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

Bullvinne

I think Steven and the team will likely do what they are already planning to do despite any of our comments in this thread, so going back and forth will likely do nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I will always be flagged because I like open world pvp. So I am not a pve cry-baby or anything.

I just know that if they punish PVEers more than PVPers, this game will have a much smaller (niche) population. If they are happy with that, then hey more power to them. I will likely still play. I am just thinking of overall success of the game.

bloodprophet

Can't be perma flagged. If no PvP fo 60 seconds you will revert back to green.

Azherae

ChipsAhoy007 wrote: »

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.

The suggestion might have led to something like this, where the healer can heal either themselves or others more easily without being flagged, particularly with specific spells and situations.

There are certain 'ground area healing' abilities that we also don't know 'how they will work relative to flagging', but those may be changed, as they were only a part of Alpha-1 and Intrepid has confirmed that anything we saw before, ability wise, might also be changed.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

There are certain 'ground area healing' abilities that we also don't know 'how they will work relative to flagging', but those may be changed, as they were only a part of Alpha-1 and Intrepid has confirmed that anything we saw before, ability wise, might also be changed.

I'd assume that one would fall under the "switch"'s control, that's talked about in the 18th reference here
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

There are certain 'ground area healing' abilities that we also don't know 'how they will work relative to flagging', but those may be changed, as they were only a part of Alpha-1 and Intrepid has confirmed that anything we saw before, ability wise, might also be changed.

I'd assume that one would fall under the "switch"'s control, that's talked about in the 18th reference here
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

Thank you. Though technically I referred to 'what happens if Hallowed Ground is started on a nonflagged player and you have the switch off and then that player flags?'

The implication IS definitely that 'because the switch was on, them flagging up and being healed by standing in it will flag you, the healer'.

I'm just not willing to assume it because of various scenarios I can think of. It's probably not relevant to this discussion anyway.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Thank you. Though technically I referred to 'what happens if Hallowed Ground is started on a nonflagged player and you have the switch off and then that player flags?'

The implication IS definitely that 'because the switch was on, them flagging up and being healed by standing in it will flag you, the healer'.

The explicit statement of "completion of skill" makes me think that they could have a fail state imbedded in the coding, where if the first flag check didn't match up with the final one - the skill effect would be flipped.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Thank you. Though technically I referred to 'what happens if Hallowed Ground is started on a nonflagged player and you have the switch off and then that player flags?'

The implication IS definitely that 'because the switch was on, them flagging up and being healed by standing in it will flag you, the healer'.

The explicit statement of "completion of skill" makes me think that they could have a fail state imbedded in the coding, where if the first flag check didn't match up with the final one - the skill effect would be flipped.

Retroactively?

Anyways, like I said, it doesn't matter. If Hallowed Ground is the same, I have multiple tests to run myself on its flagging and corruption effects in Alpha-2. Until then, consider it irrelevant. I'm sure if somehow my plans for use of it are correct, it will be intentional design anyway.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Retroactively?

This is a very big assumption on my part and will obviously has to be tested, but if they go down the "animation based cd", then it'd seem logical to have a check of validity of effect at the end of the animation. And the mention of "completion of skill" makes me think that this is the case. So if you started a cast and it had a valid check (be it for flag or maybe for visibility), but then at the end the check was invalid - you got yourself a "failed" effect.

L2 worked like this. You couldn't cast abilities if your didn't have a visual on someone, but if you had the visual and then during the cast you lost it - the ability effect would not go through.

Azherae wrote: »

Anyways, like I said, it doesn't matter. If Hallowed Ground is the same, I have multiple tests to run myself on its flagging and corruption effects in Alpha-2. Until then, consider it irrelevant. I'm sure if somehow my plans for use of it are correct, it will be intentional design anyway.

I do think this matters, cause the same thing could be applied to aoe attack insteractions with the same switch and to even flagging itself. What if I do a forced attack on someone, but they move behind a tree during the cast? Do I get flagged because of my intention or do I not get flagged because the ability didn't attack (that is if the system I described is implemented).

But yes, it's all gonna be in the testing. I'll personally be rooting and giving feedback for the system to be like I'm used to, just because I see merit in it from my own experience and because I hate gcd with an absolute passion and it seems to me that animation-based cd allows you to not have a gcd cause it servers the same function.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Retroactively?

