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
My take on the flagging system
Jahad
Member
I just wrote a quick google doc for my take on the flagging system.
That doc is not complete and my english is bad. The system is not flawless and suggestions for improvements are welcome.
If you think its shit pls let me know why :-) i mean it could be
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10SYzPCrJ487tV9AbDjl_fouNClMnz-uHmwN6bwSo27A/edit?usp=sharing
That doc is not complete and my english is bad. The system is not flawless and suggestions for improvements are welcome.
If you think its shit pls let me know why :-) i mean it could be
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10SYzPCrJ487tV9AbDjl_fouNClMnz-uHmwN6bwSo27A/edit?usp=sharing
0
Comments
Maybe ill redo it for the forum.
There are parts missing, red players etc. and maybe its completely useless. But what do you think ?
Thanks, TT
So you should get no support for such "improvements".
Anyway, here are my comments:
"Attack ratio" should be called "defense ratio" because increases when defense is higher.
Or because it tries to influence the corruption change, could be called corruption factor (then better invert it, to be attack/defense so that you can multiply)
But I understand that the intention is to enhance the punishment of attackers and reduce the punishment of defenders.
And to give a high corruption to those who just help others to die being killed by NPCs.
The table about the attack and defense points don't describe the red vs others interaction (including vs bounty hunters).
A clear statement about when the points reset is missing. Or how they decrease? Do they decrease at all?
The weakness of the system is that punishes attackers. Some players might attack first because they see the opponent coming to loot them. You can be a lone gatherer and you see another player running and suddenly changing direction straight toward you. Why wait to be attacked first?
Also the wiki states that corruption will increase gradually. The game wants to allow ganking but not repeated ganking, like killing 10 players or one player over and over repeatedly.
The game will have factors but will consider the level difference between them rather than counting how many times a player attacked another one.
Why should they replace an mmos flagging system for your google doc?
Anyway.. here
That game started in 2003. Nobody complained.
It looks like your system will make it so that players who do not kill non combatants very often will suffer less corruption if they need to kill a non combatant while the punishment for being corrupted can be higher than it is presently.
I think this will result in players gaming the system. That is, players will look for fights in which they can be counted as defender; and, once they have enough points as a defender they get a greatly reduced penalty for killing one non combatant of their choice.
IMO, I don't think we need to reduce penalties for killing a player that does not fight. I also don't think we need to increase corrupted penalties at this point. They seem quite harsh compared to other MMOs and we haven't even tested the current system yet.
A simple and proven concept. Thank you for the link.
No worries. Make sure to use it if you chance upon some stubborn people with persistent personal concepts.
The question is who gets corrupted? If a 2 man party kills another player does only the killer get corruption or both ?
My proposed system ensures that if you are an very aggresive player ( you open up most of the fights against unsuspecting targets or help the attacker more often than the defender) you will get punished at some point, even if most of the time you dont personally kill the target.
But like i allready wrote, its not done and for sure flawed :-)
Thanks for the feedback
I asked if its is allready nessesary to flag yourself, i did not ask to implement such a system.
You are right with the attack first flaw. But is it a flaw ? If a non combat flagged player runs your way he could do it out of varous reasons. If you attack first, even if you think you are only defending yourself, you are the offender. Dumb i know. But the same thin is with the current cooruption system. If i am not wrong you only get corruption of you kill a non combat player. The second this player decides to not just die and lose his stuff but to fight back, you gain no corruption at all. With my proposed system he may not gain corrutpion this time too but he get a higher amount if he keeps attacking targets first.
And you are right. My doc is not complete :-) Thanks for the feedback
I didnt say they should replace anything. Just thought i put an idea out there. If the majority thinks its bad so be it :-)
The Problem with the LIneage 2 System is that i have to stand still and let me get killed if i want the other player gets punished. If i drop nothing, thats fine. LIke in Lineage 2 classic, as far as i know. But if i farmed for an hour and might lose (whatever number) of my hard earned stuff, i wont stand still. I will do everythng i can to attack and escape. So i get pvp flagged and if he kills me he even gets a reward for doing so.
