PVP in Ashes Opt in System to the planned Flagging

Well we all know from the wiki that ashes will fully support open world pvp and we also know that the majority of all players are pve players in the mmo-rpg genres.

The current planned flagging system is at least something however i don't believe that it will lead to many players getting red flagged. Normal human behavior is upon being attacked you instinctively protect and fight back. This doesn't only apply to Real Life it also goes into Virtual World behavior. So the chance that someone gets killed without firstly trying to fight back or cc its attackers are slim to none existing and the system instantly flags the attacked player as combatant the moment he starts defending and fighting back or cc. And so a kill won't mark the attacker as a red or corrupt player.

What could be an additional system to optimize the planned one be?
what comes next problably will be hated by all Pvp lovers caues its an additional system that limits their fun even if it isn’t fun for PvE players to get fragged all day long.

Adding in a system that accumulates over time a flag or flag buff depending on their ingame activities. All player only doing pve content and does not participate in sieges or raids his flag as non combatant getting empowered over time (Time meaning here Real life days without pvp in any sort). this does affect his flag, should he be attacked by another player so his flag will stay non combatant for 1 seconds after the attacked did fight back or cc/heal, if he continues to attack after those 1 second (DOTs, HOTs or other skills that last longer does count only the initial attack) he will be flagged combatant. so to not participate in pvp only gives a timegab before being flagged. that 1 second get expanded by +1sec for every Real Life 24h without any pvp or pvp content participated. the max is reached after 5 days without pvp giveing a 5 sec buffer.

in addition could also opt in a system that gives a protection to lootable items in that process so that for every 24h -10% of the possible loot can be looted by other players that are looting the dead body. in both cases if the killed was still non combatant or combatant. this protection also stops at maximum 5 days which would result in a -50% lootability of the killed attacked player.

However if someone gets an attacked that has this buff and he gets flagged combatant this counts him as pvp and so as soon the status Combatant flags back to non combatant or he getting killed, the time before he gets again this additional protection is after 24 hours have passed.

If a player however is flagged corrupt (red) he cant get that buff, only non combatant can accumulate that buff.

This would not alter the planned flagging system but opts in a little extra safety and protection to those that will primarily play the game in pve and protects partly from the primarily instinctive biological reaction to protect against attacks. and not getting to feel the hard punishment if getting killed and so getting the feel of depression.

I personally am a pvx player doing both pvp and pve however I leave those not interested in pvp alone and stealing (griefing) did become a thing in games even though I believe it's bad to let it happen no matter the world it happens in.

Have a nice day
Asraiel

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dolyem

tautau wrote: »

Do your resource gathering on your lower-level alt (2nd account alt, if you do that) and have your higher level main camped hidden in the area. If some dude who thinks he is tough attacks your gathering alt, let the alt die and the attacker go red. Then swoop down with your main and kill the fool and pick up his weapon if he drops it. You might even want the alt naked, so he goes down in one shot.

There is an old thread on 'Alt Bait Tactic' that goes into some detail on this.

Oh hey! I am asking about this in the Q&A! Last week it almost made it onto the dev talk!

Liniker

Dygz wrote: »

Non-Combatants have normal death penalties when killed by a PvP attack. The same amount as if killed by a mob.
If you don't fight back and your attacker doesn't kill you because they don't want to suffer 4x the normal death penalties, you lose 0 resources.
And, giving your attacker Corruption not only ends the unwanted PvP combat as quickly as possible, but also deters future PKs.

that's cute, imagine not flagging, not reducing all your penalties by 50% to get the other guy red..... when he can use consumables and grind of his corruption and later on showing up as a green again saying "thx for the loot"

corrupted does not equal dead if you are smart about it, yall will learn this soon.

Dygz

Corrupted doesn’t equal dead in any case…Corrupted equals Corrupted, but they will die at some point.
And… they will waste more time getting rid of their Corruption and death penalties than I will from one death where I did not fight back.
Normal death penalty is not a problem.

The Corrupted player is welcome to the loot.
I dunno why you think they’re going to be able to find me again so easily.

CROW3

Liniker wrote: »

corrupted does not equal dead if you are smart about it, yall will learn this soon.

This isn’t news. This is how the corruption system has been documented for years.

Elwendryll

I really don't like opt-in systems.
You can abuse it by being disruptive/annoying without any possible retribution. Imagine if someone can try and steal your boss or contest your farming spot and you can't attack them because they didn't opt-in?

Ashes was designed a specific way, and I want to play the game they have in mind. And I see a lot of comments from people who want it to be a different game.

We need to see if the current design and values achieve the intended goals during testing, but I feel like the current design should work pretty well.

PherPhur

Azherae wrote: »

"So the chance that someone gets killed without firstly trying to fight back or cc its attackers are slim to none existing"

I disagree with this.

Since that's the basis of the perception, I also then disagree with the idea as a whole.

I also disagree with it because the system already literally does this. If you fight back, you already have a '-50% lootability'. The thing it is 'adding' is a lot of complexity around this which allows one to 'continue fighting without getting flagged. Which I think is a problem in healer-fighter duos, for example.

If you are implying that a healer can heal someone who is flagged without getting flagged themselves, i'd really doubt that'll be the case.

I don't think most of us want to see a corrupt player with 40 healers going around and decimating small villages(okay, maybe once... but that's it lol). If it's not a thing on Alpha 2 launch, my guess is it will be shortly after.

