Well the point being these are two willing pvpers, but that managing to make a really optimal start to a fight can be effectively punished by the victim choosing to lean on the corruption system.
Is the target "willing" if they stop fighting? Cause afaik if an opponent taps out in the hexagon - he's no longer willing to continue the fight.
In this specific (but common) scenario, when someone has initiated combat and gained a significant advantage in the fight:
The victim (despite being a fellow pvp-enjoyer!) could simply lean on the corruption system in order to reset, and un-do the attacker's situational advantage.
That feels wrong to me. It seems like an unintended consequence of a well-intended system.
This is exactly what happened in L2 (which had this flagging system). Like, EXACTLY the same. I've been on both sides: the attacker and the target. And many a times we've gone at it for hours while grinding a single mob spot.
Sooner or later one might attempt not fighting back and "win' the fight by purely fighting mobs better. And at that point the attacker would have to decide what's easier to do: kill mobs better yourself, PK the target, try keeping the target at low hp or move on.
We didn't see target's hp in L2, so that 3 option was usually fairly difficult w/o a higher risk of going Red. In Ashes it'll be way easier to do so and "win" by keeping the target at low hp and preventing them from farming mobs optimally.
Lol this must just be willful ignorance at this stage.
Are you even reading the posts you reply to?
Or is it simply because we're talking from a PvPer's perspective now and I forgot to add a trigger warning?
I can't even interpret this one.
Is this one of those 'assuming I'm a PvE player and can't possibly understand'?
I'm literally telling you that I don't understand. How is 'refusing to fight back' in a situation where you are both 'accepting that getting the jump is part of the fight', not 'giving up the fight'?
In my circles we call that a 'ragequit' because the explicit purpose is to 'not give your opponent the deserved win', as opposed to 'tapping out' which is 'leaving your character (talking about fighting games here) just doing nothing or walking forward defenselessly until they finish you'.
I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.
I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.
Blat's assumption here that the target will then "tap back in" and this will somehow be "abuse(?) of the system, and feels unnatural".
So smth like "you're fighting a Bo7 in a fighting game. After your 2 wins, the opponent stops fighting, and killing him would not give a win. He just stands there doing nothing, even if you start hitting him. Then once yourself try to "ragequit" - he tries to kill you".
I think it's smth like that, unless I misunderstood the point as well.
I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.
Blat's assumption here that the target will then "tap back in" and this will somehow be "abuse(?) of the system, and feels unnatural".
So smth like "you're fighting a Bo7 in a fighting game. After your 2 wins, the opponent stops fighting, and killing him would not give a win. He just stands there doing nothing, even if you start hitting him. Then once yourself try to "ragequit" - he tries to kill you".
I think it's smth like that, unless I misunderstood the point as well.
Oh, then I'll leave it to you.
This is actually a result of my toxic attitude in competitive games.
People who do this are trash weaklings and not worth my time, but it's still weird to me, so I'll pass my thought on to you to handle.
If the idea is that you are 'just enjoying PvP' (and you don't have some other goal where doing this serves your purpose better), then every engagement is 'one match', so unless you can only get your... satisfaction? Rank points? Whatever? If you can only get that without 'them being on the ground', in this scenario, then you won.
It resets the exact same as it probably would if you won, except I guess that they don't have to go to a respawn point and get to stay in their position?
But it's a position where you just successfully got the drop on them, so?
If they're doing it because 'they want their chance to fight from that position instead of having to figure out how to beat you now that you've taken it', they can just say that.
Anyways, all yours, NiKr, can't be getting into this state pre-livestream, and it was my fault, so.
It resets the exact same as it probably would if you won, except I guess that they don't have to go to a respawn point and get to stay in their position?
But it's a position where you just successfully got the drop on them, so?
If they're doing it because 'they want their chance to fight from that position instead of having to figure out how to beat you now that you've taken it', they can just say that.
Anyways, all yours, NiKr, can't be getting into this state pre-livestream, and it was my fault, so.
I'm not sure I can do much here either, cause I also really don't understand the issue here. I understand the situation, because I've experienced and done it myself, but I do not see how this is an issue with the system.
Maybe blat will explain more of the point, but if the premise doesn't change then the only thing I can say is that I disagree with the conclusion that blot comes to from this premise.
Well the point being these are two willing pvpers, but that managing to make a really optimal start to a fight can be effectively punished by the victim choosing to lean on the corruption system.
Is the target "willing" if they stop fighting? Cause afaik if an opponent taps out in the hexagon - he's no longer willing to continue the fight.
