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.

Honor and Dishonor in AoC

2»

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    You can't have limited information to players and NOT have this.
    And I want people to have even less info in pvp, so that those who try to do the "let the mob kill him" trick suffer more often.
    This just increases the ability to force corruption on players unwillingly.

    It would guarantee the game becomes a "don't attack if you don't want corruption" game.

    I'm unsure why you would consider someone getting unwanted corruption via one method is a gameplay moment, while players getting unwanted corruption in another way seems to be something you want to see avoided at all costs.

    Also, your suggestion would just lead to less PvP. People will be less willing to fight an unknown target. The more information they have, the more they can decide if they want to attack or not.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    This just increases the ability to force corruption on players unwillingly.
    Any corruption gain is achieved willingly. The situation surrounding that gain just changes.
    Noaani wrote: »
    It would guarantee the game becomes a "don't attack if you don't want corruption" game.
    To me it's about the strength of that attack. In an unknown situation it's safer to do a "challenging" weak attack just to see if the target flags back up. In a known situation it's way easier to immediately pop off and try to remove your target immediately (either by them leaving or by bringing them low enough that the mob finished them off).
    Noaani wrote: »
    I'm unsure why you would consider someone getting unwanted corruption via one method is a gameplay moment, while players getting unwanted corruption in another way seems to be something you want to see avoided at all costs.
    This kinda relates to the point above. Flagging on someone who's already engaged in combat is unfair to the victim, because they're most likely at non-100% hp. So flagging on someone who's not engaged in combat should be, potentially, more unfair towards the attacker. Though the amount of situations where the random chilling dude is somehow at nearly 0 hp will be so damn miniscule that I wouldn't even consider it all that much of an unfairness.

    But the chance should still be there, so that people can still bait someone.
    Noaani wrote: »
    Also, your suggestion would just lead to less PvP. People will be less willing to fight an unknown target. The more information they have, the more they can decide if they want to attack or not.
    Could be. I'm definitely biased here for L2, because L2 didn't give you shit (outside of gear visuals) so you just had to decide if you flag up or not. And people did. And that first strike would usually tell both sides about the power matchup, so the victim would have a choice of "he hit me for just a bit, so if I CC him I could probably win" or "holy fuck, that was a ton of dmg even on his weak atk, I'd better just leave in hopes of finding another spot".

    In other words, I simply see more potential for system abuse if the hp is visible, while in my experience invisible hp doesn't stop owpvp completely.
  • SolvrynSolvryn Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited January 9
    When two very powerful and recognized players in one of the AoC servers face each other, HOW will the victory and the way these two players fought be recognized?

    pls Watch this 6:10 minute video, it is very necessary to understand how important honor and recognition is in a duel where two powerful and recognized people fight with honor.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBLTRngGgj8

    In the same way, if two players face each other, one is known to be a very honorable player and the other is a player known to be someone with dishonor who fights without following honorable dueling codes, how would the recognition be in the face of victory or defeat of each other?

    You can understand that AoC is thinking to enhance team fights for different synergies and teamwork, but it would also be interesting to think about those HONORABLE DUELS where a high value player challenges another high value player or also a high value player challenges a low value player for the dishonor it committed by betraying other people or for dishonor it committed with other guilds.

    The point is, if in AoC there will be themes related to honor and dishonor since that was very important in many important societies and empires, the recognition as an honorable person who followed the code of honor in a fight and in life was something very important for the social environment.

    Ideas :

    1 .- Incentivize honor through duels without pacts pre-established :

    - Let's imagine that two people face each other in a duel to the death, they both will use a system where they can put things as payment for the winner, THE INCENTIVE OF HONOR will be in that the loser MUST give it the things that it bet because if a system is used where the things that they both bet are given automatically then there would be no option for the DISHONOR which is not to give the prize to the winner.

    - On the contrary if the losing player does not give it bets then there will be a system where the losing player will have dishonor points affecting his reputation, affecting his worth, affecting his credibility in the society.

    2.-Honorable or dishonorable actions that help or harm individuals and societies.

    - Imagine that a player makes honorable acts in favor of individuals, nodes, guilds, then those players could grant awards of HONOR that would help the player to be better recognized in society.

