Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Varying length of flagged time
Ludullu
Member, Alpha Two
This came up in a nearby thread.
We know that right now a flagged player will stay flagged for 90 seconds after their last pvp interaction. And we know that players of any lvl can just attack flagged players of any other lvl.
But what if the length of your flag depended on the difference between your lvl and the lvl of the player who had the biggest difference in lvl with yours during your pvp interaction? You'd still be free to attack any flagged player, but if you, as a lvl50, attacked a lvl20 player - you'd stay flagged for, say, 4 minutes.
This would mainly address any potential problems that could rise up from people of widely ranging lvls existing in the same location (due to how nodes will work). With adventure lvls being separated from the artisan ones, there's a chance that a low lvl gatherer might have some super valuable resources on them. The corruption already addresses the higher reward (and the power difference) of killing such a lowbie as a high lvl player, but I think that varying flag times could address the "bait them to flag with another lowbie and then kill them with a high lvl char" problem too.
So what do yall think? Do you think this is too carebear-friendly? Do you not even consider this an issue? Do you have another solution for this issue (if you see it as one)?
We know that right now a flagged player will stay flagged for 90 seconds after their last pvp interaction. And we know that players of any lvl can just attack flagged players of any other lvl.
But what if the length of your flag depended on the difference between your lvl and the lvl of the player who had the biggest difference in lvl with yours during your pvp interaction? You'd still be free to attack any flagged player, but if you, as a lvl50, attacked a lvl20 player - you'd stay flagged for, say, 4 minutes.
This would mainly address any potential problems that could rise up from people of widely ranging lvls existing in the same location (due to how nodes will work). With adventure lvls being separated from the artisan ones, there's a chance that a low lvl gatherer might have some super valuable resources on them. The corruption already addresses the higher reward (and the power difference) of killing such a lowbie as a high lvl player, but I think that varying flag times could address the "bait them to flag with another lowbie and then kill them with a high lvl char" problem too.
So what do yall think? Do you think this is too carebear-friendly? Do you not even consider this an issue? Do you have another solution for this issue (if you see it as one)?
0
Comments
I don't see how forcing a higher level to be flagged for longer durations would prevent a bait and switch. I feel the bait and switch would happen easier or more frequently. No one forces anyone to attack anyone else.
It's like Corruption-lite.
Making that highbie remain flagged for longer could help friends/guildmates/good citizens to enact revenge on the highbie if the lowbies shout about it in chat. And if it was a random foreigner doing it, the local citizens who love pvp would gladly punish him for messing up the lowbies experience.
More pvp for the people, more risk for doing shitty stuff, more localized socialization.
Yep, would definitely be a nice way to increase the risk of kill-less griefing of greens. If you're feeling so strong and mighty that you keep attacking a passive victim - I'm sure you'd be completely fine if another strong person comes and fights you instead.
It's about risk/reward and a bit of moral correctness. Those lowbies could be fighting over a valuable resource and one of them could be holding onto a lot of it. The lowbies are at the same lvl and are both willing to fight for their right to the resource. The game is working as intended and working amazingly. But then comes a third party that's completely outside of the lowbies' realm, kills both, loots whatever they can and moves on w/o even caring. Absolutely no risk, but potentially a huge reward.
The moral part comes from just a dick-dude running around as a highbie and looking for flagged lowbies to attack. He's not looking for reward, but just to spoil the fun of people who're willing to fight back (which might already be a rarity).
In both of those cases I see no reason for the highbie to get a higher risk for their actions. They either got a big reward, so risk is justified, or they're just messing with people for no real reason so punishing them seems justified too. Though again, in both cases it's just dudes looking for pvp, who seem to be completely fine with flagging up against anyone - so why not give them what they want, while also helping others have some good pvp too, all while promoting cross-lvl socialization (lowbies asking for help and highbies having fun while providing it).
Though I could see a "people in a party attacking a solo player = longer flag" too
I left off twinks but the 50% power can be matched at any level. All it takes is crafted gear. I'm not saying all lowbies will be twinks but most will stack damage and health early on. I'm not convinced a 50 can even one shot yet.
Definitely an improvement
Can also be balanced later as needed.
Yep
Potentially, a Level 20 character could attack my Level 50 character - and I flag because I don't want to suffer the death penalties. I shouldn't be flagged for 4 minutes just because I'm defending myself from a lowbie.
That is a pretty good idea, i hate when people flag then unflag whenever trying to free harass people. Which is fine to attack but that should be an added element of risk for them.
Or even better if you flag (from attacking a green player) you can't unflag until you get back to town, so it adds risk and more of a time gauge while you are out there and a target for pvpers.
Though I do find it kinda ironic that this comment comes from you
If anything, I'd say this is an indicator that there could definitely be a problem with the powerlvl differences. If even you're more ready to fight a lowbie in pvp, then what about pretty much everyone else who're more pvp-leaning from the start.
I don't like that.
Perhaps so, though after alpha 2 i expect more changes to happen, I'd rather be more in line with that then starting to add safe zones.
@NiKr I don't see being attacked in town something that is going to survive to launch. There is no reason to be attacked in a town to be honest. Will lead to griefing
So I think I mentioned a while back that I have a different concept of how these systems need to work to promote PvP 'properly', and it didn't work in Ashes.
This is the closest to 'it working in Ashes', that's why I mentioned that.