In this specific (but common) scenario, when someone has initiated combat and gained a significant advantage in the fight:
The victim (despite being a fellow pvp-enjoyer!) could simply lean on the corruption system in order to reset, and un-do the attacker's situational advantage.
That feels wrong to me. It seems like an unintended consequence of a well-intended system.
This is exactly what happened in L2 (which had this flagging system). Like, EXACTLY the same. I've been on both sides: the attacker and the target. And many a times we've gone at it for hours while grinding a single mob spot.
Sooner or later one might attempt not fighting back and "win' the fight by purely fighting mobs better. And at that point the attacker would have to decide what's easier to do: kill mobs better yourself, PK the target, try keeping the target at low hp or move on.
We didn't see target's hp in L2, so that 3 option was usually fairly difficult w/o a higher risk of going Red. In Ashes it'll be way easier to do so and "win" by keeping the target at low hp and preventing them from farming mobs optimally.
Ah a constructive post, agree or not, I appreciate it.
Interesting that you've experienced a similar system and it's played out as described.
I guess a big part of this is simply what we're all used to.
For me, the corruption system is getting in the way when it's affecting the gameplay between two willing pvpers.
I think we can all agree that factors like situational awareness, preparation & environment are key in wpvp.
Starting the fight aka "getting the jump" is an integral part of that. A melee wants to jump a range and start the fight on his own terms. Equally the ranged players want to start at a comfortable distance and maintain control, forcing the early use of the melee's gap closing CDs.
This is a central part of wpvp.
IMO, when an otherwise willing pvper suddenly chooses to lean on the corruption system simply because his opponent has gained a situational advantage is where the system "gets in the way".
I appreciate all constructive replies as I really am only here to discuss & help make the game better in some small way.
I'd appreciate if that intention was respected regardless of anyone's militant loyalty to any one particular playstyle.
I just want to clarify; I really have zero interest in killing non-PvPers.
(Well ok I can't rule out defending resources, but generally no interest).
I play for the competitive element, and love those ongoing 'grudges' with like-minded people in the area.
My scenarios is clear; two such players, both totally happy to fight with each other. Taking turns to get "the jump" (a central element in wpvp.. situational awareness, preparation, environment).
In this specific (but common) scenario, when someone has initiated combat and gained a significant advantage in the fight:
The victim (despite being a fellow pvp-enjoyer!) could simply lean on the corruption system in order to reset, and un-do the attacker's situational advantage.
That feels wrong to me. It seems like an unintended consequence of a well-intended system.
Unless I've accidentally slipped into Mandarin, I can't see how this isn't clear.
Lol this must just be willful ignorance at this stage.
Are you even reading the posts you reply to?
Or is it simply because we're talking from a PvPer's perspective now and I forgot to add a trigger warning?
I'm literally telling you that I don't understand. How is 'refusing to fight back' in a situation where you are both 'accepting that getting the jump is part of the fight', not 'giving up the fight'?
In my circles we call that a 'ragequit' because the explicit purpose is to 'not give your opponent the deserved win', as opposed to 'tapping out' which is 'leaving your character (talking about fighting games here) just doing nothing or walking forward defenselessly until they finish you'.
I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.
So in your experience, world pvp is always fair? IE: you stand 10 yards apart and engage on a 3,2,1 count?
My point is not about hunting ragequitters (even though this really is not the definition of RQ that I understand, but let's use your term):
The point is that "ragequitting" (backed by the corruption system) seems an unfair way to tackle an opponent's optimal wpvp opener.
IMO, when an otherwise willing pvper suddenly chooses to lean on the corruption system simply because his opponent has gained a situational advantage is where the system "gets in the way".
Again, is the version that you'd prefer here just "they can kill each other at any time from any point"?
To me what you're saying is weird because it's self-contradicting, in my experience. The whole point is awareness and preparedness. There's no "system being in the way", because your opponent could attack you while you're at half hp or he could bring you to half hp in just a few hits or bring a train with him to dump on you before fighting.
All of those would be seen as "unfair" by majority of people. Owpvp doesn't have a perfectly fair encounter, even if both sides are fully willing to fight. And that's not even considering the RPS balancing of AoC's classes.
If you hit your opponent, but he retaliates later - that's the same as them coming back to the spot while you're still flagged from the previous fight, while they're at full hp.
Again, I completely fail to see what the system is standing in the way of.
The point is that "ragequitting" (backed by the corruption system) seems an unfair way to tackle an opponent's optimal wpvp opener.
