Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options

Topic: Should groups over a certain size, such as raids, automatically be marked as combatants?

DolyemDolyem Member
edited July 2022 in General Discussion
A thought occurred to me that if open world PVP fights progressed into largescale battles over periods of time, a large raid/zerg group of players starting out of combat could potentially insert themselves directly into a fight and wait for the proper moment to attack, staying unflagged to either get killed and cause corruption on purpose or to just obliterate everyone once the opportunity favors them. A simple solution is to mark raids as combatants, the only loophole being players in several regular groups working together, although I suppose the deterrent for that would be friendly fire once they are all flagged. Just a shower thought. What are your opinions on this potential "exploit"? And yes I acknowledge testing needs to be done.

Edit: made a strawpoll for funnsies https://strawpoll.com/polls/1MnwvMkwLy7
GJjUGHx.gif
«13

Comments

  • Options
    NiKrNiKr Member
    Players can't flag on their guild/ally-mates so I'd assume that the multiple parties in the same place from the same guild but w/o a raid would be the main "exploit" for this suggestion, and they wouldn't friendly fire each other. Unless Intrepid implemented your suggestion and made it so that you did in fact friendly fire your guild-all-mates, but then you have a much larger problem of non-raided parties from the same guild participating in some activity and just killing each other, which, imo, is a much bigger problem than just "3rd party waiting for one of the sides to kill the other side, become weaker and die to said 3rd party".
  • Options
    tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Nope.

    1. PvP is voluntary. If you are involuntarily flagged, for whatever reason, then PvP becomes involuntary.
    2. Since it is open world, we will often see multiple parties doing dungeons & raids together. So, if a potentially hostile party comes along then one or more of the cooperative parties can flag and take care of the hostiles, and a core party can continue with the mobs.
    3. I suspect that others can come up with additional reasons.
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    NiKr wrote: »
    Players can't flag on their guild/ally-mates so I'd assume that the multiple parties in the same place from the same guild but w/o a raid would be the main "exploit" for this suggestion, and they wouldn't friendly fire each other. Unless Intrepid implemented your suggestion and made it so that you did in fact friendly fire your guild-all-mates, but then you have a much larger problem of non-raided parties from the same guild participating in some activity and just killing each other, which, imo, is a much bigger problem than just "3rd party waiting for one of the sides to kill the other side, become weaker and die to said 3rd party".

    Maybe have it work with proximity for guilds? No idea how the coding for that would work so I dont know how hard it would be but if you have a similar number of guildies in an area that resemble that of a raid, maybe mark everyone as combatants? maybe exempt towns/cities from this affect for obvious reasons. I am not going to sit here like I have the answer, I just see the potential problem and want to see some solutions
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    NiKrNiKr Member
    Dolyem wrote: »
    I just see the potential problem and want to see some solutions
    I guess that's where we're different. I've been on all sides of this kind of interaction and to me it never seemed unfair. It was just battle tactics. I used them too, so why would I try and prevent my enemies from using them against me.

    Sometimes we'd even have "sacrificial" attackers that would PK the 3rd party's healers so that they couldn't kill us as easily. If Ashes has 3+ sides fighting over some content, I'd definitely have several glass cannon players with 0 PK count just to kill healers of any 3rd party. And then I'd tell those players to go and cleanse their PK count so that they can repeat it again in the next fight.

    If the 3rd party tries to save their healers by flagging up - there's no issue for us, because the healers will still go down (because now they're being assisted by multiple people at once), while we get no corruption. And if the 3rd party doesn't flag up, then they're not attacking us and we're fine with that too.
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    edited July 2022
    tautau wrote: »
    Nope.

    1. PvP is voluntary. If you are involuntarily flagged, for whatever reason, then PvP becomes involuntary.

    Well if you start a raid knowing that it flags you, that would be voluntary. Not to mention, you don't have to engage in pvp with anyone, its just a deterrent for an exploit by zergs.
    tautau wrote: »
    2. Since it is open world, we will often see multiple parties doing dungeons & raids together. So, if a potentially hostile party comes along then one or more of the cooperative parties can flag and take care of the hostiles, and a core party can continue with the mobs.

    A group(8 players) wouldn't be affected by the proposal I offered, I only aim this at zerg status groups. Technically open world raids are very open to pvp intervention, otherwise they would be in instances. This would be as simple as having a secondary pvp focused defense group watching the raids back, which I would assume is what most people already intend to do even without this feature. Raid bosses will be fought over by players regardless of this features implementation. And before you say "corruption will prevent that", all an attacking raid needs to do is send 1 group in who dont care about corruption gain and start beating your raid down, and either only 1 ggroup will be affected with corruption allowing for either a raid boss take over depending on the damage done to it already, or a boss reset where they have a full raid as non-combatants swooping in to take it over. The other outcome is you fight back anyway and the entire raid moves in to kill the combatants or cause corruption themselves.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Um... Does any of this fall under the auto flaging from mayor declaring war on other nodes or active guild wars.

