OPT-IN PvP flagging - No Corruption

Vyril

Reading the wiki on PvP I don't see an option for just going into the world and turning on and choosing to be attackable by other players that also turn on their PvP flag.

I would prefer to have the option to turn it on, and have engagements of PvP in the open world. With some Risk vs Reward. With a bit more XP, Gold, Resources being flagged.

I know there are plenty of options for PvP in the world, but I wouldn't mind just doing basic gameplay content and still be in fights that aren't just PK'ing.

Some of my best gaming memories have been in open world low consequence, but high risk (loot / resources) PvP.

Ludullu

You can. Just hit a dude. No additional benefits for that though, cause fuck that.

Vyril

NiKr wrote: »

You can. Just hit a dude. No additional benefits for that though, cause fuck that.

Doesn't that add corruption, and considered to be PK'ing versus consensual PvP on both sides?

Bullvinne

Vyril wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

You can. Just hit a dude. No additional benefits for that though, cause fuck that.

Doesn't that add corruption, and considered to be PK'ing versus consensual PvP on both sides?

No, it only adds corruption if they never fight back and you continue to kill them. If they fight back, they get flagged and then if you kill them there is no corruption.

So if you pick a fight with someone and they dont fight back, just stop attacking them and go on about your business if you dont want corruption.

Bullvinne

Also, corruption only happens upon killing another non-combatant player, not upon the first attack against a non-combatant player.

Vyril

Bullvinne wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

You can. Just hit a dude. No additional benefits for that though, cause fuck that.

Doesn't that add corruption, and considered to be PK'ing versus consensual PvP on both sides?

No, it only adds corruption if they never fight back and you continue to kill them. If they fight back, they get flagged and then if you kill them there is no corruption.

So if you pick a fight with someone and they dont fight back, just stop attacking them and go on about your business if you dont want corruption.

I wonder what will happen when somebody gets attacked and runs into a mob and dies, but never attacked back.

Or a 3rd party kills the player. There seems to be some cheesing situations.

Bullvinne

Vyril wrote: »

Bullvinne wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

You can. Just hit a dude. No additional benefits for that though, cause fuck that.

Doesn't that add corruption, and considered to be PK'ing versus consensual PvP on both sides?

No, it only adds corruption if they never fight back and you continue to kill them. If they fight back, they get flagged and then if you kill them there is no corruption.

So if you pick a fight with someone and they dont fight back, just stop attacking them and go on about your business if you dont want corruption.

I wonder what will happen when somebody gets attacked and runs into a mob and dies, but never attacked back.

Or a 3rd party kills the player. There seems to be some cheesing situations.

Oh for sure, there can be many unseen issues with the system. We wont know until Alpha 2 and some testing is done.

I think if they get any kinks out of the system, and the corruption penalty is severe enough, this system should do what its intended to do: encourage most players to flag for pvp, but deter alot of greifers from attacking those who dont want to pvp and from higher levels attacking lower levels.

SongRune

Nothing at all happens in that case.

If you fight back at all, you're considered "willing to PvP" and anyone can kill you. (Otherwise if your original attacker had a friend with them, the friend might get corruption.)

If a mob kills a player, nobody gets corruption. Steven's chosen solution to the "cheese" of letting a mob last-hit is to make it so you don't know how much hp other players have left and might accidentally kill them yourself. I'm not sure how this helps with "making their even-match PvE suddenly become difficult due to low health though. You can still tell if a player is high or low generally.

Bullvinne

I also hope that there is automatic corruption for a much higher level attacking a much lower level. Lets say two even(ish) level players decide to engage in consensual pvp (that sounded dirty), and during the battle, a max-level player comes along and nukes them down. If there is no checks in place, that max-level player wont get corruption since the two lower level players were flagged for pvp.

If a player is 10+ levels above another its most likely a ganker and should be handled differently as that is usually not consensual pvp.

Ludullu

Bullvinne wrote: »

I also hope that there is automatic corruption for a much higher level attacking a much lower level. Lets say two even(ish) level players decide to engage in consensual pvp (that sounded dirty), and during the battle, a max-level player comes along and nukes them down. If there is no checks in place, that max-level player wont get corruption since the two lower level players were flagged for pvp.