I mean, this is literally fighting "unfair" with "unfair" though. So they cancel each other out and it's a fair fight. That's kinda the entire point of the system. The attacker has the first hit, the target has the first CC - everything else is a calculation on both sides of what they wanna use first in terms of abilities.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It resets the exact same as it probably would if you won, except I guess that they don't have to go to a respawn point and get to stay in their position?
But it's a position where you just successfully got the drop on them, so?
If they're doing it because 'they want their chance to fight from that position instead of having to figure out how to beat you now that you've taken it', they can just say that.
Anyways, all yours, NiKr, can't be getting into this state pre-livestream, and it was my fault, so.
I'm not sure I can do much here either, cause I also really don't understand the issue here. I understand the situation, because I've experienced and done it myself, but I do not see how this is an issue with the system.
Maybe blat will explain more of the point, but if the premise doesn't change then the only thing I can say is that I disagree with the conclusion that blot comes to from this premise.
I'm not sure if there is a good solution but the "issue" is they seeing pretty simple. Like how jumping a caravan and catching it's defenders off guard is a valid strat, they see jumping someone in the open world as a valid strat. Even if that person is the best pvper on the server, they may choose use the threat of the corruption system to avoid death instead of fighting back.
I know you are experienced with L2 and very used to this scenario but I'd hope that you can see how someone can see this scenario as being a little odd and not necessarily intended.
It's one of those things that is hard to talk about without us playing. The current system deters this with the benefits of becoming a combatant. It will probably always be a thing but playing around with the benefits of going combatant as well as maybe the penalty initially going corruption may help. The is probably be changes to interactions with the corruption system when the person killed has also killed a lot. Maybe we could get a grudge system that functions as personal wars that you can declare on people who have killed you recently. This could also be one of those things that is intended to be settled more with the guild/node war systems and on the open ocean than on land.
I know one of the issues they bring up is two players taking turns attacking each other and i think that could be solved with either increasing the amount of time you are a combatant or you could maybe change the system so people who go combatant will automatically go combatant again if attacked. If you attack someone and your combatant state falls off, you will automatically become a combatant again if that person attacks you within a set amount of time. So if i attack you, if you see me an hour later and I'm a non-combatant, you can attack me and I'm auto flagged combatant because i attacked you an hour earlier. Sorry if I'm bad at explaining.
As is said, i get the problem but hard to tell how much of a problem it is and the solution without the having the system in my hand.
Its pretty simple if you know the person will only fight back if they consider it fair and that is your only chance to kick them out. Simply be like "duel for spot" And both flag up fight and the person dies or leaves.
Though we need to remember in AoC most people will be in groups.
I know you are experienced with L2 and very used to this scenario but I'd hope that you can see how someone can see this scenario as being a little odd and not necessarily intended.
I mean, I understand the base desire to either have a pve game or a full pvp game, but Ashes is neither of those, so yeah, discussions of this system before people get to properly try it will be kind of a pain
I know one of the issues they bring up is two players taking turns attacking each other and i think that could be solved with either increasing the amount of time you are a combatant or you could maybe change the system so people who go combatant will automatically go combatant again if attacked. If you attack someone and your combatant state falls off, you will automatically become a combatant again if that person attacks you within a set amount of time. So if i attack you, if you see me an hour later and I'm a non-combatant, you can attack me and I'm auto flagged combatant because i attacked you an hour earlier. Sorry if I'm bad at explaining.
The balancing of that timer would be near-impossible, if it would even be accepted by people. Too many abuses possible and/or too many limitations required for this system to be acceptably balanced.
Even pvpers want to rest sometimes. Losing your flag is meant to create that "rest". If your attackers are still free to kill you - that's kinda bad imo.
The point is that "ragequitting" (backed by the corruption system) seems an unfair way to tackle an opponent's optimal wpvp opener.
I mean, this is literally fighting "unfair" with "unfair" though. So they cancel each other out and it's a fair fight. That's kinda the entire point of the system. The attacker has the first hit, the target has the first CC - everything else is a calculation on both sides of what they wanna use first in terms of abilities.
As I said earlier I think a big part of the misunderstanding here is the games/systems we're used to.
Yes I am used to open PvP without any system in the way. Even this idea of the victim being CC-immune is v weird and kind've artificial to me but as I said before I like what they're trying to do with corruption, I just want to get my head around the various scenarios.
I totally understand if @Dygz is running around and not in the mood for PvP... I open on him and he says not now, refuses to flag (and I don't want the corruption). The system is working well here.
But if me and my mate, who are both willing & active pvpers.. are able to strategically negate each others wpvp openers by leaning on a system that frankly, was never designed with us in mind.. that's seems very obviously "in the way" to me. I get the impression you're v used to these mechanics which is poss causing some of this misunderstanding.