    In the same way if a player does dishonorable actions against individuals, nodes, guilds then those players could award it with DISHONOR which would affect his reputation within the society.

    This could create potential tools for different types of content such as:

    -High honor levels to unlock special content.
    -Low honor levels needed to punish with difficult and tormenting content
    -High honor levels needed to obtain certain artifacts, relics, special items.
    -High honor levels that would help to know with whom or with whom not to make an alliance based on their credibility.

    Perhaps if two very powerful players or guilds face each other after the victory or defeat a message will appear in the sky where the winner is acclaimed and the loser is respected for the honorable fight.
    Something that really gives recognition for that battle where two honorable combatants fought to the death or where the dishonor of a player came.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQP0QB4xWHo


    As I said before HONOR AND DISHONOR is something very important in a prosperous and improving society.

    Honor is something that you hold yourself too and it's up to society to enforce it.

    It's just like valor you either have it or you do not.

    There's no real metric or measuring standard for it.

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    This just increases the ability to force corruption on players unwillingly.
    Any corruption gain is achieved willingly. The situation surrounding that gain just changes.
    Noaani wrote: »
    It would guarantee the game becomes a "don't attack if you don't want corruption" game.
    To me it's about the strength of that attack. In an unknown situation it's safer to do a "challenging" weak attack just to see if the target flags back up. In a known situation it's way easier to immediately pop off and try to remove your target immediately (either by them leaving or by bringing them low enough that the mob finished them off).
    One of the major differences between Ashes and L2 is in how fluid classes will be. Any given character in Ashes will have access to 2 or 3 thousand ability variants due to secondary class, augments and ranks. Obviously players won't have access to all of them at the same time, but that isn't the point. This means there absolutely will be people with far more CC than any character in L2 had.

    Most players won't be willing to give up their surprise advantage from a first attack by using a weak attack to perform information gathering, thus leaving the other player with first CC advantage when that CC could well be devistating.

    Most players simply won't consider that a viable exchange.
    Noaani wrote: »
    I'm unsure why you would consider someone getting unwanted corruption via one method is a gameplay moment, while players getting unwanted corruption in another way seems to be something you want to see avoided at all costs.
    This kinda relates to the point above. Flagging on someone who's already engaged in combat is unfair to the victim, because they're most likely at non-100% hp. So flagging on someone who's not engaged in combat should be, potentially, more unfair towards the attacker.
    But your suggestion doesn't give the attacker in this situation any disadvantage that they wouldn't also have if they were attacking someone that wasn't fighting.

    With your suggestion, you have no idea how many HP your target has if they are in combat, but also no idea how much they have if they are not in combat. If you were to make an assuption, you would assume that they would have less HP in combat, however.

    You say people attacking those fighting PvE encounters should be at a disadvantage, but you have not stated any such disadvantage (or if you have, I missed it).
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Most players won't be willing to give up their surprise advantage from a first attack by using a weak attack to perform information gathering, thus leaving the other player with first CC advantage when that CC could well be devistating.

    Most players simply won't consider that a viable exchange.
    Yeah, that might be the case in Ashes and then we'll have to see how this system interacts with that design and give our feedback on that. Right now I can only base my suggestions on what I know/assume.

    Noaani wrote: »
    But your suggestion doesn't give the attacker in this situation any disadvantage that they wouldn't also have if they were attacking someone that wasn't fighting.

    With your suggestion, you have no idea how many HP your target has if they are in combat, but also no idea how much they have if they are not in combat. If you were to make an assuption, you would assume that they would have less HP in combat, however.
    In the situation where you attack someone already engaged in pve, I'd assume, your goal is that pve and the removal of your target as an obstacle to it. So that target being at lower hp makes you think twice about gaining corruption, because they're probably at lower hp.

    This is why I said that flagging with a weaker attack here is more beneficial, because even if the victim CCs you back - they're still at some lower hp value, so you'd be at roughly equal strength by the time you get out of the CC (depending on a ton of variables obviously, but I hope you get my point).