If a player is 10+ levels above another its most likely a ganker and should be handled differently as that is usually not consensual pvp.

Sure as hell hope this will not be the case. I plan to help out any of my citizens and if they get attacked and I can only literally stand there and do nothing because I'm 10 lvls higher than their attacker - I'd be very disappointed in the game.

Bullvinne

NiKr wrote: »

Bullvinne wrote: »

I also hope that there is automatic corruption for a much higher level attacking a much lower level. Lets say two even(ish) level players decide to engage in consensual pvp (that sounded dirty), and during the battle, a max-level player comes along and nukes them down. If there is no checks in place, that max-level player wont get corruption since the two lower level players were flagged for pvp.

If a player is 10+ levels above another its most likely a ganker and should be handled differently as that is usually not consensual pvp.

Sure as hell hope this will not be the case. I plan to help out any of my citizens and if they get attacked and I can only literally stand there and do nothing because I'm 10 lvls higher than their attacker - I'd be very disappointed in the game.

See if I am wanting to fight Bob over there that is about my level because it seems like a fun challenge, and a higher level "friendly" wants to help me take them out, they would be taking the fun and challenge away from me.

The only time I could see needing help from a higher level would be if I am getting ganked by a group of people, but all I have to do is not fight back when I see its a group and I am outnumbered and they will get corruption if they continue to kill me.

Again, the flagging system working as intended.

Ludullu

Bullvinne wrote: »

Again, the flagging system working as intended.

Exactly, so it doesn't need any of that "high lvls deserve corruption if they attack lower leveled flagged people" stuff

Moofinity

I believe the attacker that lands the killing blow is the one that would get corruption on someone that does not fight back. I don't believe that it is a scenario that if you hit someone and they die you get penalized.

Taleof2Cities

Vyril wrote: »

Reading the wiki on PvP I don't see an option for just going into the world and turning on and choosing to be attackable by other players that also turn on their PvP flag.

I would prefer to have the option to turn it on, and have engagements of PvP in the open world.

Opt-in flagging was one of the biggest contributors to New World's spectacular flameout, @Vyril.

It won't be an option in Ashes ... Steven and Intrepid Studios want open world PvX.

Don't worry, though, there will be plenty of risk vs reward in that format ... with stiff corruption penalties for griefers.

Hinotori

We're not here to opt in.

we're here to commit war crimes.

Kreinster

Bullvinne wrote: »

I also hope that there is automatic corruption for a much higher level attacking a much lower level.

Not automatic, but level disparity between players leads to much higher corruption upon on-green murder.

CROW3

Natasha wrote: »

We're not here to opt in.

we're here to commit war crimes.

This needs to be translated into Latin and become your mantra. 😄

Hinotori

@CROW3 yes the old Hic non sumus optare. Hic hic sumus ad bella committenda crimina.

Karthos

There already is an opt in/out system for PVP in Ashes of Creation.

Opt In. Log into game

Opt Out. Log out of game.

This isn't snark. This is the actual system in place right now.

LordPax

I was under the impression that the "combatant" status was equivalent to OPs suggestion. Like, two purples in the open world can fight/kill each other with no corruption fears.

SongRune

LordPax wrote: »

I was under the impression that the "combatant" status was equivalent to OPs suggestion. Like, two purples in the open world can fight/kill each other with no corruption fears.

It's that purples turn green after not fighting anyone for 90 seconds, so purples aren't just "in the world". To be purple means you just hit another player. Maybe to attack, maybe to defend.

This probably covers what the OP requested, but the OP might be asking for something more like "please mark me as always purple", so that players could identify themselves easily as "open to PvP" rather than everyone looking like a sea of green, with no hint as to whether they're actually interested in dueling.

(It could also be mildly confusing to someone new to the forums/wiki who didn't fully understand the system yet, which is another possibility. I'm sure OP can clarify.)

Sapiverenus

OP wants Blue status. "Looking for Combat". Between Green and Purple.

daveywavey

Vyril wrote: »

I wonder what will happen when somebody gets attacked and runs into a mob and dies, but never attacked back.

Or a 3rd party kills the player. There seems to be some cheesing situations.