I'm not sure if there is a good solution but the "issue" is they seeing pretty simple. Like how jumping a caravan and catching it's defenders off guard is a valid strat, they see jumping someone in the open world as a valid strat. Even if that person is the best pvper on the server, they may choose use the threat of the corruption system to avoid death instead of fighting back.
I know you are experienced with L2 and very used to this scenario but I'd hope that you can see how someone can see this scenario as being a little odd and not necessarily intended.
Its pretty simple if you know the person will only fight back if they consider it fair and that is your only chance to kick them out. Simply be like "duel for spot" And both flag up fight and the person dies or leaves.
L2 had a "duel" mechanic for these kinds of moments. People soooometimes used it to decide stuff, but usually it was just a thing to pass the time with while waiting for your mates.
But if me and my mate, who are both willing & active pvpers.. are able to strategically negate each others wpvp openers by leaning on a system that frankly, was never designed with us in mind.. that's seems very obviously "in the way" to me. I get the impression you're v used to these mechanics which is poss causing some of this misunderstanding.
Yes, the game won't appeal to those who're completely used free pvp. I hope you like this system once you get to try it, but before that I doubt I can properly explain that the current design is "fair" to all players.
You just need to account for this possibility, just as you're accounting for enemy abilities and/or surroundings.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I know one of the issues they bring up is two players taking turns attacking each other and i think that could be solved with either increasing the amount of time you are a combatant or you could maybe change the system so people who go combatant will automatically go combatant again if attacked. If you attack someone and your combatant state falls off, you will automatically become a combatant again if that person attacks you within a set amount of time. So if i attack you, if you see me an hour later and I'm a non-combatant, you can attack me and I'm auto flagged combatant because i attacked you an hour earlier. Sorry if I'm bad at explaining.
The balancing of that timer would be near-impossible, if it would even be accepted by people. Too many abuses possible and/or too many limitations required for this system to be acceptably balanced.
Even pvpers want to rest sometimes. Losing your flag is meant to create that "rest". If your attackers are still free to kill you - that's kinda bad imo.
I'd have to hear what you were thinking for a time, i was thinking everywhere between 30 minutes to a few hours, but disagree with the idea that you can't be extended because people wanted to rest. If they wanted to rest from pvp, they shouldn't have attacked someone in the first place.
EDIT: I realize the way it should function is you only have this increased time if you attacked a non-combatant, not if you attacked a combatant.
Its pretty simple if you know the person will only fight back if they consider it fair and that is your only chance to kick them out. Simply be like "duel for spot" And both flag up fight and the person dies or leaves.
L2 had a "duel" mechanic for these kinds of moments. People soooometimes used it to decide stuff, but usually it was just a thing to pass the time with while waiting for your mates.
But if me and my mate, who are both willing & active pvpers.. are able to strategically negate each others wpvp openers by leaning on a system that frankly, was never designed with us in mind.. that's seems very obviously "in the way" to me. I get the impression you're v used to these mechanics which is poss causing some of this misunderstanding.
Yes, the game won't appeal to those who're completely used free pvp. I hope you like this system once you get to try it, but before that I doubt I can properly explain that the current design is "fair" to all players.
You just need to account for this possibility, just as you're accounting for enemy abilities and/or surroundings.
This was a go to for people in BDO (almost always at certain spots) if its one on one it easily could be a common thing. But since AoC is group oriented it might not really pick up as a common thing.
But if me and my mate, who are both willing & active pvpers.. are able to strategically negate each others wpvp openers by leaning on a system that frankly, was never designed with us in mind.. that's seems very obviously "in the way" to me. I get the impression you're v used to these mechanics which is poss causing some of this misunderstanding.
Yes, the game won't appeal to those who're completely used free pvp. I hope you like this system once you get to try it, but before that I doubt I can properly explain that the current design is "fair" to all players.
You just need to account for this possibility, just as you're accounting for enemy abilities and/or surroundings.
Fine but have you entertained the possibility that you are simply used to this system and in fact there are certain scenarios between two consenting PvPers, where that system can be exploited and therefore "get in the way"?
I'm totally willing to try it np, I'm just working out the implications.
I also think he is missing the point of corruption, corruption is not meant to be the most common pvp. This view is making it feel like this is the main source of pvp.
I'd have to hear what you were thinking for a time, i was thinking everywhere between 30 minutes to a few hours, but disagree with the idea that you can't be extended because people wanted to rest. If they wanted to rest from pvp, they shouldn't have attacked someone in the first place.
Considering that we can fight pretty much anywhere in the game, huge guilds will absolutely demolish anyone who even tries to stand up against them.
