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.
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.
Comments
Except rogues are even at a greater advantage than tanks/healers/bards, cause their CCs still work against flagged/corrupted, even if those players don't want to do anything with you.
It is simply how the game is designed. You dislike that design and that's ok.
I hope I'm misunderstanding you here and you're not saying "CC immunity only works for 5 seconds". Cause if you do mean that - I got nothing else to say in this discussion.
When you flag - you know the risks. Those risks include your victim retaliating.
Also, those risk include the chance of literally anyone around you immediately CCing/attacking you, so the victim wouldn't even need to do anything. So why is it ok for them to hit you, but not the victim? Those others would even be at a bigger advantage over you, because they won't have any abilities on CD, unlike you who just used something to hit your target.
All in all, as I've been saying, greens are protected for a reason. Rogues can do a ton of other shit to greens and won't need CCs for it. Other archetypes have abilities that are useless in an initiation, so it's completely fine for rogues to be one of them (it even splits the archetypes in half in this context). Good pvpers won't let their prey do whatever it wants, while they jerk off in a corner.
Rogues would be in the same position in several scenarios regardless of this particular one. Many times AOE makes Stealth useless. Other times armor could mess with their efficiency. These are hypotheticals since we dont know for sure, but they have been present in many mmos.
You seem to have a vendetta against Damage roles who excel at engaging in PvP, instead of thinking of ways to improve other classes. You're literally saying that instead of balancing the classes, just punish those other classes for doing what they are made for, by preventing them from using their abilities when there is no other reason to besides protecting a non-combatant who cant or doesn't intend to fight back.
Why do they need to be hindered by a system purely designed for protecting Non-combatants while fighting players intending to fight back?
That was purely a hypothetical example of a hypothetical CC break being activated. That number holds no particular significance.
Yes, you risk dying, or corruption when you flag as a combatant. From the things I have read, there is not intent to give players retaliating an edge, nor their attackers a handicap. That handicap is reserved for protecting players who cant or don't want to fight, so they can attempt to run away.
Yes, anyone can CC/attack you, but attackers should be able to do the same initially because if you are limiting the set of abilities given to them simply for engaging the fight, you are punishing the very act of engaging a fight. Chance of dying is risk, corruption is another risk leading to punishment, but preventing players from using their abilities by a system is a punishment. Corruption is the only factor that should punish a player.
And my suggestion gives the exact same protections the current system provides for greens. A player who uses my Active CC immunity suggestion as a noncombatant will still be able to pop it and run from the dreaded rogue with no worries of CCs. The only difference is you are committing to being that noncombatant and the escape for those immunity benefits. Its the players who decide to fight back who would not have the benefits, which makes sense since they are commiting to becoming a non-combatant,
With the CC immunity as an ability
-non-combatants commit to remaining so, and gain all of those CC immunities allowing them to try to escape.
-Players who want to fight back, get to. They have 100% of their skillset and can fight their attacker to survive. The only difference is they never start off with a CC immunity.
-Players engaging the attack can do so with 100% of their Skillset, they get no boost nor benefits from systems.
The greens are protected, and the fighters get to fight without a system hindering their character playstyles. Just players killin eachother.
A good Point.
I personally just hope for "the Middleground". The Core-Mechanic should also not be able to entirely ignore the Stealth of the Rogue.
Otherwise -> the Rogue - will not be the Rogue, anymore.
ESPECIALLY that Class which has an "Assassin" Specc/Subclass when choosing to "double down" on his primary Archetype.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Steven decided to not let greens get CCed. I like that and want that to stay in the game, because it makes pvp fairer for both sides. I discussed this with 2 of my L2 friends and they had literally the same opinion as me, so I'm not the only one who agrees with the fairness angle.
Intrepid have all the feedback I can give on this topic.
Fair enough, I believe greens should have the option to not get CCed. Allowing the choice to either benefit from it and get the attempt to get away or fight at 100% of their capabilities without gaining any outside boon to the fight. All around the premise of negating a players abilities for engaging someone is a bad design that punishes the player for doing something not specified as griefing.
