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

Greens unable to be CCd

12357

Comments

  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited March 2023
    Gospell wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    I want to believe that intrepid will continue to support free pvp in his project without any restrictions, despite letters from amateur running
    That has literally never been a thing Intrepid were doing with Ashes.

    PvP has had restrictions since the kickstarter.

    On the 12th of May, 2017 (very nearly 6 years ago), Intrepid said that the intention of Ashes was to not be a gank box. That right there tells you that PvP will be restricted, because unrestricted PvP will always be a gank box.

    We are talking about different things. by free pvp i mean that there will be no system restrictions on pvp. I understand that there will be safe zones in cities

    No, there have always been system restrictions.

    The quote above was talking about the corruption system - literally a system designed to restrict PvP.

    Fact is, Ashes has literally never been about unrestricted PvP. You must have the wrong game.
  • Options
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    I want to believe that intrepid will continue to support free pvp in his project without any restrictions, despite letters from amateur running
    That has literally never been a thing Intrepid were doing with Ashes.

    PvP has had restrictions since the kickstarter.

    On the 12th of May, 2017 (very nearly 6 years ago), Intrepid said that the intention of Ashes was to not be a gank box. That right there tells you that PvP will be restricted, because unrestricted PvP will always be a gank box.

    We are talking about different things. by free pvp i mean that there will be no system restrictions on pvp. I understand that there will be safe zones in cities

    No, there have always been system restrictions.

    The quote above was talking about the corruption system - literally a system designed to restrict PvP.

    Fact is, Ashes has literally never been about unrestricted PvP. You must have the wrong game.

    I will explain again. A systemic limitation is the inability to attack the player in principle. Only in certain instance zones (arena or small pvp locations). Corruption is a game mechanic, it does not prohibit players from attacking, but simply imposes penalties for killing. So that the game does not turn into anarchy, this corruption exists, the developers talked about this 6 years ago. Free pvp player can attack any player everywhere, except for safe zones (cities, some settlements), corruption does not affect free pvp in any way. You must have the wrong game
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Gospell wrote: »
    I will explain again. A systemic limitation is the inability to attack the player in principle.
    Cool.

    Not being able to CC greens doesn't fit this definition.

    What's the issue then?
  • Options
    GospellGospell Member
    edited March 2023
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    I will explain again. A systemic limitation is the inability to attack the player in principle.
    Cool.

    Not being able to CC greens doesn't fit this definition.

    What's the issue then?

    Let's start with the fact that not being able to attack and not being able to cc are two different things. Once again, I'm glad that the game will not have system restrictions to attack players. And I am against the idea of ​​the impossibility of controlling the greens. As I wrote earlier, a player should not receive bonuses just because he is green at the moment. Use your eyes, I saw the player's pk get ready, you must be aware that you are not safe outside the city in this game. Relax only in safe zones, outside there will be a risk versus reward system. Moreover, I am sure that there will be a lot of opportunities not to get control, buffs, clothing bonuses, passive and active skills, besides, the chance of stunning or other control will not be 100%.
    Then answer why we need an artificial system about cc for greens?
  • Options
    Guys, due to my bad English, I want to clarify one point, is this topic as a suggestion or is this official information from the developers?
  • Options
    Gospell wrote: »
    Then answer why we need an artificial system about cc for greens?

    Why do you need to be able to CC someone that isn't fighting back?
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited March 2023
    Gospell wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    I will explain again. A systemic limitation is the inability to attack the player in principle.
    Cool.

    Not being able to CC greens doesn't fit this definition.

    What's the issue then?

    Let's start with the fact that not being able to attack and not being able to cc are two different things. Once again, I'm glad that the game will not have system restrictions to attack players. And I am against the idea of ​​the impossibility of controlling the greens. As I wrote earlier, a player should not receive bonuses just because he is green at the moment. Use your eyes, I saw the player's pk get ready, you must be aware that you are not safe outside the city in this game. Relax only in safe zones, outside there will be a risk versus reward system. Moreover, I am sure that there will be a lot of opportunities not to get control, buffs, clothing bonuses, passive and active skills, besides, the chance of stunning or other control will not be 100%.
    Then answer why we need an artificial system about cc for greens?

    I fail to see how not being able to open combat with CC has anything at all to do with any of this.

    Not being able to be CC'd on opening doesn't mean players can all of a sudden relax out in the open world.

    All this system does is make open world PvP more evenly balanced in regards to how in basically every other MMO the first attacker is going to win 90% of the time. If you opt to attack a green, you do so knowing full well that they then have the option of first CC. This literally destroys first attacker bias.

    But hey, be against more balanced PvP if you want.
  • Options
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    Then answer why we need an artificial system about cc for greens?