    But if the hp is known (even if just estimated) - it's waaay easier to know how hard you wanna hit that person with your first strike.
    Noaani wrote: »
    You say people attacking those fighting PvE encounters should be at a disadvantage, but you have not stated any such disadvantage (or if you have, I missed it).
    My ultimate goal is to push people towards "challenging" hits rather than huge ones. Knowing hp values makes it way easier to use huge hits, because you're not afraid to accidentally kill your target.

    I admit that this goal is most likely naïve and that people's mentality will probably be drastically different from L2's players, but I just think that seeing hp values will make the life of system abusers waaaay easier, which will then lead to disdain for the entire pvp system, which will in turn lead to drastic changes.

    And as you pointed out, there's gonna be a shitton of class builds. So hitting a cleric/rogue for a 100 might remove 10% of his hp, while hitting a cleric/tank for a 100 might only remove 3%. W/o seeing the hp values the attacker wouldn't know which build it is, so the victim would have the advantage of choice. And imo in a game with that advantage, there's more chances of people willingly fighting back, which creates a better owpvp environment.

    And when it comes to attackers, there's gonna be those who don't care about corruption (so they're not even influenced either way), those who do big hits w/o thinking (who'll learn the error of their ways as soon as they accidentally gain corruption that way), those who do challenging hits and the situations evolves from there, and those who don't even attack cause they're afraid.

    To me that's a good layout of owpvp design. The victims are more likely to respond, while the attackers are pushed towards certain less-abusive actions. Obviously extreme cases will always happen, but I feel like their amount won't be as big as in the current system.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited January 9
    Depraved wrote: »
    i mean for such system. for example, going red isnt dishonorable or even killing a lower level, as the op suggested. everybody has different opinions on what is honorable and what isnt.
    For Ashes, the game treats Red player characters as mobs/monsters. Dishonorable is irrelevant.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    And imo in a game with that advantage, there's more chances of people willingly fighting back, which creates a better owpvp environment.

    This only works from the perspective of someone that is already willing to take that first step.

    Most players simply wont.

    The notion of it becoming normal for a player to a tap another to see if that player is up for a fight simply isn't going to work. It can't. It is taking what gamers have taken for granted for decades and asking them to specifically not do that. If players have the advantage of a surprise/first attack, everything they know tells them to make that hit count.

    Game design going against that instinct isn;t going to appeal to many people at all.

    The notion of wanting would-be attackers to think more before attacking, and those being attacked having more of a reason to fight back is a good notion. However, trying to achieve that by going directly opposed to the instincts gamers have built up over decades (and arguably, humans have built up throughout evolution) isn't a good way to go about it.

    If you want attackers to think twice before attacking someone that is fighting a PvE encounter, quite honestly making it so that player has a chance of gaining corruption if that mob kills the player is as good a solution as you could get. I'm still not advocating for it, but it is by far the best mechanic to achieve this outcome, if that is the outcome you are after.

    Additionally, if you take the general stance that "Any corruption gain is achieved willingly. The situation surrounding that gain just changes" (I do not), then there isn't even a downside to this.

    It is probably worth noting that being able to see HP amounts in Archeage didn't cause the kinds of things you seem to be concerned about.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    It is probably worth noting that being able to see HP amounts in Archeage didn't cause the kinds of things you seem to be concerned about.
    Even in PKing of your own faction situations? Or whichever is the "if you accidentally kill this person there's gonna be consequences" situation in AA.

    If Ashes finds a balance that achieves my goal - I'll be all for it.
  • After two decades of having known MMO's I can say only one thing for sure.


    I do not remember the meta players.
    I do not remember the guy with the most gold.
    I do not remember the dude with the rarest mount.

    I do not remember the best guild that was on my server, in fact I never knew them.
    I do not even SEE the players who sit on the mounts that I am checking out. :tongue:
    I never even knew who scored the highest on some kind of bs PvP tournament hosted by the publishers.

    I do not remember the players who all thought themself better than others for whatever reasons.
    I do not remember anyone who possessed a "legendary" if they didn't cross MY path.
    I do not remember using social media ever to find any of these things out in the first place.


    I remember the friendly players that went out of their way to help me for whatever reason.
    I remember the roleplayers with their events that entertained or impressed.
    I remember the times in which I helped other players for free and it made them happy.