This is a very big assumption on my part and will obviously has to be tested, but if they go down the "animation based cd", then it'd seem logical to have a check of validity of effect at the end of the animation. And the mention of "completion of skill" makes me think that this is the case. So if you started a cast and it had a valid check (be it for flag or maybe for visibility), but then at the end the check was invalid - you got yourself a "failed" effect.

L2 worked like this. You couldn't cast abilities if your didn't have a visual on someone, but if you had the visual and then during the cast you lost it - the ability effect would not go through.

Azherae wrote: »

Anyways, like I said, it doesn't matter. If Hallowed Ground is the same, I have multiple tests to run myself on its flagging and corruption effects in Alpha-2. Until then, consider it irrelevant. I'm sure if somehow my plans for use of it are correct, it will be intentional design anyway.

I do think this matters, cause the same thing could be applied to aoe attack insteractions with the same switch and to even flagging itself. What if I do a forced attack on someone, but they move behind a tree during the cast? Do I get flagged because of my intention or do I not get flagged because the ability didn't attack (that is if the system I described is implemented).

But yes, it's all gonna be in the testing. I'll personally be rooting and giving feedback for the system to be like I'm used to, just because I see merit in it from my own experience and because I hate gcd with an absolute passion and it seems to me that animation-based cd allows you to not have a gcd cause it servers the same function.

For clarity, (last response because I really don't want to go into the weeds on this one), Hallowed Ground is a ground template that Heals allies over time and Damages enemies over time.

It must 'tick' to decide which of those things it will do based on both position of player and 'intent of caster'.

If I cast Hallowed Ground on a Green player and my Green party member and my Green party member then flags up by attacking the other green Player while they are both standing in my Hallowed Ground, the question is 'what happens then?'

The extension of that, relative to the actual topic, is 'at what point, if any, do I get flagged while this is going on?'

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

It must 'tick' to decide which of those things it will do based on both position of player and 'intent of caster'.

If I cast Hallowed Ground on a Green player and my Green party member and my Green party member then flags up by attacking the other green Player while they are both standing in my Hallowed Ground, the question is 'what happens then?'

The extension of that, relative to the actual topic, is 'at what point, if any, do I get flagged while this is going on?'

I would assume, each tick is the "completion of cast". So the skill would do a check comparison against your switch option. If you disabled aoe flagging - you won't flag if any player in your h/dot aoe changes state.

That seems logical to me and I see no gameplay issue with that. If your mate flagged in a healing aoe, while knowing that you have your aoe flagging disabled - that's on him (that is, if you or PL explicitly said not to flag). I've seen quite a few raids fail because some dumbass flagged up when he shouldn't have. This system would prevent that (that is, he'll just die while no one else gets involved).

Same for pvp flagging, I've seen a ton of "aoe flag baiting" in L2 and it was often very frustrating. This kind of check system would prevent that.

If you see a flaw in this kind of system, definitely point it out, cause I might be missing smth due to my bias.

Songcaller

Azherae wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Retroactively?

This is a very big assumption on my part and will obviously has to be tested, but if they go down the "animation based cd", then it'd seem logical to have a check of validity of effect at the end of the animation. And the mention of "completion of skill" makes me think that this is the case. So if you started a cast and it had a valid check (be it for flag or maybe for visibility), but then at the end the check was invalid - you got yourself a "failed" effect.

L2 worked like this. You couldn't cast abilities if your didn't have a visual on someone, but if you had the visual and then during the cast you lost it - the ability effect would not go through.

Azherae wrote: »

Anyways, like I said, it doesn't matter. If Hallowed Ground is the same, I have multiple tests to run myself on its flagging and corruption effects in Alpha-2. Until then, consider it irrelevant. I'm sure if somehow my plans for use of it are correct, it will be intentional design anyway.

I do think this matters, cause the same thing could be applied to aoe attack insteractions with the same switch and to even flagging itself. What if I do a forced attack on someone, but they move behind a tree during the cast? Do I get flagged because of my intention or do I not get flagged because the ability didn't attack (that is if the system I described is implemented).

But yes, it's all gonna be in the testing. I'll personally be rooting and giving feedback for the system to be like I'm used to, just because I see merit in it from my own experience and because I hate gcd with an absolute passion and it seems to me that animation-based cd allows you to not have a gcd cause it servers the same function.