A smaller guild got wiped during a fight? The big guild is absolutely free to keep killing them over and over and over again within this time limit (and that's assuming that the victim doesn't fight back and doesn't renew the timer). And they'd be able to do this outside of a guild war, so the victims would be suffering death penalties. MAJOR penalties.
Also, would this flag be a 1v1 kinda thing or literally "plain combatant flag"? Cause if it's a full combatant flag that anyone can now attack - that's even worse (again, especially against big guilds).
This just creates super bad player behavior imo. To me this would be a MUCH MUCH bigger issue than the visible hp. And would ultimately drive even more people away from even attempting to flag up.
This was a go to for people in BDO (almost always at certain spots) if its one on one it easily could be a common thing. But since AoC is group oriented it might not really pick up as a common thing.
L2 had group duels as well, but that was only used for tournaments, so yeah, doubt it'd be used in Ashes to "decide a spot" or whatever.
Fine but have you entertained the possibility that you are simply used to this system and in fact there are certain scenarios between two consenting PvPers, where that system can be exploited and therefore "get in the way"?
Honestly, no. Because again, this game is not meant for free kills. Well, the open seas are - the remainder of the map no.
If you want to kill a person - do so and be ready for the consequences. No matter who that person is, pvper or not.
Pvpers are not constantly pvpers, because the base state of a character in Ashes is green (passive/non-combatant). Your pov on this system comes from a game where players' base state is pvper - at all times.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'd have to hear what you were thinking for a time, i was thinking everywhere between 30 minutes to a few hours, but disagree with the idea that you can't be extended because people wanted to rest. If they wanted to rest from pvp, they shouldn't have attacked someone in the first place.
Considering that we can fight pretty much anywhere in the game, huge guilds will absolutely demolish anyone who even tries to stand up against them.
A smaller guild got wiped during a fight? The big guild is absolutely free to keep killing them over and over and over again within this time limit (and that's assuming that the victim doesn't fight back and doesn't renew the timer). And they'd be able to do this outside of a guild war, so the victims would be suffering death penalties. MAJOR penalties.
Also, would this flag be a 1v1 kinda thing or literally "plain combatant flag"? Cause if it's a full combatant flag that anyone can now attack - that's even worse (again, especially against big guilds).
This just creates super bad player behavior imo. To me this would be a MUCH MUCH bigger issue than the visible hp. And would ultimately drive even more people away from even attempting to flag up.
EDIT: I realize the way it needs to function is you only have this increased time if you attacked a non-combatant, not if you attacked a combatant.
And this plays into my last sentence.
I don't see the deterrent to attack people as a bad thing. If you deterred from attacking people because people might bring a fight to you then maybe you shouldn't be attacking people. Yea, if you attack a bigger guild and they bring more members, it might be time for you to leave. I don't think you should be able to stick around, hide behind the corruption system, and wait for opportunities to pick them apart.
The main goal of what I'm thinking is to make it so if you attack someone, possibly just non-combatants, then for a period of time, people can attack you without worrying about corruption. Maybe you stay a combatant or maybe it's something where if you are attacked within a certain amount of time, you are auto-flagged one. The second way would allow you to kind of hide from people unless they knew what you did.
Yes, it will be "abusable" in the way you describe. If you jump a PvPer and they feel like they're at a disadvantage, they can simply not fight back and have you risk becoming red.
And if you do become red, green PvPers can then "abuse" the fact that red takes an L regardless if they win or lose against greens (the only option is escape, but we don't know how viable that is in AoC).
The system is not perfect and can be abused (I've discussed this to death already), but hasn't been tested yet so we don't know what issues on paper are actual issues, nor is there a good, generally agreed upon way to improve/remake it without negatively affecting other things.
The main goal of what I'm thinking is to make it so if you attack someone, possibly just non-combatants, then for a period of time, people can attack you without worrying about corruption. Maybe you stay a combatant or maybe it's something where if you are attacked within a certain amount of time, you are auto-flagged one. The second way would allow you to kind of hide from people unless they knew what you did.
I think our views on how much pvp there should be in the game are wildly different.
I want more pvp, but when both sides are fine continuing that pvp. To me there's no "hiding behind the system". Everyone is a non-combatant and shouldn't be forceable to become one, no matter when they had pvp last time or against whom.
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The main goal of what I'm thinking is to make it so if you attack someone, possibly just non-combatants, then for a period of time, people can attack you without worrying about corruption. Maybe you stay a combatant or maybe it's something where if you are attacked within a certain amount of time, you are auto-flagged one. The second way would allow you to kind of hide from people unless they knew what you did.