Whatever Intrepid chooses to do in the end is what it is. At least our input is out there.
There's already Stealth advantage. Typically Rogue's have high DPS burst damage - especially from Stealth.
Likely solo targets will already have several disadvantages when they aren't anticipating an attack.
Pacifists should probably be free of CC if they are intended to have a chance to escape when they choose not to fight back.
Seems like the choice to get CCd occurs when flagging from Green to Purple.
But... really...
That is what A2 is for.
already stated who it would actually effect. Its not just rogues like the original post focused on, its about any class who has a kit with CC, surprise attacks, or lack mobility. I dont take an issue with other players counter other players abilities in PvP. The problem is having a system basically telling players "no no no, you cant use your full set of abilities until they hit you back." Some roles would be affect more or less than others. But in any ability type you could apply this. Like my example earlier, its similar to telling a tank they cant use defensives against attacking players until they get to X% health.
My suggestion allows for non-combatants who think they cant win a fight or dont want to fight to lock into the non-combatant state for a set amount of time where it becomes a commitment to escape, enabling CC immunity for that duration so that chance to escape can happen. Its the exact same CC immunity for the current plan, but it'd have to be activated. And it would also break all active player CCs as well.
So the greens who dont want to fight would still be benefiting from the system @Dygz
I understand your complaint. Doesn't mean that your complaint overrides non-toxic gameplay for those who wish to remain Non-Combatants.
Why is it that in Soccer, you can't catch touch the ball with your hands when running down the field?
Players don't have 100% access to their physical skills. Those are the rules.
Why is it that in Basketball, you can't Travel with the ball after you stop running with it? Those are the rules.
Games typically come with restrictive rules. Some people will not like all of the rules.
That's the way games work.
We'll be able to asses the balance better later during A2.
in those games, neither side gets the advantage of what you propose. The rules in basketball doesnt allow the defenders to grab the ball and run down the court traveling just because the other team came onto their side of the court.
In the current ashes system, one side is getting a benefit outside of what their specific class is capable of that negatively affects the player engaging them for no other reason than attacking first.
Games do come with restrictive rules, but they shouldnt say 1 player can do one thing, and another cant when interacting against one another, at least in terms of already having set skills and then nullifying them in this scenario.
And definitely, testing will iron it all out. I have a lot of scenarios planned out for testing the feel of this already.
It is ok to have class abilities that are only viable in specific situations. Stealth is the prime example of this - it is only viable against enemies that can't see through it.
Not only is it ok to have abilities that are only situationally useful, having this be part of the core design of your class system means you inherently create a class system that encourages players to get better. Rather than the same thing always working, you need to assess the situation and decide what you can best do with the tools you have to hand.
Making it so you can't open PvP against a green with CC simply means players wanting to initiation PvP against a green need to have a different plan than they would if they were initiating combat against a red or purple- that is specifically good game design as it encourages varied gameplay.
Literally the only way to take an MMORPG away from the notion of repeating the same series of abilities over and over is to make it so there are times when some of those abilities are either more or less viable to use. This isn't something we should be complaining about.
Probably things will start changing when Alpha 2 will be live.
This feature which makes Green players immune to CCs should apply only sometime.
And the ability to cancel this advantage should be earned as a progression in military nodes.
Feel free to make your own MMORPG with all the rules you like.
A goalie gets a set amount of skillsets from the start yes. That would just be a role difference. Like a tank as opposed to a dps or a healer.
This goes back to my comment explaining that players using their own class skillsets to counter other players skill sets is fine. But applying an overhanging system, that by design is to prevent griefing non-combatants with CC, to players who don't intend to use that system by retaliating is just punishing the player engaging in that scenario, as long as that initiating player is not griefing by Stevens definition.
I'll pose these questions to myself and to everyone else, hopefully in an unbiased way.
-Is this CC immunity supposed to be an assist to non-combatants who cant fight back or wish to run?