That's the risk you take for being the attacker. That's on you.

Warth

daveywavey wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

I wonder what will happen when somebody gets attacked and runs into a mob and dies, but never attacked back.

Or a 3rd party kills the player. There seems to be some cheesing situations.

That's the risk you take for being the attacker. That's on you.

There is no risk though. Only the killing blow gives corruption. Dying to anything else but your killing blow will not

Vyril

SongRune wrote: »

LordPax wrote: »

I was under the impression that the "combatant" status was equivalent to OPs suggestion. Like, two purples in the open world can fight/kill each other with no corruption fears.

It's that purples turn green after not fighting anyone for 90 seconds, so purples aren't just "in the world". To be purple means you just hit another player. Maybe to attack, maybe to defend.

This probably covers what the OP requested, but the OP might be asking for something more like "please mark me as always purple", so that players could identify themselves easily as "open to PvP" rather than everyone looking like a sea of green, with no hint as to whether they're actually interested in dueling.

(It could also be mildly confusing to someone new to the forums/wiki who didn't fully understand the system yet, which is another possibility. I'm sure OP can clarify.)

Yes this is pretty much it.

After hearing about it more in detail, I understand more how the system works.

I've always liked the fact random PvP can happen without penalty, I don't mind being ganked or ambushed, but if people think I'll not fight back, it might not happen because the player won't want to go corrupted.

Vyril

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

Reading the wiki on PvP I don't see an option for just going into the world and turning on and choosing to be attackable by other players that also turn on their PvP flag.

I would prefer to have the option to turn it on, and have engagements of PvP in the open world.

Opt-in flagging was one of the biggest contributors to New World's spectacular flameout, @Vyril.

It won't be an option in Ashes ... Steven and Intrepid Studios want open world PvX.

Don't worry, though, there will be plenty of risk vs reward in that format ... with stiff corruption penalties for griefers.

No the biggest flame out for NW was they changed the game from open world to instance based progression.

joshisanonymous

I'm not a fan of opt-in PvP. In fact, I'm a bit concerned that if the impact of corruption is too great and the penalties for dying as a non-combatant too small, then we'll effectively have recreated an opt-in PvP system. Who would want to risk gaining corruption if they have to farm XP for a few days to get rid of it? Who would choose to fight back when they can just let the person debuff themselves with corruption without losing much themselves?

Dygz

Karthos wrote: »

There already is an opt in/out system for PVP in Ashes of Creation.

Opt In. Log into game

Opt Out. Log out of game.

This isn't snark. This is the actual system in place right now.

Yep. Especially with the Open Seas auto-flag PvP.

Dygz

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Opt-in flagging was one of the biggest contributors to New World's spectacular flameout.

It won't be an option in Ashes ... Steven and Intrepid Studios want open world PvX.

Don't worry, though, there will be plenty of risk vs reward in that format ... with stiff corruption penalties for griefers.

Ashes is all opt-in PvP... except for the Open Seas.

Bullvinne

joshisanonymous wrote: »

I'm not a fan of opt-in PvP. In fact, I'm a bit concerned that if the impact of corruption is too great and the penalties for dying as a non-combatant too small, then we'll effectively have recreated an opt-in PvP system. Who would want to risk gaining corruption if they have to farm XP for a few days to get rid of it? Who would choose to fight back when they can just let the person debuff themselves with corruption without losing much themselves?

I think the penalties for both non-combatant death and corruption need to be equally severe. The PKer needs to have to think twice before going corrupted, and the non-combatant really needs to have to think twice to not defend themselves. This would be the only way this system would work to actively stop greifers and encourage pvp out of the non-combatants.

TheWolfofGar

I don't think people are critiquing this as the op isn't to my understanding asking for an opt-in pvp system, but rather the ability to flag purple without needing to hit someone first, so they can walk around always purple without needing a punching bag every 90s. So that players who may wish to pvp don't need to wonder if he'll flag up or not he's already there. Essentially a hit me sign rather than needing to attack someone wait to see if they respond then continue cause you don't want corruption.

Agreed with the other critiques though there should be no additional benefit to walking around purple. Your benefit is you get a 50% discount on drop loss.