I think our views on how much pvp there should be in the game are wildly different.
I want more pvp, but when both sides are fine continuing that pvp. To me there's no "hiding behind the system". Everyone is a non-combatant and shouldn't be forceable to become one, no matter when they had pvp last time or against whom.
They are only "forced" to pvp if they forced pvp onto someone else.
If you are using the system to deter people from attacking you, you are hiding behind it. If you have no interest in pvping, i see no problem with that but if you just attacked someone 5 minutes earlier, I don't think you deserve its protections.
They are only "forced" to pvp if they forced pvp onto someone else.
They didn't though. They simply attacked another person. And while this attacker is green - anyone else is free to attack them as well. But both of these attacks should result in corruption if executed till the death of the target.
You're suggesting free PKs of those who flagged up for a second and then went back to green. And you're suggesting that free PKs for up to an hour?!
Like I said, I strongly disagree.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
They are only "forced" to pvp if they forced pvp onto someone else.
They didn't though. They simply attacked another person. And while this attacker is green - anyone else is free to attack them as well. But both of these attacks should result in corruption if executed till the death of the target.
You're suggesting free PKs of those who flagged up for a second and then went back to green. And you're suggesting that free PKs for up to an hour?!
Like I said, I strongly disagree.
I'm flexible on the time.
Yea, if someone attacked a non-combatant, i think for a period of time, they should be able to be attacked.
I feel like you are trying to trivialize the act of attacking a non-combatant. It's not like they slipped and accidentally attacked them. They attacked them with some intent and i think for some time afterward, a time period that is greater than if a combatant attacked another combatant, others should be more free to attack them.
I feel like you are trying to trivialize the act of attacking a non-combatant. It's not like they slipped and accidentally attacked them. They attacked them with some intent and i think for some time afterward, a time period that is greater than if a combatant attacked another combatant, others should be more free to attack them.
Ok, a question then. IRL should a punch be punishable by death?
I feel like you are trying to trivialize the act of attacking a non-combatant. It's not like they slipped and accidentally attacked them. They attacked them with some intent and i think for some time afterward, a time period that is greater than if a combatant attacked another combatant, others should be more free to attack them.
Ok, a question then. IRL should a punch be punishable by death?
Ignoring the fact that IRL and games have different consequences for those things, you know that is a horrible argument as the current system already allows you to freely kill someone after they attacked someone. It's already allowed, I'm just saying increase the time period it's allowed.
Comments
This is exactly what happened in L2 (which had this flagging system). Like, EXACTLY the same. I've been on both sides: the attacker and the target. And many a times we've gone at it for hours while grinding a single mob spot.
Sooner or later one might attempt not fighting back and "win' the fight by purely fighting mobs better. And at that point the attacker would have to decide what's easier to do: kill mobs better yourself, PK the target, try keeping the target at low hp or move on.
We didn't see target's hp in L2, so that 3 option was usually fairly difficult w/o a higher risk of going Red. In Ashes it'll be way easier to do so and "win" by keeping the target at low hp and preventing them from farming mobs optimally.
I can't even interpret this one.
Is this one of those 'assuming I'm a PvE player and can't possibly understand'?
I'm literally telling you that I don't understand. How is 'refusing to fight back' in a situation where you are both 'accepting that getting the jump is part of the fight', not 'giving up the fight'?
In my circles we call that a 'ragequit' because the explicit purpose is to 'not give your opponent the deserved win', as opposed to 'tapping out' which is 'leaving your character (talking about fighting games here) just doing nothing or walking forward defenselessly until they finish you'.
I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.
So smth like "you're fighting a Bo7 in a fighting game. After your 2 wins, the opponent stops fighting, and killing him would not give a win. He just stands there doing nothing, even if you start hitting him. Then once yourself try to "ragequit" - he tries to kill you".
I think it's smth like that, unless I misunderstood the point as well.
Oh, then I'll leave it to you.
This is actually a result of my toxic attitude in competitive games.
People who do this are trash weaklings and not worth my time, but it's still weird to me, so I'll pass my thought on to you to handle.
If the idea is that you are 'just enjoying PvP' (and you don't have some other goal where doing this serves your purpose better), then every engagement is 'one match', so unless you can only get your... satisfaction? Rank points? Whatever? If you can only get that without 'them being on the ground', in this scenario, then you won.
It resets the exact same as it probably would if you won, except I guess that they don't have to go to a respawn point and get to stay in their position?
But it's a position where you just successfully got the drop on them, so?