    Or is this a hypothetic where say 30 randoms vs 30 randoms, with another 30 greens are just standing around?
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    NiKr wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    I just see the potential problem and want to see some solutions
    I guess that's where we're different. I've been on all sides of this kind of interaction and to me it never seemed unfair. It was just battle tactics. I used them too, so why would I try and prevent my enemies from using them against me.

    Sometimes we'd even have "sacrificial" attackers that would PK the 3rd party's healers so that they couldn't kill us as easily. If Ashes has 3+ sides fighting over some content, I'd definitely have several glass cannon players with 0 PK count just to kill healers of any 3rd party. And then I'd tell those players to go and cleanse their PK count so that they can repeat it again in the next fight.

    If the 3rd party tries to save their healers by flagging up - there's no issue for us, because the healers will still go down (because now they're being assisted by multiple people at once), while we get no corruption. And if the 3rd party doesn't flag up, then they're not attacking us and we're fine with that too.

    But how is that better than keeping a level playing field and preventing loopholes in mechanics like you just mentioned? Everything you described is more or less just a flawed design for PvP engagements.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    I can hear the PvE cries alrdy. No need for this.
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    Um... Does any of this fall under the auto flaging from mayor declaring war on other nodes or active guild wars.

    Or is this a hypothetic where say 30 randoms vs 30 randoms, with another 30 greens are just standing around?

    I mean, why not both? share your thoughts on either but I was focusing on the hypotheticals.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    I can hear the PvE cries alrdy. No need for this.

    I know you're a PvP guy so I would actually love to hear your reasoning
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited July 2022
    Well i believe guilds at war are auto flagged for each other. And nodes at war's citizens are auto flagged for each other... so unless a guild or node hires some unaffiliated people to hang out green to use this loophole, most affiliated combatants would already be flagged?

    In those situations.

    Its the concept of a spontanious 60 player fight, with a third faction just hanging out where this is more troublesome, and idk what kind of situation would lead to a clean 2 faction fight of that size group without a node or guild war

    And if it is spontaneous, and not for a more over arching purpose, who cares how it goes? Even if some people try and use being green to get out ahead at the end of it
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    Well i believe guilds at war are auto flagged for each other. And nodes at war's citizens are auto flagged for each other... so unless a guild or node hires some unaffiliated people to hang out green to use this loophole, most affiliated combatants would already be flagged?

    Well yes, but what about guilds who arent flagged for war but end up in this situation? Especially for boss raids in my comment above.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    CROW3CROW3 Member
    No thanks.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    CROW3 wrote: »
    No thanks.

    Elaborate, I cherish you opinion.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited July 2022
    Well i believe
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Well i believe guilds at war are auto flagged for each other. And nodes at war's citizens are auto flagged for each other... so unless a guild or node hires some unaffiliated people to hang out green to use this loophole, most affiliated combatants would already be flagged?

    Well yes, but what about guilds who arent flagged for war but end up in this situation? Especially for boss raids in my comment above.

    A guild who is geared up and in a 40 man raid group, just stumbling into a war zone filled with a huge number of already flagged players? Sounds like content to me... its an open world with pvp. Unfair situations will happen. I dont think you can act like you dont notice the 30+ high level green players that keep getting closer to the battle field. They may not be flagged, but tricks should be expected when at war.
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    Well i believe
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Well i believe guilds at war are auto flagged for each other. And nodes at war's citizens are auto flagged for each other... so unless a guild or node hires some unaffiliated people to hang out green to use this loophole, most affiliated combatants would already be flagged?

    Well yes, but what about guilds who arent flagged for war but end up in this situation? Especially for boss raids in my comment above.

    A guild who is geared up and in a 40 man raid group, just stumbling into a war zone filled with a huge number of already flagged players? Sounds like content to me... its an open world with pvp. Unfair situations will happen. I dont think you can act like you dont notice the 30+ high level green players that keep getting closer to the battle field. They may not be flagged, but tricks should be expected when at war.

    Well all of that is fair, but why have that be the design? A design to allow for manipulation of a system for an advantage? Why not attempt to make it better?
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    CROW3CROW3 Member
    Thanks, @Dolyem -

    Here’s what comes to mind immediately -

    One, I’ve had a lot of dumbass guild mates that start fights over nothing then expect us to bail them out. If I’m green, I’m ok with him learning his lesson without me getting dragged into his mess.