I believe this is a result/intent of the design. It is to prevent a form of griefing.
Player abilities with CC effects do not apply to non-combatants. The target of a CC ability must be flagged in order to suffer the CC effects. This prevents players from opening attacks that stun non-combatant players during a pull for example.[15]
The intent stated here is clearly made regarding players ability to grief one another, and this system preventing that.
If a player wants to grief by stunning someone during a pull, the CC Immunity system should be an option to keep non-combatants unhindered by the affronting player if the non-combatant either wishes to continue the pull(assuming the player isnt outright PKing them) or running away unhindered if that player fully engages them, and in this case corruption manages the negative outcome.
-Is this CC Immunity supposed to benefit players who intend to fight back?
No
Players with the intent to either attack or retaliate should not be given a boon outside of their own characters or their party's ability if they intend to confront other players. This system is purely for a non-combatant player being griefed with CC. In the same situation as the stunned while pulling scenario, a player being attacked can decide if they can turn on the attacking player and beat them or not. Regardless of the CC immunity system, they are already pulling an enemy, and while this initially seems a bit harsh, as long as they have the option to become CC immune and retreat, this ability to decide on an action to take falls into the Risk vs Reward aspect, especially considering a class's abilities in each encounter being a key influence in matchmaking. Thats probably one of the worst case scenarios so it seems pretty harsh, but it lets players choose. So lets completely remove the pull in a scenario and have it where one player engages a non-combatant. With nothing interfering, the engaging player would be punished for simply engaging another player on even grounds by giving the non-combatant an outside system advantage, keeping the attacking player from using their full skillset at the start of the fight.
-Is restricting class skillsets for engaging a fight against a non-combatant who chooses to fight back the intended design of this system?
No, this system is purely an anti-griefing system, and should achieve its goal without interfering or limiting opportunities of open conflict. Restricting a players character abilities for engaging another player, without griefing by Stevens definition, is a deterrent to the action of engaging, and a deterrent to open conflict as a result. Providing a solution to a type of griefing should be done so without deterring content that is intended if possible. Which in this case can be done in my opinion.
This one is about the suggestion I made, I have answered this throughout this post so its for everyone else.
-If changing this from a passive non-combatant effect to an active ability for the same effect for a sufficient amount of time while locking into this non-combatant state protects non-combatants just as efficiently against griefing without affecting PvP engagements between players who fully intend to fight back, why or why not is this ok in your reasoning?
You misunderstand or I didnt explain it in that particular post but I stated at a point that I am referring to a system outside of characters skillsets negating abilities is bad.
I fully embrace and believe classes countering each others abilities is great, giving fun matchups and hard counters keep the game exciting.
But having some overhanging system designed for preventing a type of griefing also nullifying class skillsets as a result of its design while there are other potentially less intrusive options is not good.
For the sake of 'fairness', positive gameplay, and certain aspects of PvE, being able to affect other players with CC or certain debuffs when their intent isn't to fight you, is bullshit.
Now, for some, 'fairness' doesn't exist in owPvP MMOs, and neither positive gameplay nor PvE are of meaningful importance to them. But Steven seems to still care about that, so here's why it is bullshit.
If I go into a dungeon to try to even sneak past some stuff to gather something with dangerous mobs, the sort of adventure some people find interesting in this game at level 35, and I'm just about there, weaving past the patrolling mobs and just at the right time I wanna go for my gather, and some level 50 Mage then does:
Sleep, Mana Drain, Evasion Down, Root, in that order, and I use the offered CC break on the Sleep... I'm going to die to the mobs. I am an idiot if I flag up on this level 50 Mage. I am in an area where I had to plan carefully to kill anything around me in the first place. If I don't CC break the Sleep, the mobs have time to wander into detection range and aggro me with mana drained and evasion down.