    Why do you need to be able to CC someone that isn't fighting back?

    because it's honest. Everything will depend on chance. In addition, mass control should have a minimal chance
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Gospell wrote: »
    Guys, due to my bad English, I want to clarify one point, is this topic as a suggestion or is this official information from the developers?
    CC effects do not apply to Non-combatant (green) players. The target of a CC ability must be flagged in order to suffer the CC effects. This prevents players from opening attacks that stun non-combatant players during a pull for example.[9]
    It's from Intrepid. From Steven, specifically.
  • Options
    NiKrNiKr Member
    I must yet again repeat: currently the NODES ARE NOT SAFE ZONES. You can be pvped and pked in a node (city, town, settlement whateverthefuck).

    I'm almost sure that enough people will complain for this to change, but right now they are not safe.
    Gospell wrote: »
    because it's honest. Everything will depend on chance. In addition, mass control should have a minimal chance
    And the "chance" is that the attacker will just keep stunning the victim until a mob kills them. The attacker get's no corruption, but gets full loot. Great honesty you got there :)
  • Options
    GospellGospell Member
    edited March 2023
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    I will explain again. A systemic limitation is the inability to attack the player in principle.
    Cool.

    Not being able to CC greens doesn't fit this definition.

    What's the issue then?

    Let's start with the fact that not being able to attack and not being able to cc are two different things. Once again, I'm glad that the game will not have system restrictions to attack players. And I am against the idea of ​​the impossibility of controlling the greens. As I wrote earlier, a player should not receive bonuses just because he is green at the moment. Use your eyes, I saw the player's pk get ready, you must be aware that you are not safe outside the city in this game. Relax only in safe zones, outside there will be a risk versus reward system. Moreover, I am sure that there will be a lot of opportunities not to get control, buffs, clothing bonuses, passive and active skills, besides, the chance of stunning or other control will not be 100%.
    Then answer why we need an artificial system about cc for greens?

    I fail to see how not being able to open combat with CC has anything at all to do with any of this.

    Not being able to be CC'd on opening doesn't mean players can all of a sudden relax out in the open world.

    All this system does is make open world PvP more evenly balanced in regards to how in basically every other MMO the first attacker is going to win 90% of the time. If you opt to attack a green, you do so knowing full well that they then have the option of first CC. This literally destroys first attacker bias.

    But hey, be against more balanced PvP if you want.

    You know, people have different opinions. For example, I think that it would be more honest not to give any bonuses to the green ones. That's right, the first attacker has an advantage, but not 90%. You understand the attacker counting on a surprise attack. Now let's imagine the situation I want to kill you, and you are green. I run up to you trying to give control, but the control does not work, I turn purple, you look up and throw control at me, start beating me. Now the situation is different, control passes on you, you stand motionless for a few seconds, then come to your senses and throw control at me. And that's how fair pvp works.
    By the way, didn't you think that the restriction of green cc gives an advantage to greens in pvp? Who will hit first will lose?
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited March 2023
    Gospell wrote: »
    Now let's imagine the situation I want to kill you, and you are green. I run up to you trying to give control, but the control does not work, I turn purple, you look up and throw control at me, start beating me. Now the situation is different, control passes on you, you stand motionless for a few seconds, then come to your senses and throw control at me. And that's how fair pvp works.
    By the way, didn't you think that the restriction of green cc gives an advantage to greens in pvp? Who will hit first will lose?
    In a game where CC doesn't work on greens, why are you attempting to use a scenario where someone opens up combat with CC? That is a dishonest argument to make.

    The most likely scenario that will actually happen is that you initiate combat against a green with the highest burst damage you can. This is the logical thing to do in a game where you can't CC a green player.

    From that point, your opponent then has the option of engaging in combat with you, or attempting to run away.

    If they attempt to run away, they know you can't CC them at all - and so that path is easier than it would otherwise be.

    If they opt to fight back, they can do so knowing they are able to CC you first. This fact will see more people opt to stay and fight than otherwise would have, as they are able to see the fight at that point as being a fair fight.

    Essentially, this system makes both options more viable to the player that has been attacked.
  • Options
    GospellGospell Member
    edited March 2023
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?
    By the way, it is logical to start your gank from the stun :p
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?

    It isn't an edge, it is a balance.

    The player making the first attack has the advantage of dealing damage to the attacked player first. The attacked player has the option of CC'ing first.

    Both players are now in a position where they are able to do something first in the encounter. The smart thing to do is to understand what you can do, and maximize it.
    By the way, it is logical to start your gang from the stun
    Not in a game where you can't CC greens it isn't.
  • Options
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?
    By the way, it is logical to start your gang from the stun :p

    They specifically want to cut down on "gank" instances, they've said they want PvP to actually matter. Ashes isn't about the one-shot-ganking that you seem to want.

