Combatants can't attack each other and remain Non-Combatants.

In Alacrite's system a green becomes purple after hitting another green. But purple immediately becomes red if they attack a green. So any green has a free hit against anyone, but anymore outgoing damage towards a green player would immediately turn red.

I also forgot to ask Alacrite how would dots work in that system lol. Would that be one hit or several? Imagine becoming red because you missclicked and used a dot instead of a singular spell.

Dygz

@Alacrite
Explain your concept of "abusing the system" again, please?

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

@Alacrit
Explain your concept of "abusing the system" again, please?

You missed an E at the end of the ping.

Alacrite

CROW3 wrote: »

It's fine. I responded to you as if you were an adult with the ability to hear a disagreement to a suggestion without taking it personally. Clearly that was a mistake based on your tantrum to hearing 'no'. I'll adjust accordingly in the future.

Sorry, I failed the grasp the inherent function of how an adult should speak with micro aggressions layered in their disagreement. You can continue to ironically belittle me while stating you're superior maturity.

I am humbled.

CROW3 wrote: »

Player A attacks Player B. Player A is now Purple.
Player A continues to attack Player B, now Player A is Red and gains corruption even if Payer B is alive and well.

Thats true to my original post. but you replied to the one comment that said I was merely simplifying the base design choice. The condition for some level of corruption just has to be pre-death. In any system, there are gonna be holes for abuse. So i brought up the question to see if I can cover the hole that is a griefer dicking a pacifist as they try to do their own thing. If the game philosophy only want people turning purple because both players WANT to PvP, then i felt this might help further that cause.

Alacrite

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

Alacrite wrote: »

I know that this the devs' intend on making this game a welcoming space for all types of players as well. So following this notion,

"Ashes will not be for everyone. And that is ok." - Steven Sharif

The game is meant to draw in PvE'ers just as much I feel. I'm actually trying to look into modifications that fit their game philosophy. I could be wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, they're equally split and thats why they call the game a PvX game.

Alacrite

Dygz wrote: »

Greens who attack Greens turn Red, right?
Non-Combatants can't attack each other and remain Non-Combatants.

Alacrite wrote: »

That goal is still met under my conditions. And the player turning red for attacking would be met with more PvP because they can be attacked for less risk.

I see the argument for the purple state. But if this is a game that appeals to PvP'ers, then people will attack a purple player because that's what they want to do. you open yourself to the world of PvP, and anyone green around you who wants to join in, will do so.

No. The goal is not met because if I can turn purple and get half the death penalties just for attacking a Red, I have no reason to continue to attack after I turn purple. And the attacker gets 4x the death penalties just for attacking me once.
Also, I'm not going to want people attacking me while I'm Purple.

But, when you say that the player who turns Red is met with more PvP, what you are really saying is that the players choose to PvP outside of Battlegrounds will be punished with 4x th death penalties merely for initiating PvP.
Which means no one will do that.

Initiating PvP doesn't turn you red in my case. PvP still only happens if green decides to attack purple. Its the point at which purple decides to give up that I'm trying to change. Well, that and also avoiding a purple poking a green as they fight mobs or something. possibly interrupting gathering if thats how that works.

Alacrite

Dygz wrote: »

@Alacrite
Explain your concept of "abusing the system" again, please?

Lets say I'm a griefer, and I don't like this person farming an area I want. Killing mobs that I want. Since they're a pacifist, I get met with no repercussions. So they try to farm something. I hit and interrupt it. Or if they tried to fight a mob. I blast them and CC them, take aggro of the mob to kill and farm it. This would happen in both systems. But I'm hoping my system minimizes it.

Alacrite

Hopefully I answered the questions that needed answering. Appreciate you guys taking the time to read and write back. Specially @NiKr. mofo giving me a damn thesis every time lmao.

Thanks again. Will read in the morning.

Liniker

I don't understand why people keep making suggestions to change complex player driven systems that no one haven't even tested...

bloodprophet

Not sure if there is a mis-understanding of the base flagging system. The only way to become purple is to attack either a green or a purple. The after 90 seconds of not attacking a player you will turn back to a green.
As far as the flagging key I am sure keys will be rebindable so you can bind them as you wish.

At 1:09:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c7Y-D5R0IY&t=4146s

Ludullu

bloodprophet wrote: »

Not sure if there is a mis-understanding of the base flagging system.

Alacrite understands the system just fine. They just want to change it.

Noaani

So, I've read through the thread, but I honestly don't see what it is the OP is trying to achieve here.

I mean, to start, there is the logistical issue of the suggestion in the OP literally not being able to function.

Since everyone starts out as a green, if attacking a green automatically sets you as corrupt, there is no possible means of acquiring "combatant" status. Everyone will be green until someone attacks a green, in which case they will be corrupt. Any green player that attacks or kills a corrupt player would still remain a green.

There would literally be no possible way to become purple with the suggestion in the OP - without further changes to the system.

akabear

This proposed change could significantly reduce likelihood of PVP as there would be less to no, incentive retaliate as such greater benefits to let everyone go red. Definitely no.

The measure of the punitive nature of the system will be less about being "red" alone, but more about what the consequence entails;
a) how much will drop from the red player at death,
b)how hard it will to reduce karma to zero to back non red status
c) how much effort is required to cleanse of kill totals... (equivalent of L2 sin eater quest)

Only really from that can it be gauged if the system provides the right balance. and hopefully the stats are tweaked by the gm`s from analytics gained in-game to maintain the right balance.

Alacrite

Liniker wrote: »

I don't understand why people keep making suggestions to change complex player driven systems that no one haven't even tested...

Lol. The whole point of this is just theorizing. Literally the first word of the title is "Wondering". I'm on an MMO's forum thinking about a system and design. This is for fun. It's dork shit. I love people coming in here and trying to "own me" for having a thought

Alacrite

bloodprophet wrote: »

Not sure if there is a mis-understanding of the base flagging system. The only way to become purple is to attack either a green or a purple. The after 90 seconds of not attacking a player you will turn back to a green.
As far as the flagging key I am sure keys will be rebindable so you can bind them as you wish.

At 1:09:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c7Y-D5R0IY&t=4146s

There actually was a slight misunderstanding in the beginning so if you read through the WHOLE thing that makes sense. But I did understand it quickly. And ultimately the point the stayed the same. Just extending corruption to a situation where a green's experience is being attacked and seeing how that works with the philosophy of keeping PvP'ers and PvE'er enjoying their own thing.

Child Item