    Two, it could unintentionally flag lowbie members of that guild in an area where there’s a war brewing, which could jeopardize what they’re working on.

    Three, I really do like the flagging rules as they stand - having a modifier to those rules because I belong to a social group (beyond stated guild wars) doesn’t quite work for me.

    Four, specifically for raid groups - I can see one person starting something dumb on the way to a raid and flagging the whole team, which could jeopardize the overall mission.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • Options
    tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Because, @Dolyem , once you start making exceptions to the simple system then there are always other exceptions proposed. Pretty soon you have a very complicated system which irritates more and more people.

    While I sympathize with your intent...
    If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It
  • Options
    NiKrNiKr Member
    Dolyem wrote: »
    But how is that better than keeping a level playing field and preventing loopholes in mechanics like you just mentioned? Everything you described is more or less just a flawed design for PvP engagements.
    There would not be a level playing field. All you would do with your suggestion is just make sure that the 3rd party just stays back while they wait for one side of the conflict to win. They would most likely do this even w/o being auto-flagged, but now they'd do this for sure.

    Your suggestion brings 0 change to the interaction itself. It only makes it much much much worse for literally any raiding non-pvp group of players. You know all those people that want raiding to be its own thing? You've just fucked them all over with your suggestion. Now they're permaflagged when going to a raid. Now literally anyone can just attack them w/o any penalties. Now anyone sees them from a mile away (even more than if they were just green), because they'll be a huge purple blob on the horizon. And now you've alerted every guild in the vicinity that there's a raid that just respawned nearby, because there's a purple raid running around.

    All of those things limit the amount of potential gameplay variety (baiting PKs, having big group decoys, not engaging in pvp when it's more beneficial, etc), while not brining any benefit to the people that are affected by the suggestion. And people would still look for loopholes too. They'd not raid up right up until the boss/even location. They'd keep their distance from each other to not trigger the auto-system (if you go this way instead of just "raid = flagged"). They'd do whatever it would take them to avoid being auto-flagged for no apparent reason. So yet again, the suggestion doesn't give any benefit while brings detrimental changes.
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Well i believe
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Well i believe guilds at war are auto flagged for each other. And nodes at war's citizens are auto flagged for each other... so unless a guild or node hires some unaffiliated people to hang out green to use this loophole, most affiliated combatants would already be flagged?

    Well yes, but what about guilds who arent flagged for war but end up in this situation? Especially for boss raids in my comment above.

    A guild who is geared up and in a 40 man raid group, just stumbling into a war zone filled with a huge number of already flagged players? Sounds like content to me... its an open world with pvp. Unfair situations will happen. I dont think you can act like you dont notice the 30+ high level green players that keep getting closer to the battle field. They may not be flagged, but tricks should be expected when at war.

    Well all of that is fair, but why have that be the design? A design to allow for manipulation of a system for an advantage? Why not attempt to make it better?

    Because the world isnt safe? Ashes is aiming for this player driven story. The whole design of the over arching game is for this open world pvp to be a major function. I already view becoming a combatant to be inviting literally everyone around me to fight. Someone has to flag first. Greens will always have the upper hand in options to fight back or use curruption to mess with you.

    The curruption system in my eyes is a system to allow the small scale experience in the game to work. To limit single players from ruining other players time. To be in the later portion of the game, and affiliated with a large group, i see it as just a part of the world people will learn to be wary of.


    And i mean, i also think it is a good thought experiment too. Its a good conversation topic also.
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    NiKr wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    But how is that better than keeping a level playing field and preventing loopholes in mechanics like you just mentioned? Everything you described is more or less just a flawed design for PvP engagements.
    There would not be a level playing field. All you would do with your suggestion is just make sure that the 3rd party just stays back while they wait for one side of the conflict to win. They would most likely do this even w/o being auto-flagged, but now they'd do this for sure.

    Your suggestion brings 0 change to the interaction itself. It only makes it much much much worse for literally any raiding non-pvp group of players. You know all those people that want raiding to be its own thing? You've just fucked them all over with your suggestion. Now they're permaflagged when going to a raid. Now literally anyone can just attack them w/o any penalties. Now anyone sees them from a mile away (even more than if they were just green), because they'll be a huge purple blob on the horizon. And now you've alerted every guild in the vicinity that there's a raid that just respawned nearby, because there's a purple raid running around.