    I remember the players I was in the same guild with and did epic sh°° together with. :sunglasses:
    I remember the times when I wiped my raidgroup because I was stupid and they just shrugged it off.
    I remember the time when I was the last player standing and killed the boss that killed 39 other people.

    I remember when the Nr.1 notorious PK'er on my server hunted me down when he was maxlevel and I wasn't.
    I remember the time when I got my revenge when I hunted him down with a raid dedicated to kill him. :relaxed:
    I remember the moments in which I got stuff for free in comparison to how expensive they still were just a few years/expansions ago.



    If Ashes will have serverwide notices about stuff I don't care about, I will deactive them.
    And if I cannot do that they will automatically become background scripture in my mind anyway.
    Whatever "bigshot" like stations some people claim doesn't matter to me if I don't know them.

    That may sound like "a Peasant doesn't really care who sits on the throne as long as the land isn't invaded" but honestly the want to try and establish something official is so overrated. :sleepy:
    What I also remember are the few times when I saw people who though they are big stuff.
    And they smugly tried to rationalize why this is the case.
    Cringe moments like this also stick with me.
    People trying to make others realize that they are of a higher class in some way. :smiley:
    Always makes me remember

    " If a King must mention ever so often that they are a King, it means they are not a King at all. "
    m3h60maohz8f.jpg
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    but thats different. thats not even what we are talking about.

    he is saying (and other people in other posts) that if you attack someone who is fighting a mob, then that mobs kill the person you attacked, you should still get corruption.

    what if you hit the other person and then run away from leashing range. the mob will attack the original person it was attacking anyways...or what if you attack from a cliff or something where the ai cant even get to you. if the ai would do whats best for the ai, the ai would still attack the player you were attacking, because it cant literally reach you. running around trying to hit you while the other dude stabs it its not the best for the ai.

    what if i was farming mobs then you walked nearby and hit me once without your weapon when im at 100% health. you would do one damage to me. not enough to alter the outcome of my fight with the npc and probably not enough to draw aggro from the npc if that was a thing. then because im a noob i'd die to the npc 10 seconds later and you get corruption. is that fair? what if i died on purpose to give you corruption and then my friends who are nearby can play piñata with you? is that fair?

    I generally agree with you that corruption gain in this manner doesn't really suit Ashes as we currently understand it.

    However, it isn't as big an issue as you make it.

    In regards to your "what if" in relation to attacking someone fighting a mob and then running away - the answer is that you just don't do that if someone is near death. Ideally, if this were in the game, you wouldn't do that at all, because then the player could just let a mob kill them in order for you to gain corruption.

    Again, I'm not actually asking for it in Ashes, but literally all it would mean is an additional layer to consider before attacking someone.

    If you are determined to not gain corruption if this were in the game, then you wouldn't attack someone that is near a cliff, or attack someone that is near mobs - but this is simply another layer to the notion that you shouldn't attack someone at all unless you are ok with gaining corruption which is where the game stands now anyway.

    sure, i could always jus tnot attack anyone but hwo are we going to pvp then? those attacks are basically warning shots, or to see if the other person wants to pvp. so now i supposed to stand next to them and type "hey wanna pvp for the spot?"

    also its basically the only tool we have vs pve griefers =x so now thats gonna be gone too?

    also, some people might attack others accidentally, im sure it will happen as these things always happen, now that person is fked with corruption xD
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    sure, i could always just not attack anyone but who are we going to pvp then? those attacks are basically warning shots, or to see if the other person wants to pvp. so now i'm supposed to stand next to them and type "hey wanna pvp for the spot?"

    also its basically the only tool we have vs pve griefers =x so now thats gonna be gone too?

    also, some people might attack others accidentally, im sure it will happen as these things always happen, now that person is fked with corruption xD
    Attack Combatants in Caravan Raids and Node Sieges and Guild Wars and on The Open Seas.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    sure, i could always just not attack anyone but who are we going to pvp then? those attacks are basically warning shots, or to see if the other person wants to pvp. so now i'm supposed to stand next to them and type "hey wanna pvp for the spot?"

    also its basically the only tool we have vs pve griefers =x so now thats gonna be gone too?

    also, some people might attack others accidentally, im sure it will happen as these things always happen, now that person is fked with corruption xD
    Attack Combatants in Caravan Raids and Node Sieges and Guild Wars and on The Open Seas.

    i meant outside pvp events -_-
  • MybroViajeroMybroViajero Member, Alpha Two
    edited January 10
    nbc9536q3rb0.png
    EDym4eg.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    It is probably worth noting that being able to see HP amounts in Archeage didn't cause the kinds of things you seem to be concerned about.
    Even in PKing of your own faction situations? Or whichever is the "if you accidentally kill this person there's gonna be consequences" situation in AA.