And again, my proposed system is not meant to punish "balanced" players. Its meant to punish senseless aggressive idiots. And yep, its not complete, its just an idea and if it sucks it sucks :-)
Thanks
So you are saying that if someone has a different idea or opinion that is a bad thing? I even wrote i appreaciate feedback and accept if my proposal is just plain shit :-)
And again, the L2 System in itself is flawed. Noone complained because at the time we all played that game you endured much worse things than a flawed pvp flagging system.
But i learned somehing today, Thanks :-)
You are right, Players will always look to exploit the shit out of every game :-)
The numbers i used are just "random". You could finetune everything so that you need way longer to feel the effect. So if you are playing as a "good" player for a year you wont get punished that hard. If you are playing as an aggressive fuck for a very long time you get punished way harder. But of course, every system can and will be exploited.
I see a lot of system in AoC where i allready know that i and others will exploit the shit out of it.
It seems according to the feedback till now the system is overly complicated and as a suggestion from the staff site unwanted.
But at least i tried :-)
Thanks for the Feedback
Then the system is working perfectly. The purpose of the corruption system is to encourage players to fight back more, and to PvP more. It's there to discourage serial ganking only. That's why you have to pay an extra price (higher green death penalties) to put a bounty on your attacker's head. You're only intended to do this if they're enough of a troublemaker that it's worth that to you, not just if you don't feel like being killed right now.
By your own statements, the system is working as intended. Whether you agree with that intent is obviously a different question, but it seems like you don't, so if not, I have some questions:
Would you prefer hard on/off flagging? If not, why not?
Not a few PvPers on these forums over time have indicated that corruption wouldn't be a meaningful deterrent to them. You've explained that you would be happy if it was possible to make an attacker red without having to drop anything on death (as I read the quoted post). Would you also be happy if the drop-on-death was the same for green as it was for purple, or are you only interested in the situation where the attacker can never gain any items from killing you?
For all we know (and for example), gear loss on death could start happening much faster than expected – and after losing one or two nice pieces of gear, it won't really matter if the PvPer in question still wants to fight.
There's no PKer driven enough to troll people that there is no corruption severe enough to stop them. We'll just have to see how Intrepid will make it.
I don't know. I assumed the entire party but I don't see in the wiki anything. Still if only one gets corrupted is already a big deal for him. Then it will die easier and easier if doesn't stop. If the other gets corrupted too, then both have the problem. A slight one first then bigger and bigger.
if you mean by that, that the standard mode is pve and i can flag as pvp it is a hard NO.
Why ? Because i am a pvp player. Sometimes even a murderer of gatherers. One of the assholes i speak about. PvP should be the normal mode. IF you can flag yourself as "pvp ready" so that other players who want to do open world pvp can see that and attack you without fearing corruption, that could be fine. But nothing more.
I myself would prefer a fullloot system.
Why did i propose that system ?
Because if only the killer gets punished thats bullshit.
If you join a fight you have clarity about what happened, at least more.
You get rewarded for being not a dick and helping other players.
Instead of the randum "ATTRATIO" you could it simply call Reputation.
And so on.
But lets first test the now implemented stuff and after i exploited everything i will post again.
Well to point out a quick error in your google doc, how can someone have different colored names for different flags, while also having a color for deciding whether or not they're in combat? you can't be red and blue or green at the same time
?
I dont see it. If you refer to the second table i wrote right above it assuming you have to flag yourself Combat.
Otherwise a noncombat is of course green.
I didnt include red players at all. The second i have more information about the whole corruption system i could add more. but its seems that is not neccesary. At least not at the moment :-)
Yep, we are the Rainbow :-)
why? what if the attacker is the underdog. maybe he got killed by the defender before, and now he is trying to get his farming spot back, and he is also lower level and undergeared. why punish people for helping either side moe than the others?
If your Revenge is, lets say, 5 days later. we could add RevengePoints, so that if you attack him first you still get the attacker flag but not the ATTPoints and so on and so forth.
The problem here is that the system might get overly complicated when we just assume things, they need to be calculated through.
Guess it is a bit harder to avoid the RGB these days lol. It sounds like a new RGBTQ
That said, I feel like there could be a way to simplify this concept even further. The combatant status could just be split into two states. This would make it easier for players to understand what is going on.
If you kill a green, you’ll gain corruption. If you heal the dude that kills the green you’ll gain corruption.
Why does that need to be simplified?
Edit: healing doesn’t incur corruption. Thx @NiKr