Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
how Is that bad quest design?
bad or good depends on many factors and what you want with your game.
Whether or not it's good for the GAME is not what I'm talking about.
As a QUEST it's bad, because both of those involve 'someone else having the ability to legitimately stop you from clearing a quest for basically any amount of time, while the quest is not actually intended to be difficult otherwise'.
Binary gatekeeping on quest content is what ruins quests in games of both varieties.
Even if someone absolutely hates PvP, they must agree the rules to prevent it feel very artificial, could even say immersion breaking.
There are more aspects to consider.
If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption.
Another aspect is the emotional response.
If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast.
Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc
If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios.
The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it.
So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system.
The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely.
So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision.
Well this all comes back to:
You do realise the pre-flag suggestion is alongside corruption, yeah?
So how would a pre-flag affect that in any way? It wouldn't force anyone to pre-flag, you would go about your day as usual, as a non-combatant, and corruption would do its job for you, as intended.
Agreed, absolutely.
Since you reminded me that you're new, please note that I don't like the current corruption system and I would like something that does something closer to what you seem to be talking about now, but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design.
I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive.
Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist.
Wiki says:
Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52]
The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
How will it be balanced remains to be seen.
Ok cool.
And this is where those coming from PvP environments would disagree.
Not that it's a necessary part of MMORPG design, but that it is a fundamental part of wpvp.
This is one of the ways wpvp differentiates itself from arena/duel PvP. Where factors like opportunity, preparedness, reading of situations etc comes into play.
Not saying any type of PvP, or any view is better or worse here. Just saying, that's the PoV.
As I said, it would separate player-base into players who flag themselves and players who don't.
That would be a bad thing.
It would become similar to telling others you are PvP-er or a PvE-er (or not in PvP mood)
AoC does not want to offer this information in advance.
It wants players to attack and flag themselves up first and see if the other side flags up too or not.
There is complexity in this, depending on what attack is used, a small damage or large one, how many players are present, how many might be hiding if the environment restricts visibility...
The option to flag up in advance helps players who want to feel safer in AoC.
Basically I see you pushing the game to become safer for PvE-ers. Is this your intention?
Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum.
Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP.
My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP.
So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it?
If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised.
I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs.
I agree with your concept that two players who have been having a sweet ninja-battle over the course of two hours trying to get the jump on each other shouldn't have to worry about corruption.
I agree that the current corruption design does not do a particularly good job of dealing with the thing you are concerned about, but in the end, the problem is basically that 'getting wPvP into an entirely factionless MMORPG with no affiliation tracking' is hard to do without enabling griefers.
So Intrepid's current path is 'the one that doesn't enable griefers', and so, forces fair fights more often, even when the two people in question don't 'need to have a fair fight'. For anything else, there's the Open Seas.
Ok, why?
How? If you've already agreed that corruption exists to disincentivise non-consensual PvP...
... and it punishes attacks Vs non-combatants
... which implies you are safer as a non-combatant
... then why would pre-flagging for PvP make you "feel safer"?
We do not agree.
I want the risk part too.
Players who flag themselves get the additional agency to do that.
The game does not want to give that option in advance.
If you have anything to gain by flagging yourself up in advance you should not get it.
Also it causes an effect on the entire population behavior, an effect which is detrimental to the game.
Ah magic. We're def getting somewhere.
On this point: "I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs."
We agree this is an MMO with wpvp though, yeah? (I think this is one of those areas that you agree with just don't like, right? If so fair enough).
So personal taste aside a sec.. we agree that things like "getting the jump", opportunity, preparedness etc are fundamental parts of wpvp.
And that Ashes is a game with wpvp.
And we also agree about the purpose of corruption (deter non-consensual PvP).
And we agree that it doesn't do a great job specifically in the scenario we outlined, between two consensual PvPers (who are familiar with and enjoy an always-on PvP environment).
So.. where is the issue with adding such a pre-flag option? It's the exact same system, just making it easier for the PvPers to blow each other up.
You want the risk of what? I'm not understanding here.
corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there.
Of course it is.
Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent.
Actually, it's a thing you pointed out yourself.
By pre-flagging for PvP, you open yourself up to extremely unfavorable odds, in a game that is explicitly not meant to be balanced around 1v1.
If I must choose between 'you can pre-flag and be rewarded or compensated for these unfavorable odds' and 'no one can pre-flag', I choose the second.
Pre-flagging does not incentivize negotiation, it turns people into 'targets without penalty'. Which is the same problem I have with the Open Seas in this game. I don't like being on either side of that equation.
Even MOBAs fundamentally protect people from that specific craziness.
But why would it affect someone who chooses not to flag in any way?
Aside from perhaps reducing non-consensual PvP even further because it's now a lot clearer who is into PvP and who isn't.
This is the point btw, I'm trying to fix an issue between those who prefer a full PvP environment, without affecting those who wouldn't.
It's not an "us vs you" thing.
I just don't agree that it's likely to do that, or that it actually indicates that.
It's not the people who never flag, that it affects. And I don't really have any opinion on those people.
But I'm not one of them. I flag for PvP basically any time anyone taps me I think it isn't going to become a 3v1.
But I would still never have any reason to pre-flag. Because I've played lots of these games and know that the 'honor PvP' group is by far the minority.
This would then inevitably lead to fewer people choosing to toggle the flag, at which point we have the current system, except devtime was spent on balancing the game around the toggle's benefits.
And if those benefits are so negligible that the system only exists "for people to be flagged" - those same people can always keep up their flag in the current system already, so why even add this feature.
Yeah cool that's your playstyle then. Don't opt-in.
If I choose to be a mad man and opt-in (and the game rewards me a token exp buff to do so, which is very unlikely to compensate for all the downtime it will cost me), then it doesn't affect you either, does it?
If anything, it will give you more consensual PvP opportunities.
If you see me running by, with my eye on a herb, go for it.
You're a non-combatant, and can choose to attack if you like.
ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured.
i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks.
I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right?
So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me.
Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again.
But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say.
By now you are a non-combatant again, right?
If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption.
Of course corruption exists to deter non-consensual PvP !
This isn't the debate at all.
It literally punishes PKers for killing opponents who choose not to fight back, are AFK etc.
(I mean going AFK in a big dangerous, immersive world is already a bit immersion shattering tbh but that aside..)
It punishes you more the more you do it.
It punishes more if there was a significant level difference.
This is its entire purpose.
you didn't get what I said. we both clearly want to pvp, but I'm not going to attack you because you know you if you attack back gonna lose, so you will only attack after you find a favorable timing, lets say I have a few mobs on me or maybe you know I'm already low on health and mana. and I'm not going to kill you, even though I know you are waiting for an opportunity to kill me because id go red and I don't want to. my only options are to just sit there and wait until you leave, or keep farming and risk putting myself in a bad position and die to you or the mob.
we both clearly want to pvp but we wont because of corruption, we are just there waiting for the other person to make a mistake. so corruption is disincentivizing consensual pvp, not non consensual pvp.
I'm pretty sure you two agree here.
I also agree with the definition of the problem but not the proposed solution, it's just adding more weird fiat, except it's roundabout and masked as 'freedom' which is the worst kind for me.