If they're doing it because 'they want their chance to fight from that position instead of having to figure out how to beat you now that you've taken it', they can just say that.
Anyways, all yours, NiKr, can't be getting into this state pre-livestream, and it was my fault, so.
Maybe blat will explain more of the point, but if the premise doesn't change then the only thing I can say is that I disagree with the conclusion that blot comes to from this premise.
Ah a constructive post, agree or not, I appreciate it.
Interesting that you've experienced a similar system and it's played out as described.
I guess a big part of this is simply what we're all used to.
For me, the corruption system is getting in the way when it's affecting the gameplay between two willing pvpers.
I think we can all agree that factors like situational awareness, preparation & environment are key in wpvp.
Starting the fight aka "getting the jump" is an integral part of that. A melee wants to jump a range and start the fight on his own terms. Equally the ranged players want to start at a comfortable distance and maintain control, forcing the early use of the melee's gap closing CDs.
This is a central part of wpvp.
IMO, when an otherwise willing pvper suddenly chooses to lean on the corruption system simply because his opponent has gained a situational advantage is where the system "gets in the way".
I appreciate all constructive replies as I really am only here to discuss & help make the game better in some small way.
I'd appreciate if that intention was respected regardless of anyone's militant loyalty to any one particular playstyle.
Unless I've accidentally slipped into Mandarin, I can't see how this isn't clear.
So in your experience, world pvp is always fair? IE: you stand 10 yards apart and engage on a 3,2,1 count?
My point is not about hunting ragequitters (even though this really is not the definition of RQ that I understand, but let's use your term):
The point is that "ragequitting" (backed by the corruption system) seems an unfair way to tackle an opponent's optimal wpvp opener.
Any clearer at all?
To me what you're saying is weird because it's self-contradicting, in my experience. The whole point is awareness and preparedness. There's no "system being in the way", because your opponent could attack you while you're at half hp or he could bring you to half hp in just a few hits or bring a train with him to dump on you before fighting.
All of those would be seen as "unfair" by majority of people. Owpvp doesn't have a perfectly fair encounter, even if both sides are fully willing to fight. And that's not even considering the RPS balancing of AoC's classes.
If you hit your opponent, but he retaliates later - that's the same as them coming back to the spot while you're still flagged from the previous fight, while they're at full hp.
Again, I completely fail to see what the system is standing in the way of.
I'm not sure if there is a good solution but the "issue" is they seeing pretty simple. Like how jumping a caravan and catching it's defenders off guard is a valid strat, they see jumping someone in the open world as a valid strat. Even if that person is the best pvper on the server, they may choose use the threat of the corruption system to avoid death instead of fighting back.
I know you are experienced with L2 and very used to this scenario but I'd hope that you can see how someone can see this scenario as being a little odd and not necessarily intended.
It's one of those things that is hard to talk about without us playing. The current system deters this with the benefits of becoming a combatant. It will probably always be a thing but playing around with the benefits of going combatant as well as maybe the penalty initially going corruption may help. The is probably be changes to interactions with the corruption system when the person killed has also killed a lot. Maybe we could get a grudge system that functions as personal wars that you can declare on people who have killed you recently. This could also be one of those things that is intended to be settled more with the guild/node war systems and on the open ocean than on land.
I know one of the issues they bring up is two players taking turns attacking each other and i think that could be solved with either increasing the amount of time you are a combatant or you could maybe change the system so people who go combatant will automatically go combatant again if attacked. If you attack someone and your combatant state falls off, you will automatically become a combatant again if that person attacks you within a set amount of time. So if i attack you, if you see me an hour later and I'm a non-combatant, you can attack me and I'm auto flagged combatant because i attacked you an hour earlier. Sorry if I'm bad at explaining.
As is said, i get the problem but hard to tell how much of a problem it is and the solution without the having the system in my hand.
Though we need to remember in AoC most people will be in groups.
The balancing of that timer would be near-impossible, if it would even be accepted by people. Too many abuses possible and/or too many limitations required for this system to be acceptably balanced.
Even pvpers want to rest sometimes. Losing your flag is meant to create that "rest". If your attackers are still free to kill you - that's kinda bad imo.
As I said earlier I think a big part of the misunderstanding here is the games/systems we're used to.
Yes I am used to open PvP without any system in the way. Even this idea of the victim being CC-immune is v weird and kind've artificial to me but as I said before I like what they're trying to do with corruption, I just want to get my head around the various scenarios.
I totally understand if @Dygz is running around and not in the mood for PvP... I open on him and he says not now, refuses to flag (and I don't want the corruption). The system is working well here.