    How is one player surprise-attacking and stun-locking another into death an "equal chance"?

    So, you open with your attack, the green turns and fights back. They're now purple, not green any more, and so can be CC'd. There is no problem here.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • Options
    GospellGospell Member
    edited March 2023
    NiKr wrote: »
    I must yet again repeat: currently the NODES ARE NOT SAFE ZONES. You can be pvped and pked in a node (city, town, settlement whateverthefuck).

    I'm almost sure that enough people will complain for this to change, but right now they are not safe.
    Gospell wrote: »
    because it's honest. Everything will depend on chance. In addition, mass control should have a minimal chance
    And the "chance" is that the attacker will just keep stunning the victim until a mob kills them. The attacker get's no corruption, but gets full loot. Great honesty you got there :)

    sorry i missed your message. I think it's a mistake to allow players to participate pvp in cities. As I understand it, in your scenario, a crowd of players is trying to kill 1 person? In such cases, the player should try to escape, failing that, he will not lose much experience for his death if he remains green. And one of the crowd will become a pk player. The rest is up to you, you can gather people, you can ask your friends or clan to take revenge, this is a social game, you don't have to do everything alone.
  • Options
    GospellGospell Member
    edited March 2023
    Delete
  • Options
    NiKrNiKr Member
    Gospell wrote: »
    I think it's a mistake to allow players to participate pvp in cities.
    And this is the exact complaining I was talking about.
    Gospell wrote: »
    As I understand it, in your scenario, a crowd of players is trying to kill 1 person? In such cases, the player should try to escape, failing that, he will not lose much experience for his death if he remains green. And one of the crowd will become a pk player. The rest is up to you, you can gather people, you can ask your friends or clan to take revenge, this is a social game, you don't have to do everything alone.
    No, not a group. Just one player who keeps stunning a green player who doesn't want to fight back. Or stuns them just at the right moment when the mob is about to kill them (because we can see health decay on nameplates). Or you slow down someone who agroed a train of mobs. Or you silence a mage. Or any other CC that can lead to a player's death.

    I've seen this happen a ton of times in L2 with stuns. Now we don't know whether Steven will keep that particular interaction, but I personally hope that he won't, because I know for sure how annoying and frustrating it is.
  • Options
    GospellGospell Member
    edited March 2023
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?
    By the way, it is logical to start your gang from the stun :p
    How is one player surprise-attacking and stun-locking another into death an "equal chance"?

    So, you open with your attack, the green turns and fights back. They're now purple, not green any more, and so can be CC'd. There is no problem here.
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?

    It isn't an edge, it is a balance.

    The player making the first attack has the advantage of dealing damage to the attacked player first. The attacked player has the option of CC'ing first.

    Okay, green player turns around and stun-locking another into death, great balance
  • Options
    AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Gospell wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?
    By the way, it is logical to start your gang from the stun :p
    How is one player surprise-attacking and stun-locking another into death an "equal chance"?

    So, you open with your attack, the green turns and fights back. They're now purple, not green any more, and so can be CC'd. There is no problem here.
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?

    It isn't an edge, it is a balance.

    The player making the first attack has the advantage of dealing damage to the attacked player first. The attacked player has the option of CC'ing first.

    Okay, green player turns around and stun-locking another into death, great balance

    Clearly stunlocking to death was never going to happen, because if it was going to happen, and Green players could be hit with CC, they'd--

    ~is hit by CC~
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • Options
    Gospell wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?
    By the way, it is logical to start your gang from the stun :p
    How is one player surprise-attacking and stun-locking another into death an "equal chance"?

    So, you open with your attack, the green turns and fights back. They're now purple, not green any more, and so can be CC'd. There is no problem here.
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?

    It isn't an edge, it is a balance.

    The player making the first attack has the advantage of dealing damage to the attacked player first. The attacked player has the option of CC'ing first.

    Okay, green player turns around and stun-locking another into death, great balance

    Except you as the attacker are already buffed up, and have all sorts of protections in-place cos you knew the attack was about to happen.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • Options
    GospellGospell Member
    edited March 2023
    Azherae wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?
    By the way, it is logical to start your gang from the stun :p
    How is one player surprise-attacking and stun-locking another into death an "equal chance"?

    So, you open with your attack, the green turns and fights back. They're now purple, not green any more, and so can be CC'd. There is no problem here.
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?

    It isn't an edge, it is a balance.

    The player making the first attack has the advantage of dealing damage to the attacked player first. The attacked player has the option of CC'ing first.