For clarity, (last response because I really don't want to go into the weeds on this one), Hallowed Ground is a ground template that Heals allies over time and Damages enemies over time.

It must 'tick' to decide which of those things it will do based on both position of player and 'intent of caster'.

If I cast Hallowed Ground on a Green player and my Green party member and my Green party member then flags up by attacking the other green Player while they are both standing in my Hallowed Ground, the question is 'what happens then?'

The extension of that, relative to the actual topic, is 'at what point, if any, do I get flagged while this is going on?'

I image you would have to force cast on a green not in your party. So, you would turn purple the moment you initiate the skill. It only makes sense for the ability to heal those in your group/party.

Chucksticks

Asraiel wrote: »

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.

If I'm understanding the system correctly, couldn't one way to maximize loot drop be to jump the victim with enough firepower so they wouldn't have a chance to counterattack?

Scarbeus

Having a non combatant lose less goes against the entire system which is there to encourage combat once it starts, not the other way around.

Warth

P.S. its also amusing how you make the argument, that ganking a target that isnt fighting back PvE

chucksticks wrote: »

Asraiel wrote: »

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.

If I'm understanding the system correctly, couldn't one way to maximize loot drop be to jump the victim with enough firepower so they wouldn't have a chance to counterattack?

The time to kill is supposed to be ~ 60 seconds long, so unless you do bring half a raid full of rogues and rangers, this does seem like a very unlikely, scenario to happen.

Not sure what to tell you If you don't realize 6 flagged mages casting fireballs, 4 warriors, 6 summoner pets and 3 tanks charging toward you. No reason to be a surprised pikachu then, learn to pay attention

Asraiel

Dygz wrote: »

Combatants are rewarded for flagging for PvP

Thats wy i opend up this topic in the first place. if flagging for combatant does reward the player not only to protect a amount of gathered and money to be looteble also reward the chance of beating the oponent.

non combatant are then theoreticly punished for not flagging and also punished cuase the chance to kill their oponent doenst exist. then the only reward there is that the attacker gets a deathpenalty by killing you.

so in other words the current system does give 2 rewards to those that fight back (flagging combatant) and applys 2 penaltys and 1 reward to those that dont fight back (non combatant) where however the reward is that the attacker gets a death penalty upon killing you.

not to fight back should not recive that penalty cause you giveing away the option to kill your attacker and get to loot him for that you flagg yourself combanant and sign the attacker that he doesnt get punished if he kill you.

the current is for a non combatant a: loss loss win situation
for a combatant a: win win situation

by changeing the droppenalty for non combatant this changes to a: win loss win situation
it should be enouth reward to flagg combatant only to get the chance not to be killed and to have the chance of looting your attacker.

George_Black

Your suggestions have no merit. The system works well. You are making a HUGE deal out of a tiny detail. It is also obvious that in your mind, the non-combatant and the aggressor are the only two people in the whole game.

If you think about it a bit harder you will see that people TRULLY have the option to fight back or let the aggressor go red.
It's an mmo.

Dolyem

Warth wrote: »

P.S. its also amusing how you make the argument, that ganking a target that isnt fighting back PvE

chucksticks wrote: »

Asraiel wrote: »

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.

If I'm understanding the system correctly, couldn't one way to maximize loot drop be to jump the victim with enough firepower so they wouldn't have a chance to counterattack?

The time to kill is supposed to be ~ 60 seconds long, so unless you do bring half a raid full of rogues and rangers, this does seem like a very unlikely, scenario to happen.

Not sure what to tell you If you don't realize 6 flagged mages casting fireballs, 4 warriors, 6 summoner pets and 3 tanks charging toward you. No reason to be a surprised pikachu then, learn to pay attention

to be fair, I think certain classes will be able to kill some classes quicker than others, and some will take much more time to kill. I fully expect glass cannon builds and survivability builds from all sorts. To say every fight will last an average of a minute is kind of unrealistic to me, BUT I digress, we shall find out during testing how close we are to the statement.

Dygz

Asraiel wrote: »

non combatant are then theoreticly punished for not flagging and also punished cuase the chance to kill their oponent doenst exist. then the only reward there is that the attacker gets a deathpenalty by killing you.

That is absolutely false:

Combatants are rewarded for PvP combat with half normal death penalties.

Non-Combatants have NORMAL death penalties. So that is neutral.