    All of those things limit the amount of potential gameplay variety (baiting PKs, having big group decoys, not engaging in pvp when it's more beneficial, etc), while not brining any benefit to the people that are affected by the suggestion. And people would still look for loopholes too. They'd not raid up right up until the boss/even location. They'd keep their distance from each other to not trigger the auto-system (if you go this way instead of just "raid = flagged"). They'd do whatever it would take them to avoid being auto-flagged for no apparent reason. So yet again, the suggestion doesn't give any benefit while brings detrimental changes.

    This is a pretty solid argument although I can't say what I stated isn't a massive problem as well, but all of what you said are definitely valid points. I will say however, Open world raid bosses will likely no matter what, be greatly affected by PvP. And what I mentioned earlier about this same exploit being utilized to wipe raids on bosses will be just as big of a problem as what you're stating here. The current design is still flawed from what I can tell, and a better solution than "Well just manipulate the current design" is desirable. Also I don't see an overwhelming need to protect massive groups of players with systems that are made to prevent ganking.

    But I digress, I will play it with the current system in place. I will manipulate it in the ways proposed to gain the advantages mentioned. And I won't gripe about it when it is done to me. But I won't say it is a good design.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    bloodprophetbloodprophet Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Just another anti-PvP thread.
    A solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

    Why should a guild that formed a raid and is heading to a raid be flagged? I have yet to see any valid excuse.
    Just because you see a mob of people heading somewhere does NOT mean they are out looking to roll over people.
    Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    CROW3 wrote: »
    Thanks, @Dolyem -

    Here’s what comes to mind immediately -

    One, I’ve had a lot of dumbass guild mates that start fights over nothing then expect us to bail them out. If I’m green, I’m ok with him learning his lesson without me getting dragged into his mess.

    Two, it could unintentionally flag lowbie members of that guild in an area where there’s a war brewing, which could jeopardize what they’re working on.

    Three, I really do like the flagging rules as they stand - having a modifier to those rules because I belong to a social group (beyond stated guild wars) doesn’t quite work for me.

    Four, specifically for raid groups - I can see one person starting something dumb on the way to a raid and flagging the whole team, which could jeopardize the overall mission.

    The guild thing was more or less a quick thought, but to remedy your concern I would say to only affect players above a certain level.

    As far as my raid suggestion, simply being in a raid has everyone in the raid flagged as combatant, not just if someone in it goes and smacks someone. That however leads into my third statement to answer this and your 1st reason....

    ... Stupid is as stupid does, some people are stupid and act up, but its as simple as not keeping them around. I have always said to give every opportunity to those around you to mess up, makes it easy to figure out who to keep around or boot out of your life.

    Also for number 3. I enjoy the current flagging rules as well, but only as far as small scale pvp goes. I cant help but worry about the large scale open world flagging.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    NEW THOUGHT! What if, as a solution, instead of raid flagging, guild war declaration can be done on a whim? Allowing for the hostilities to be made apparent to both sides. Sure the attacking force in the scenario wouldnt do it since theyd give up the advantage, but if they were seen, the currently fighting group or groups would be able to declare war simply to let them know they mean business and prevent an advantage which at that point would be optional. Although I suppose the problem there would be for raid bosses. Not all raids would opt to fight back in order to cause corruption on the aggressor raid, which in the current system is entirely viable. Hmmm, this is tough. Also if you havent realized I am typing as I think of this stuff so bare with me lmao.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Just another anti-PvP thread.
    A solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

    Why should a guild that formed a raid and is heading to a raid be flagged? I have yet to see any valid excuse.
    Just because you see a mob of people heading somewhere does NOT mean they are out looking to roll over people.

    So his main issue is essentially the act of an organized suprise attack by a clearly visible enemy, just because:

    You already being flagged gives them the upperhand.

    Them being green means you cant take preventitive action without risking going red.



    But at the same time this issue isnt going to be a world boss problem, because the players fighting the boss are the ones who will stay green and have the upper hand. And the new commer raid group will be risking curruption for killing them while they stay green to force them out.

    It is a good thought experiment. But seeing how these situations happen in game under the current system would probably be better than overly complicating the system for an issue that may not occur often.
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Well i believe
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Well i believe guilds at war are auto flagged for each other. And nodes at war's citizens are auto flagged for each other... so unless a guild or node hires some unaffiliated people to hang out green to use this loophole, most affiliated combatants would already be flagged?

    Well yes, but what about guilds who arent flagged for war but end up in this situation? Especially for boss raids in my comment above.

    A guild who is geared up and in a 40 man raid group, just stumbling into a war zone filled with a huge number of already flagged players? Sounds like content to me... its an open world with pvp. Unfair situations will happen. I dont think you can act like you dont notice the 30+ high level green players that keep getting closer to the battle field. They may not be flagged, but tricks should be expected when at war.