    Okay, green player turns around and stun-locking another into death, great balance

    Clearly stunlocking to death was never going to happen, because if it was going to happen, and Green players could be hit with CC, they'd--

    ~is hit by CC~

    I'm talking about this. no one should benefit from control immunity. Everything has to be about chance. And you can reduce the chance of cc in many ways. Passive class skills, racial skills, clothing bonuses, jewelry. Guys, I stick to my opinion, because I know how it looks and I know that the first attacker loses quite often and without any bonuses to green

    the only thing i want to know is the official message from the devs that the greens can't cc or is it a community suggestion ?
  • Options
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?
    By the way, it is logical to start your gang from the stun :p
    How is one player surprise-attacking and stun-locking another into death an "equal chance"?

    So, you open with your attack, the green turns and fights back. They're now purple, not green any more, and so can be CC'd. There is no problem here.
    Noaani wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    it's not fair when the first one can block you and the second one can't. Everyone should have an equal chance. That is, if I want to attack you, then I cannot use the control skill, but can you do it? Don't you think it's just not fair to give one an edge over the other?

    It isn't an edge, it is a balance.

    The player making the first attack has the advantage of dealing damage to the attacked player first. The attacked player has the option of CC'ing first.

    Okay, green player turns around and stun-locking another into death, great balance

    Except you as the attacker are already buffed up, and have all sorts of protections in-place cos you knew the attack was about to happen.

    it is not always so . Have you ever heard about the fight for the spot?
  • Options
    Gospell wrote: »
    the only thing i want to know is the official message from the devs that the greens can't cc or is it a community suggestion ?

    "CC effects do not apply to Non-combatant (green) players. The target of a CC ability must be flagged in order to suffer the CC effects. This prevents players from opening attacks that stun non-combatant players during a pull for example.[9]"
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Crowd_control

    There's a link at the bottom to a blurry image of a message from Steven where he states this.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • Options
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    the only thing i want to know is the official message from the devs that the greens can't cc or is it a community suggestion ?

    "CC effects do not apply to Non-combatant (green) players. The target of a CC ability must be flagged in order to suffer the CC effects. This prevents players from opening attacks that stun non-combatant players during a pull for example.[9]"
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Crowd_control

    There's a link at the bottom to a blurry image of a message from Steven where he states this.
    I'm understood, thank you . Well, for me, this is another minus in the game. The first minus is a debuff for weakened pk players.
  • Options
    NiKr wrote: »
    Gospell wrote: »
    I think it's a mistake to allow players to participate pvp in cities.
    And this is the exact complaining I was talking about.
    Gospell wrote: »
    As I understand it, in your scenario, a crowd of players is trying to kill 1 person? In such cases, the player should try to escape, failing that, he will not lose much experience for his death if he remains green. And one of the crowd will become a pk player. The rest is up to you, you can gather people, you can ask your friends or clan to take revenge, this is a social game, you don't have to do everything alone.
    I've seen this happen a ton of times in L2 with stuns. Now we don't know whether Steven will keep that particular interaction, but I personally hope that he won't, because I know for sure how annoying and frustrating it is.
    I did it and they did it to me, this is one of the mechanics of the game, it never annoyed me. But you understand that then you can return and take revenge. Even if it is impossible to apply the control effect to the green player in the game, then you can damage him so that the mob finishes him or heal the mob (I hope it will be possible to do this)
  • Options
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    People don't leave because dying a few times, they leave because of hopelesness and grinds, it's the devs fault if this happens

    Exactly, couldn't agree more!
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Options
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    People don't leave because dying a few times, they leave because of hopelesness and grinds, it's the devs fault if this happens

    Exactly, couldn't agree more!

    Yeap, just look at how many times Asmongold dies in a year in WoW and how many thousands of times he died along the years
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Options
    Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    People get weird feelings when they die when they think they weren't supposed to die, they can't cope with dying where they think they weren't supposed to die

    This is why they never leave a game for dying 10-20 times in a dungeon, they think it is ok dying there, as if it was the right place for dying and in those conditions
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Options
    NiKrNiKr Member
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    People get weird feelings when they die when they think they weren't supposed to die, they can't cope with dying where they think they weren't supposed to die

    This is why they never leave a game for dying 10-20 times in a dungeon, they think it is ok dying there, as if it was the right place for dying and in those conditions
    Because in most games those mobs are scripted, so it always comes down purely to your own skill and you learning the fight. Pvp is never predictable (outside of top lvl arena) and quite often super unfair because you're fighting against bigger forces or a much stronger foe who just wants to shit on weaker people.

    Going into a dungeon to kill mobs is also completely planned, while dying to a PKer while you're gathering plants is never planned, which is way more annoying to the victim.

    This is why I want to minimize the impact on greens, while still allow PKers to kill them. And the fact that greens can't be CCed will most likely lead to more good pvp, while the opposite would just remove all greens from the game which would then snowball the playerbase into amounts that can barely support the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.