Greens unable to be CCd

id like to see what everyone's opinions are on this topic, as this is a forum for feedback etc here is mine,

i understand there needs to be measurements in place to prevent constant ganking, however the corruption system is already extremely heavy as it is, i think making it so greens cant be CCd is not a good idea at all, preventing you from using your tool kit and abilities makes no sense at all and even further how would this tie into any lore whatso ever, it is an open world sandbox style game so things like this should not be prevented, obviously i may be biased as i am planning on doing alot of pvp but this is just my opinion and i would like to hear yours!

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

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.

Gospell1

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

Noaani

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?

Gospell1

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?

Gospell1

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?

daveywavey

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?

Noaani

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.

Gospell1

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

Noaani

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.

Ludullu

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

Gospell1

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?

Noaani

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.

Gospell1

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

Noaani

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.

daveywavey

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

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.

Gospell1

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.

Gospell1

Delete

Ludullu

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.

Gospell1

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

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

Azherae

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

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~

Child Item