Replace the mobs with players who wouldn't attack me because they don't want Corruption they can't control, and it's the same thing. The general experience of the game for people who want to experience something other than the 'thrill of PvP threat' on every adventure turns to garbage. It's already pretty garbage, and we just generally go 'well you shouldn't play Ashes if you don't want it that often, Ashes will have quite a lot of it'.
Steven's decision is meant to reduce 'lot of it' somewhat. Because you know what doesn't happen when that Mage hits me with Sleep, Mana Drain, Evasion Down, Root? I don't get to guess how strong they are. That's the huge problem with allowing non-damaging CC on greens. The noncombatant can't decide if to fight back or not because they don't know their chances based on just CC skills, they may not even know the enemy level. Same goes for large gear/strength gaps.
At least if you have to hit me I can start to guess how much you can actually do and gauge a fight or flight response without having to flag up and give you the 'free kill'.
So yeah, you can give me a 'CC immune button' but then we will need to make that CC break or immunity apply 'Per person' or whatever to prevent a bunch of different, far more stupid exploits.
"Ok everyone get in a line/circle so I can CC you all and let you pop your CC immunity so you can charge through this chokepoint while green to steal the loot/boss/ship".
You see it as a deterrent to 'engaging' because you are one of those 'I want to play a game where I can have mostly fun mostly fair PvP in a thrilling open world' people. This design pillar is not about people like you. I believe what Steven wants is for people like yourself to adapt to having to open with damage options, which is, design wise, a small price to pay to avoid the garbage experience that would come with people being able to CC greens.
You watched the LuckyGhost video, right?
There absolutely should be factors outside of class skill sets that can impact a fight. Things like having a cliff nearby and some classes having the ability to shove opponents. Fighting near water and some classes having underwater breathing. Fighting in a forrest breaking ranged classes line of sight.
Having a system where you don't get first CC on a green is the same as these things as far as I am concerned. It is just a fact to take in to account when making decisions in the game - and the more varied factors that lead to more unique decisions to make the better the game is.
The CC immunity on greens isn't just a system to prevent griefing. It is designed to give attacked players a reason to engage in PvP When attacked, thus it is a system to increase actual open world PvP in Ashes.
Unless I COMPLETELY misunderstood Dolyem's idea, the CC button he suggested simply copies the current design, but makes it an active "opt-in" mechanic, where the person who pushed the button can't attack flagged people for a while.
Dolyem said the time of the immunity didn't matter to him, but unless the CC immunity was the same length as the flagging prevention - it'd be bullshit, so I've, in good faith, assumed that it is the same length.
I would love for Crowd-Control-Immunity for "green Players" to stay in the Game, too.
Also, NiKr,
since a Green Player gets "immediately" flagged purple by fighting back and ceases to be green,
i wouldn't even call that fairer regarding PvP. It just makes "GANKING" harder, doesn't it ?
It is mainly fairer for People who want to flee from a Fight rather than taking part in it.
Which is completely cool, if i am honest.
I have seen a few People here in the Forum who seem very hesitant to take part in PvP. So long Story short, they will "LOVE" this Feature, won't they ?
Gotta have a tiny bit to protect our PvP-reluctant PvE-Buddies.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Where was this said? This would change my mind if Steven outright said this, even if I do disagree with it. I dont ever remember hearing this though
Oh I would make it only break player CCs but that is a super good point about the exploit potentials.
The same place it was stated that the CC immunity was to prevent griefing - as in, neither have been stated.
The reality is, it is a mechanic that is the only sensible way to deal with a few different issues. One of those issues is griefing, another is what Azhera talked about above (which would be an issue if there was a different fix put in place), but another issue is that greens that are attacked first are at an inherent disadvantage ad so would flag up less often.
Give them the option to get the first CC in the fight, and suddenly them taking that first hit isn't so much of a disadvantage - giving them more of a reason to fight back (if they have a good CC on them, of course).
Ok so its entirely feasible for me to debate this then. But you make a good point as far as the info about it can be interpreted either way so how about this. And bare with me, I am trying to be fair about this.