Scarbeus

I think the only issue that comes into question with dropping loot on death is how gear repair works. You don't want to get into and pit of having died so many times you've dropped everything you have in regards to resources and every piece of gear is broken so your chances of repairing anything have basically gone down the drain and you are reliant of people giving you resources to get back on your feet. If this is not the case, as in repairing only cots money and you don't drop money on death then I don't see dropping resources as a problem. Considering how expensive certain things are such as buying plots of land I think dropping your money as well as what resources you have on you is a bit much, but again until this is tested in A2 we will have to see what works and what doesn't.

Dygz

We don’t drop money when we die.
And, there’s no reason to be dying so many times your gear breaks.
Ashes doesn’t have corpse runs.

EdH

All I have to say is EVERY single MMO that has appeased the masses to protect them against "gankers and griefers" has, in the end, failed.

Dygz

EQ and WoW have not failed yet.
Protecting the masses against "gankers and griefers" works fine there.
Typically it's the MMORPGs that don't protect the masses against "griefers and gankers" that fail.
EvE being a notable exception.

daveywavey

Elwendryll wrote: »

Imagine if someone can try and steal your boss or contest your farming spot

It ain't "yours". I don't see your name on it... FREE FOR AAAALLLLLLL!!!

Veeshan

I dunno in new world most people i shot either A stood still and die after being hit, or B tried running away doing nothing but dieing sooooo

Veeshan

Neurath wrote: »

The trend in games is not positive at the moment. All games have lost 90 to 95% of players in less than a year in recent years - even Elden Ring and Minecraft. Thus, Ashes has an uphill battle already. We can't change the corruption system substantially because there are too many factions that all want different changes - therefore, no changes can occur because all other changes would have to be side-lined or implemented too and that means a total overhaul of the corruption system.

The idea to put in a buffer is the same argument some people used to have of making Streamers immune. It simply is not fair for anyone except those who directly benefit. Thus, it won't or can't be implemented. I still believe the death penalties should be reviewed but then PvE players would be even less inclined to fight back.

Of course single player games like Elden Ring loose 90% of it player base after the players finish the game they dont have a reason to stick around and play more they done there story line

Bullvinne

Neurath wrote: »

The problem we have is the devs have added a stupid system of drops being related to combat stance. Its a stupid notion because it doesn't incentivise PvP, it also does not decentivise PvP. Everyone should just drop the same amount of resources. This would then stop players seeking greens for bigger payloads and it also stops greens from quitting because they are forced to turn purple to cut down on resource loss.

I completely agree, either they drop the same amount, OR swap it! If you want to be a non-combatant because you want to focus on pve, make it slightly less incentivizing to attack a green. Keeping combatants fighting other combatants.

bloodprophet

Or just play the game as it is.
It is a conscious choice by Steven and the team to incentivize and prioritize PvX.
Why try to divide the community?

Bullvinne

Asraiel wrote: »

even if this topic may not bring the answer it should be known the planed system has to much potential to scare off potential players.

Yes, definitely.

I think to make it less of a potential to scare off players, the system should punish them less, but not remove the ability to attack them completely.

All players should be attackable
Green players (if they dont attack back aka stay stationary, etc) should be penalized the least. That way the combatant player gets less reward for killing them AND gets the 4x death pentalty
If a Green player responds, they become a combatant and then can be looted, etc. just like any other combatant.
Combatants can fight other combatants and have normal death penalties.

I feel this somewhat helps lessen the sting for pve players, but doesn't remove them completely from pvp combat.

I for one will likely stay a combatant as I like pvp, but I also don't plan to go around ganking greens. But I see this as a good compromise.

Dygz

LMAO
So... you mean PvEers shoud have the least amount of risk and have the least incentive to flag for random PvP combat.
That's not going to achieve the goals for Ashes to be an open world PvX game if the majority of the playerbase has little incentive to flag for random, open world PvP combat.

Bullvinne

Dygz wrote: »

LMAO
So... you mean PvEers shoud have the least amount of risk and have the least incentive to flag for random PvP combat.
That's not going to achieve the goals for Ashes to be an open world PvX game if the majority of the playerbase has little incentive to flag for random, open world PvP combat.

Yes, I think they should lose less, but still lose. I dont know what the exact amount will be, but lets say you lose 50% of gathered items and/or gold, they should still lose like 20-30%.

That should still sting (possibly enough to fight back in the chance they might win and not lose anything), but not enough if they ABSOLUTELY hate pvp. The Ganker would still get a small reward (20-30% of their stuff) but also get the increased death penalty which might make them thing twice before ganking a green.

I think with that change, it will be possibly more appealing to attack other combatants, but still leave non-combatants on the table as prey (seeing that 20-30% of their stuff would likely be a nice amount if they had been out gathering, etc)

EDIT: A non-combatant for sure should not loose MORE than someone flagged as a combatant. At bare minimum, combatants and non-combatants should lose the same amount.

Dygz

Um. No.
It should be exactly as currently designed:
Non-Combatants should lose the normal amount. Combatants are rewarded for flagging for PvP by losing half the normal amount. PvEers are rewarded for doing something they wouldn't normally enjoy doing.
That's what helps make Ashes a PvX game.

Songcaller

Veeshan wrote: »

Of course single player games like Elden Ring loose 90% of it player base after the players finish the game they dont have a reason to stick around and play more they done there story line

I meant the upward trend stopped and the downward trend started. A lot of MMOs are designed around solo play (BDO being a prime example), that still means the figures are fucked. Although, I do own Elden Ring but its still in the wrapper. I haven't played the game yet.

Child Item