    If Ashes finds a balance that achieves my goal - I'll be all for it.

    Ashes just didnt have the issue. At least not in a way that was an issue. It just wasnt a problem, so there was no need for a solution.

    The closest thing to an impact that it had was that you would be somewhat more aware of your surroundings if you were farming mobs. If there were potential rivals near by, you would always have an eye on them (something tab target games allow for much better than any action game I have played). But this is something you should be doing in a game with open world PvP anyways.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited January 11
    Depraved wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    but thats different. thats not even what we are talking about.

    he is saying (and other people in other posts) that if you attack someone who is fighting a mob, then that mobs kill the person you attacked, you should still get corruption.

    what if you hit the other person and then run away from leashing range. the mob will attack the original person it was attacking anyways...or what if you attack from a cliff or something where the ai cant even get to you. if the ai would do whats best for the ai, the ai would still attack the player you were attacking, because it cant literally reach you. running around trying to hit you while the other dude stabs it its not the best for the ai.

    what if i was farming mobs then you walked nearby and hit me once without your weapon when im at 100% health. you would do one damage to me. not enough to alter the outcome of my fight with the npc and probably not enough to draw aggro from the npc if that was a thing. then because im a noob i'd die to the npc 10 seconds later and you get corruption. is that fair? what if i died on purpose to give you corruption and then my friends who are nearby can play piñata with you? is that fair?

    I generally agree with you that corruption gain in this manner doesn't really suit Ashes as we currently understand it.

    However, it isn't as big an issue as you make it.

    In regards to your "what if" in relation to attacking someone fighting a mob and then running away - the answer is that you just don't do that if someone is near death. Ideally, if this were in the game, you wouldn't do that at all, because then the player could just let a mob kill them in order for you to gain corruption.

    Again, I'm not actually asking for it in Ashes, but literally all it would mean is an additional layer to consider before attacking someone.

    If you are determined to not gain corruption if this were in the game, then you wouldn't attack someone that is near a cliff, or attack someone that is near mobs - but this is simply another layer to the notion that you shouldn't attack someone at all unless you are ok with gaining corruption which is where the game stands now anyway.

    sure, i could always jus tnot attack anyone but hwo are we going to pvp then? those attacks are basically warning shots, or to see if the other person wants to pvp. so now i supposed to stand next to them and type "hey wanna pvp for the spot?"
    I mean, if something like this were implemented (remember, I am not advocating for it, I am just quelling warrantless objections to it) you could always just kill the mob that was threatening to kill the person you attacked.

    Since we have to assume Intrepid arent stupid, we need to assume they would implement a system in a somewhat competent manner.

    A competent implementstion of a system like this would be that you only gain corruption if the mob that kills the player is one that is in combat with a player at the time you attack said player. If you attack and they then pull more mobs and those mobs kill them, that is on them, not you.

    The above really shouldn't need to be said. While I appreciate we wouldn't know details of any given system, we should be imagining the best version of a potential system before exclaiming it wouldn't work.

    Based on this, if you attack a player when they are almost finished with a pull, that is a safe way to signal you want to fight. On the other hand, if you attack at the start of a pull, you may find yourself needing to take on what ever mobs this player has in order to avoid corruption.
    also its basically the only tool we have vs pve griefers =x so now thats gonna be gone too?
    Anti-griefing players literally always have the exact same toolbox as griefers. Taking something away from anti-griefers by definition also takes it away from griefers.
    also, some people might attack others accidentally, im sure it will happen as these things always happen, now that person is fked with corruption xD
    You cant attack other players accidently in Ashes in the types of fights we are talking about.
Sign In or Register to comment.