From what I have read and heard from Steven, to me the intent is not to lessen OWPvP. Conflict is something Steven encourages, as it creates risk vs reward. Griefing(by his definition) is the only conflict that Steven has deemed as a negative form of conflict that corruption aims to mitigate as far as excessive PKing goes. This CC immunity (based off what little is stated about it) to me seems to be a grief deterrent less about griefing via PKing, and more about a less direct approach of griefing where you could CC people to get them killed by PvE mobs. Which if that is the case, it should not also interfere with potential combat between players who engage and who intend to fight back.
Now with your interpretation (which I am paraphrasing to try to sum it up so correct me where I need to be corrected), You believe that it is a much wider range of coverage for the system, not only including what I believe it is as a deterrent to a specific form of griefing, but also as a way to make getting surprised in combat by another player more fair by lessening the engaging players options/efficiency of attack, hoping to give players being engaged more confidence in fighting back as a result.
Honestly you've at least convinced me to come to a middle ground and say that it comes down to a coin flip of whoever is supposed to get the most risk in this situation. And both parties could be argued for.
I and some others I have discussed this with would say that this would be a proper form of risk to apply to players adventuring in the world, risking being ambushed in the wild if they dont pay attention, and providing choices revolving around those risks committing to battle or to running.
You and others would perhaps argue that more risk should be put on those seeking confrontation (outside the parameters of griefing, for we both agree griefers should be managed) putting limits on engaging players ability to give the adventurers a sort of equalizer in what you would possibly say is an advantageous engagement
Either way, its good that everyone is leaving feedback, and hopefully it helps the devs with some ideas. I doubt we will get more details before Alpha 2 on this system which is a shame since its vague. But I will be testing the design by running and recording "ganking" scenarios during the alpha 2 so I can get a good feel of how it plays out. You'll be welcome to help test it so there isn't a bias for opinions. In the end I will embrace whatever Steven actually intends by his design.
There is a fairly common sentiment in many art based communities that the more restrictions you have on you, the more you are forced to be creative. If someone is really good at painting ships, for example, the majority of their paintings will likely be of ships. However, that painter may well find that their best work comes when someone tells them to paint a landscape, or a portrait - anything not involving a ship. Likewise, it could be that they are used to painting with acrylic paint, but are asked to do a painting in oil or watercolor instead.
Being forced to sometimes need to do something different to what you normally do is an inherently good thing. You made the above statement as if it were a negative - but to me it is inherently a good thing.
Giving players many options is great. Allowing players to use those options how they like most of the time is great. Putting players in situations at times where they need to do something different than what they normally do is also great.
I think it is our views of this aspect of it that lead each of us to have the differing opinions we have.
To me, even if you remove the notion of the CC immunity being something of an equalizer, if you remove the notion that it is a fix to potential exploits, it is still a good thing for the game to have, just for the above reason of variation.
Keep in mind that I am also working on the assumption that corruption based PvP will be most players least engaged PvP type.
Is there peace in Gaza, too?
We've literally been saying this for 3 pages. Which part of "the ambusher still has an advantage, just not as much (which is a good balance change)" wasn't clear enough until now?
I recognise that I might sound a bit hostile here, and I'll let you all continue to discuss this out, I'm just genuinely surprised and curious now.
The testing is planned confrontations haha, not just ganking someone and then asking how they feel, though that sounds funny. It's more focused on feel of gameplay both with and without CC immunity
He pointed out a vagueness in the description of the system that allows for different interpretations that allow for equal consideration. That's all. I was seeing a flawed interpretation instead of an equal interpretation. So same goes for you. It's a coin flip on whatever Steven decides deserves more risk.
I wasnt lying when I said I prioritize Stevens design philosophy and choices when considering my suggestions I swear!
Completely fair with my new consideration of the possibilities of the stated system. I'm sure this feedback will be great for the devs. I still lean more towards my initial stance as what you're suggesting could also be applied to a player being ambushed and forced to adapt, but that's solid reasoning either way.