I don't necessarily think we need to hard-punish a player who is 'just a PvP type player' who enjoys fighting in any way. But there IS still always an element of 'honor vs dishonor' in these fights. Not to say at all that 'dishonor' is to be treated as a 'bad thing' here. It's simply the difference between a player choosing 'let's have the fairest fight possible' as opposed to ''I'm going to take every advantage I possibly can".
I feel there IS a sort of situation in which a player would be deterred from 'blasting a gatherer out of nowhere with their biggest spell' if doing so would result in like a 6-10 minute duration on their Purple status. The problem I see that would remain unaddressed from 'my system' is that this is still too global.
I would at least want some method of the game 'tracking who was involved'. In short, that there's a concept of 'Purple to you' vs 'Green to you', or 'hate mechanics' and so on (so that healing people, fighting in party, etc, all work properly).
Fortunately the system converts directly. Just tie it to the remaining HP of the player after you hit them, and keep track of total done so you could compare it between the involved targets, the same way one would keep track of 'enmity' on mobs. So if two level 20 purples are fighting, and a level 50 comes up and AoEs them both, this is what happens:
Lv20A and lv20B were fighting pretty even, and there's some calculation that means their 'flagged time' stays close to normal as a result of this very even fight, tracked in much the same way that mob aggro is, but for individual players, the same way as for individual mobs.
Lv50A comes up and AoEs them both while they are having this fair fight, but assume they either 'never hit the player back' or just die (and therefore never hit back).
Lv50A is not CORRUPT at this point. The lv20s were purple. Fair game. But because neither of them ever damaged Lv50A to 'lower the value', that player now has some massive stack of 'Flagged Time' from that double kill and can't turn back green for another 15-20 minutes.
If the two ignore the interloper and continue to have their own fight normally, the Lv50 can wander off, but they still take forever to turn back green. If the Lv20s decide 'let's join forces and kill this fool and go back to our own fight after', now every hit they land is lowering that number on the Lv50 and even if the Lv50 still WINS in the end, they got their PvP, and if the fight was even close to fair, they aren't flagged for as long after it. Add a second lv50 healer if you like, use the 'aggro/hate/threat' mechanics, and that player now also builds up the same 'number' every time they heal the lv50 attacker that started this. So they also can't unflag too fast, despite never doing any damage.
Again, the system doesn't 'convert well', because Ashes and my stuff aren't parallel enough, but the principle is the same. There's a gauge that measures 'how hard you hit someone who was not in a party that was fighting you'. If it's the same as the basic 'threat table', there's minimal harm here.
But ultimately it's all just alpha2 testing.
If in AoC, 2 lvl 20 can defeat a lvl 50, then I don't feel a need for such longer times to protect low levels.
Also I would not want to consider the case of a lvl 50 with low tier armor.
My assumption so far was that a level 25 is significantly weaker than a level 50. I was not assuming yet that diagram I made in the other thread.
Also if time to reach level 20-25 is fast and then the rest to 50 is the part which takes long time, then maybe is not worth complicating the system.
But in a game with more levels and a longer leveling time than AoC plans to have, like lvl 200 vs 3..4 x lvl 50, maybe different solutions would be needed.
I think I should have payed more attention to such threads about augments in order to have a better idea how powerful they are.
It's purely a hypothetical.
But, if I'm a Level 50 attacked by a Level 20 - might be quicker for me to end the PvP encounter by killing the Level 20, rather than waiting for the Level 20 to kill me.
I would rather think about parties of lvl 20 rather than solo players.
Hopefully there will be an influx of new players long time after release, so that they can level up together in parties.
The mentor solution makes me sad.
Sure, parties works too. It technically 'solves' my main problem with THAT.
Party A meets party B, party A flags up and bursts down Party B's Tank instantly in a surprise attack while Party B is fighting some PvE target.
Instead of 'ok, one of them is Red now' or worse 'All of Party B flags up but it's too late and their Tank also flags up but dies and then they just lose the battle anyway and Party A is fine' or even the 'Party A got lucky and Party B's Tank died to the PvE Target so no one has any corruption or additional risk'...
We get 'all of Party A has some extra Flagged Time for the way they started that fight' (since the built up time from Party B's Tank can't necessarily be erased easily by Party B's fight, and Party B might choose not to fight back at all).
I can't think of anyone this bothers, that I 'don't want to have to deal with it'.
All the perma-flag style players who just like 'winning PvP regardless of starting conditions, the 'Purps', get that playstyle they've been asking about. People who don't actually have that style and just want to 'exploit the systems' will have to deal with being flagged. The 'loser/victim' (depending on the situation) gets their rematch. No one sits around thinking "Well I might as well let this person kill me because they happened to poke me at the wrong time".
How longer should the timer be?
Should it be balanced so that the team who died to have a chance for revenge or just so that a 3rd party team comes by?
The only advantage of attacking a flagged up team would be to not get a longer timer yourself.
But the purpose of this timer is to reenable the possibility to put corruption onto a future attacker.
The team which lost in the above example can do that anyway.
Also I see this corruption logic, more useful for solo players. Parties will have to decide in advance if they flag up or not.
I think solo parties will more often flag up and not care about timers.
What will 2 parties do if they hold 2 farming spots (with some mobs between which cannot be defeated fast) to defend against 3rd parties?