But if me and my mate, who are both willing & active pvpers.. are able to strategically negate each others wpvp openers by leaning on a system that frankly, was never designed with us in mind.. that's seems very obviously "in the way" to me. I get the impression you're v used to these mechanics which is poss causing some of this misunderstanding.
Thank you. This is exactly it.
Agreed.
Yes, the game won't appeal to those who're completely used free pvp. I hope you like this system once you get to try it, but before that I doubt I can properly explain that the current design is "fair" to all players.
You just need to account for this possibility, just as you're accounting for enemy abilities and/or surroundings.
I'd have to hear what you were thinking for a time, i was thinking everywhere between 30 minutes to a few hours, but disagree with the idea that you can't be extended because people wanted to rest. If they wanted to rest from pvp, they shouldn't have attacked someone in the first place.
EDIT: I realize the way it should function is you only have this increased time if you attacked a non-combatant, not if you attacked a combatant.
This was a go to for people in BDO (almost always at certain spots) if its one on one it easily could be a common thing. But since AoC is group oriented it might not really pick up as a common thing.
Fine but have you entertained the possibility that you are simply used to this system and in fact there are certain scenarios between two consenting PvPers, where that system can be exploited and therefore "get in the way"?
I'm totally willing to try it np, I'm just working out the implications.
A smaller guild got wiped during a fight? The big guild is absolutely free to keep killing them over and over and over again within this time limit (and that's assuming that the victim doesn't fight back and doesn't renew the timer). And they'd be able to do this outside of a guild war, so the victims would be suffering death penalties. MAJOR penalties.
Also, would this flag be a 1v1 kinda thing or literally "plain combatant flag"? Cause if it's a full combatant flag that anyone can now attack - that's even worse (again, especially against big guilds).
This just creates super bad player behavior imo. To me this would be a MUCH MUCH bigger issue than the visible hp. And would ultimately drive even more people away from even attempting to flag up.
And this plays into my last sentence.
L2 had group duels as well, but that was only used for tournaments, so yeah, doubt it'd be used in Ashes to "decide a spot" or whatever.
Honestly, no. Because again, this game is not meant for free kills. Well, the open seas are - the remainder of the map no.
If you want to kill a person - do so and be ready for the consequences. No matter who that person is, pvper or not.
Pvpers are not constantly pvpers, because the base state of a character in Ashes is green (passive/non-combatant). Your pov on this system comes from a game where players' base state is pvper - at all times.
I don't see the deterrent to attack people as a bad thing. If you deterred from attacking people because people might bring a fight to you then maybe you shouldn't be attacking people. Yea, if you attack a bigger guild and they bring more members, it might be time for you to leave. I don't think you should be able to stick around, hide behind the corruption system, and wait for opportunities to pick them apart.
The main goal of what I'm thinking is to make it so if you attack someone, possibly just non-combatants, then for a period of time, people can attack you without worrying about corruption. Maybe you stay a combatant or maybe it's something where if you are attacked within a certain amount of time, you are auto-flagged one. The second way would allow you to kind of hide from people unless they knew what you did.
And if you do become red, green PvPers can then "abuse" the fact that red takes an L regardless if they win or lose against greens (the only option is escape, but we don't know how viable that is in AoC).
The system is not perfect and can be abused (I've discussed this to death already), but hasn't been tested yet so we don't know what issues on paper are actual issues, nor is there a good, generally agreed upon way to improve/remake it without negatively affecting other things.
I want more pvp, but when both sides are fine continuing that pvp. To me there's no "hiding behind the system". Everyone is a non-combatant and shouldn't be forceable to become one, no matter when they had pvp last time or against whom.
They are only "forced" to pvp if they forced pvp onto someone else.
If you are using the system to deter people from attacking you, you are hiding behind it. If you have no interest in pvping, i see no problem with that but if you just attacked someone 5 minutes earlier, I don't think you deserve its protections.
You're suggesting free PKs of those who flagged up for a second and then went back to green. And you're suggesting that free PKs for up to an hour?!
Like I said, I strongly disagree.
I'm flexible on the time.
Yea, if someone attacked a non-combatant, i think for a period of time, they should be able to be attacked.
I feel like you are trying to trivialize the act of attacking a non-combatant. It's not like they slipped and accidentally attacked them. They attacked them with some intent and i think for some time afterward, a time period that is greater than if a combatant attacked another combatant, others should be more free to attack them.
Like Macros ?
Ignoring the fact that IRL and games have different consequences for those things, you know that is a horrible argument as the current system already allows you to freely kill someone after they attacked someone. It's already allowed, I'm just saying increase the time period it's allowed.