Corrupted are PUNISHED with 4x normal death penalties.

Non-Combatants don’t need to kill their opponents. Either their opponents choose not to kill the Non-Combatants in order to avoid Corruption. Or the attacker kills the Non-Combatant and is PUNISHED with 4x the death penalties along with some other gnarly consequences.
If the Non-Combatant dies, it’s the same death penalties as dying from a mob.

Asraiel wrote: »

so in other words the current system does give 2 rewards to those that fight back (flagging combatant) and applys 2 penaltys and 1 reward to those that dont fight back (non combatant) where however the reward is that the attacker gets a death penalty upon killing you.

The current system rewards Combatants with half the death penalties if the Combatant dies. That’s one - what is the other reward?

The current system does not apply any penalties for not fighting back. If you die as a Non-Combatant it’s the normal death penalties. Same as if you die from a mob.
Punishing Corrupted with 4x the death penalties is not a tangible reward…it’s a consolation, perhaps.

Asraiel wrote: »

not to fight back should not recive that penalty cause you giveing away the option to kill your attacker and get to loot him for that you flagg yourself combanant and sign the attacker that he doesnt get punished if he kill you.

Anytime you die as a Non-Combatant you get NORMAL death penalties. If you want half normal death penalties, flag as Combatant.

You aren’t “giving away the option to kill your attacker”. You are taking the option to not attack back. You have a free choice.

Asraiel wrote: »

the current is for a non combatant a: loss loss win situation
for a combatant a: win win situation

That’s a matter of perspective.
For me:
Getting PKed as a Non-Combatant is, at worst, a win/win/lose situation.
Win: PvP ended as quickly as possible
Win: PKer is punished with 4x Corruption
Lose: Normal death penalties

For PKer:
Lose: No challenging PvP fight
Lose: 4x death penalty
Lose: Increased Corruption Score
Lose: Flagged for Bounty Hunters
Lose: Ability to trade is toggled off
Lose: Family Summons is toggled off
Win: Looted some resources

For Combatant:
Win: Fair fight
Win: Half normal death penalties
Win: Looted half normal dropped resources

Asraiel wrote: »

by changeing the droppenalty for non combatant this changes to a: win loss win situation
it should be enouth reward to flagg combatant only to get the chance not to be killed and to have the chance of looting your attacker.

The current system is already Win/Win/Lose for Non-Combatant.
If you remain Non-Combatant, you still have a good chance to not be killed because Corruption is a significant risk.

If I’m not in the mood for PvP combat, killing and looting my attacker is not going to appease my annoyance being pushed into flagging as Combatant. Not dying also won’t appease my annoyance at being pushed to flag as Combatant.
Loot is only half normal death penalty drops, so, it’s really not much of a win if I’m not in the mood for PvP combat.

Better just to stay Non-Combatant and punish with Corruption if I’m killed. That minimizes the frequency that I will be PKed when I’m not in the mood for random PvP combat.

The current system is fine - if Corruption is truly harsh enough to deter PKing to the degree Steven envisions.

Asraiel

one thing that is missing in the discussion is that the dead drops a portion of its gathereble and money on the ground. he can retreve it but for that he has to go to its death location.

dont remind if this dropped bag was directly visible to others or had a timer on it before it was revealed. but ican say during A1 i was grinding mobs for the drops to sell to npc in order to rais money to by a house. and so was a easy target for others due to permanently useing my skills to kill mobs. was then also grinding once the pvp was activated and i made a quick buck for several players that passed by and charched on me even do i did fight back winning was out of the question due to the high diffrence of me not haveing all skills rdy and not have full mana and in some cases had a mob attacking me as well in the process.

shure looting gear wasnt enabled luckly or i might have ended up naked.

but i only can agree to that what a preposter mentioned that we have to wait and see when it is in alpha 2 to finetune the system. everyones opinion is needed in the end and mine is clear that the system discribed in the wiki and what i expirienced during alpha 1 needs some poslishing specialy for the non combatanbts. and on the point of changeing to cmbatant.

@Dolyem the 60 secs is refreshed with every attack that hits a player and only turns of or reflaggs back to noncombatant if no attack happend on other players for 60 secs.

dont know anymore if attacking a corrupt player as non combatant does flagg you as combatant.

George_Black

Hang on....

Child Item