Will the Flagging System Negatively Impact the Way Classes Function When Engaging PvP? *edited*

Dolyem

Long time no see everyone. Figured I may as well toss another topic out since its been so long.

Its a simple idea. Seeing as traditionally rogues are all about openers and getting the jump on players in PvP, will this simply disincentivize players being attacked by rogues to fight back when Rogues get the jump on them, pushing said rogues to gain corruption or disengage? Would this pretty much nullify the classic rogue mechanic of stealth attacks in PvP? Will the potential loss of materials be enough to push back against a rogue doing this? I plan to test this in alpha 2 quite a bit but any feedback or suggestions to test are welcome.

This is also just theory, seeing as we dont know anything about ashes rogues, its just speculation using what rogues have been in mmorpgs traditionally.

*****EDIT******: This has become less about corruption and more about the non-combatant CC immunity system preventing players from using their full skill-kits for many classes when engaging a PvP fight

With the parameters I propose:
-balancing will prevent initial attacks from outright deleting a player
-initiative is earned, and it wont always be in favor of the attacker if the player who is the would-be attacked sees the player and can engage first. The current system in this scenario now puts the would-be attacked player at a disadvantage since if they preemptively strike, they don't get to utilize their CCs to not only attempt to fight it out, but they could very well choose to CC that ambusher on initiative to escape more easily even though they are now a combatant, this is likely a dependent on class matchup decision.
-Non-combatant players should get the choice to fight or flight. Fighting is simple, they turn and engage and fight to win, risking win or loss. Non-combatant players who don't want to fight at all or don't believe they can win the fight can activate a CC immunity that functions as the current passive, breaking any current CCs and allowing them the ability to attempt an escape at the cost of committing to that non-combatant state for a period of time that prevents them from turning on their attacker to utilize their CC immunities in the initial combat.

I predict any system that limits your toolkit in combat will feel bad. It is objectively a bad call to give someone abilities, and then say "yea but they dont work if you attack first". And one way I would say it is an advantage for the defender is that it gives them the ability to close any sort of distance or create distance unhindered before they react, which for certain class matchups could be the deciding factor. So I believe it is bad to pitch that against someone for being the one who engages. You're automatically punishing them. Attacking a player isn't supposed to be something the game punishes, that in itself will deter engagements from happening. Griefing is the only thing that should be punished.

You should absolutely be capable of reacting and fighting against a player attacking you, but not by preventing a player from playing their class at 100%.

Dolyem

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I even have ran this by several people as a scenario where they are being attacked, and almost every one of them said theyd likely disengage remaining a non-combatant, heal, and re-engage before the player lost their combat status and open up on them with full CCs.

Which is the point of "greens can't be CCed". It makes the encounter fair to both sides. The attacker gets the first hit, the defender gets the first CC.

If you, as the attacker, stand around waiting for your victim to heal up - what the hell are you doing? If your goal was not to PK your target - you can still keep attacking them, so that they don't heal back up.

And if your goal WAS to PK them - you can succeed at that easily.

The only "fair" fight there should ever be are in duels. And going off by what it looks like you're calling fair, that's just agreed upon combat.
OWPvP is meant to provide that whole risk to reward aspect, and removing the initial engagement lessens that risk. You're supposed to be ready to be attacked any time you're out in the world, and you either run away or defend yourself. Halving your losses on death or winning become your outcomes for choosing to fight back, and you shouldnt get an advantage backing those risks. Attackers risk dying or gaining corruption when attacking, and they shouldn't be put at a disadvantage for those risks. It just comes down to the engagement.

If you can't initially CC me, I will run, disengage, and heal up once I've lost you, and then push the attack using full CCs on you before you lose your combatant flag. That's a flawed system.
And even if you catch me and kill me without me fighting back at first, you're now corrupted and I'll try to hunt you down and be able to CC you off the rip as well.
How does that sound like fair gameplay? I'll be sure to test it a lot and record each encounter during the alpha for this thread either way, and hopefully I'm wrong.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

This is also not about suffering corruption, rather it is more about a sort of terms of engagement issue being exploitable.

It's not an exploit. It's an intended interaction. You just dislike that you don't have a huge of an advantage w/o also gaining as huge of a penalty for said advantage.

An initial advantage would likely only be a slight to moderate advantage in a balanced system. You're stuck in this mindset that I'm begging to be able to one-shot people when I'm simply saying that not allowing parts of a players kit to be used because they're attacking first will feel awful. And then from doing so making themselves able to have that exact advantage used on them instead.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

My suggestion above for players committing to non-combatant to acquire CC immunity addresses your concerns of protecting greens.

Except it changes nothing in the context of this discussion. If your goal was not to PK the person - CCs don't matter. If your goal is to PK a person - CCs only matter if a green player who didn't even know they're about to be attacked can then somehow easily escape the attacker. But even with a longer ttk, it'd be quite difficult to escape someone who has already dealt some burst dmg and is still doing dmg to you, while you're trying to figure out your best way of retreat.

As Lae said above, I'm not sure what the core of your issue is. If it's simply unfairness towards the attackers - tough luck

As I've said several times, let the players who commit to running activate their CC immunity at the cost of staying green.
And if you think CC doesn't matter when initiating PvP then you need to play more PvP.
If I intend to PK a person and they don't want to fight back, they should have the option to run instead of just standing there and dying. But if they want to fight back, they better be having to fight against me at 100% of my capabilities, and not 70%, 80% or 90% just because I attacked first.

And imagine if I were to say "tough luck" to green players and wasn't even offering an active ability to them. I don't remember you being this toxic.