    Well all of that is fair, but why have that be the design? A design to allow for manipulation of a system for an advantage? Why not attempt to make it better?

    Because the world isnt safe? Ashes is aiming for this player driven story. The whole design of the over arching game is for this open world pvp to be a major function. I already view becoming a combatant to be inviting literally everyone around me to fight. Someone has to flag first. Greens will always have the upper hand in options to fight back or use curruption to mess with you.

    The curruption system in my eyes is a system to allow the small scale experience in the game to work. To limit single players from ruining other players time. To be in the later portion of the game, and affiliated with a large group, i see it as just a part of the world people will learn to be wary of.


    And i mean, i also think it is a good thought experiment too. Its a good conversation topic also.

    Honestly I see the corruption system as a small scale deterrent for griefing. Large scale pvp is very different. And to say the world isnt safe (and acknowledging the risk vs reward mentality) would making large groups combatants add to both of those concepts?

    And I agree, I am actually loving all of the arguments against, at this point I am just dissecting everything to find as many holes as I can. Definitely comments with some things I didnt think of.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    But at the same time this issue isnt going to be a world boss problem, because the players fighting the boss are the ones who will stay green and have the upper hand. And the new commer raid group will be risking curruption for killing them while they stay green to force them out.

    I acknowledged this with this problem earlier
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raid bosses will be fought over by players regardless of this features implementation. And before you say "corruption will prevent that", all an attacking raid needs to do is send 1 group in who dont care about corruption gain and start beating your raid down, and either only 1 ggroup will be affected with corruption allowing for either a raid boss take over depending on the damage done to it already, or a boss reset where they have a full raid as non-combatants swooping in to take it over. The other outcome is you fight back anyway and the entire raid moves in to kill the combatants or cause corruption themselves.

    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Options
    NiKrNiKr Member
    Dolyem wrote: »
    I will say however, Open world raid bosses will likely no matter what, be greatly affected by PvP. And what I mentioned earlier about this same exploit being utilized to wipe raids on bosses will be just as big of a problem as what you're stating here. The current design is still flawed from what I can tell, and a better solution than "Well just manipulate the current design" is desirable. Also I don't see an overwhelming need to protect massive groups of players with systems that are made to prevent ganking.
    As Penguin just said, the og raiders will have the upper hand because the newcomers will have to risk going Red in order to stop the raid.

    But even outside of that, depending on how ow bosses are balanced and designed, you might not even need a huge group of people to mess up a raid. If the boss is tuned in such a way that you need near-perfect gameplay - any solo rogue willing to go red against the raiders' healer will wipe the raid. He'd be green coming up to the raid because he's alone, so the raid itself would have to immediately go red against him to prevent him from doing anything.

    And in your suggestion, that raid would be flagged, so the rogue would not even risk anything at all. Hell, it could be a few rogues in stealth just fucking up everyone and everything. Or it could be a group of people that boost the boss' power because its people limiter went over and now he's "enraged". This would also wipe the raid w/o the newcomers flagging up or really even doing anything.

    We've yet to see how exactly Intrepid are planning to design their top lvl pvx content, so we'll have to wait till then to really see all the potential exploits. I definitely agree that there's at least a few obvious ones, but Intrepid might've already come up with some mechanics to prevent that, so I think it's a bit silly to worry about that before we know anything. Though your concern when it comes to ow bosses is definitely valid. The concern about "two sides fighting and then the 3rd comes and beats the winner" - not so much, imo :)
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    My take on this is that I don't see a whole lot of large scale PvP happening that is subject to corruption - and when that kind of fighting does happen, it isn't actually over anything.

    As such, I see no reason at all why what some may consider dirty tactics shouldn't be a thing.

    I wouldn't want to see tactics like this be viable when fighting over a caravan, a node or even a world boss (my expectation is that these will be subject to battleground rules - though this is not confirmed). However, for just open world fights because someone dissed your mother or what ever, I see this kind of thing being possible to be a good thing for the game, not a bad thing.
  • Options
    DolyemDolyem Member
    Noaani wrote: »
    My take on this is that I don't see a whole lot of large scale PvP happening that is subject to corruption - and when that kind of fighting does happen, it isn't actually over anything.

    As such, I see no reason at all why what some may consider dirty tactics shouldn't be a thing.

    I wouldn't want to see tactics like this be viable when fighting over a caravan, a node or even a world boss (my expectation is that these will be subject to battleground rules - though this is not confirmed). However, for just open world fights because someone dissed your mother or what ever, I see this kind of thing being possible to be a good thing for the game, not a bad thing.

    Thats fair honestly, what suggestions would you make regarding fighting over a caravan, a node or a world boss?
    GJjUGHx.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.