Technical aspect of the flagging system

Situation: I'm walking down the street doing my thing feeding pigeons (cause that's what carebears do) or what have you and someone comes along and smacks me down in the face with a 12 pound sledge hammer because he's displeased with my behavior or whatever.

In this situation we can hardly argue who's the combatant.

But then with the current flagging system it gets really interesting.

Let's say after I've been struck I'm a bit disgruntled, get up and start assessing whether I should defend myself, or not.

Here the game tells me that if I chose to defending myself I become a combatant and puts me on the same combativeness level as my aggressor on a global level. Meaning that anyone that comes along sees two combatants.

My question: will there be any sort of mechanism that will indicate to anyone coming along that someone is defending themself?

Thank you

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ripteye

StewBad wrote: »

You don't have to accept being murdered, you have a choice.

Ya the choice is I want him to gain corruption. For wasting my time.

StewBad

Then don't fight back. Or stay in cities and play the game for trade skills. Or don't play a game with PvP in it. There are many choices.

Ripteye

StewBad wrote: »

Then don't fight back. Or stay in cities and play the game for trade skills. Or don't play a game with PvP in it. There are many choices.

I'm pointing out a flaw in the system is all. If the idea is to encourage PvP I don't see how you encourage players who prefer to not risk being baited by a red player who probably has friends who are not corrupted waiting for you to attack, so they can kill you without consequences. It's better to just let the first guy kill you and move to another location.

Ripteye

That's an old Bait tactic for systems like this.

StewBad

The hard focus on the idea that this is going to be an issue that happens enough to be a massive problem is what gets me.

Do people really think that this tactic will be employed to the extent that it needs to be a primary focus and that there needs to be an immediate action taken to prevent it before it has ever occurred?

Ripteye

StewBad wrote: »

The hard focus on the idea that this is going to be an issue that happens enough to be a massive problem is what gets me.

Do people really think that this tactic will be employed to the extent that it needs to be a primary focus and that there needs to be an immediate action taken to prevent it before it has ever occurred?

I can't speak for Ashes; however there was a time in Eve that it was an issue I have not played in years so I can't speak for today's Eve. Systems like this can and will be exploited by smart players.

The penalty for certain types of PvP should be exceptionally high.

StewBad

Ripteye wrote: »

The penalty for certain types of PvP griefing should be exceptionally high.

Fixed it for you.

And the penalties are high for griefing: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption#Player_flagging

Ripteye

StewBad wrote: »

Ripteye wrote: »

The penalty for certain types of PvP griefing should be exceptionally high.

Fixed it for you.

And the penalties are high for griefing: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption#Player_flagging

And I still say the best option is to let the attacker kill you and move along with your day. Therefore this system doesn't encourage PVP what so ever.

StewBad

This system is meant for DIScouraging griefing. Not for encouraging PvP. Being a PvX game, and allowing mutual PvP (by having a system that allows you to voluntarily flag) encourages PvP. Having instanced PvP (battlegrounds, arena, portions of castle sieges), Wars, etc. encourages PvP. How much further do you want the encouragement to go? A daily pop-up on first log-in that reminds you that PvP is ok? Help me understand your preferred end result.

tautau

Back in Lineage2, which used essentially the same system with only minor differences, players learned to deal with this system in a number of ingenious ways, some of which were:

- If you wanted to challenge a player to a duel, you disarm your weapon and slap them, giving them 1 point of damage. The slapper went purple. If the challenge was accepted, the slapped fought back and both were purple. If the challenge was not accepted, the slapped walked away the slapper went green after a bit.

- If someone attacked with a weapon, the player attacked could either 1. fight back (and maybe win, maybe die, both purple) 2. Run and maybe get away, maybe die. If they died, the attacker went red. 3. Stand still and challenge the attacker to either stop or go red. IF the attacker goes red, YELL "Red at *your location*" and lots of nearby players would RUSH over to kill the red since...Important Point Here... Red players have the best drops in the game, much better than mob drops. You can get lots of mats, armor, maybe a good weapon....off of red drops.

There were a number of other interesting tactics that were developed to encourage fools to go red so you and your friends could get their gear, but I am not going to post them since I want to use them in game and don't want to warn the idiots who go red, of which there will be quite a few.

Getting drops off of red players is a quick path to riches.

cupi

tautau wrote: »

Back in Lineage2

I understand that L2 chose to make the defender flag globally, but why did they chose this design over making the defender only locally flagged to the attacker?
I'm very curious about this because it's not as such in every MMO's that's hardcore Pvp oriented. I could name a few but there's no point to it.

Ludullu

Ripteye wrote: »

I'm pointing out a flaw in the system is all. If the idea is to encourage PvP I don't see how you encourage players who prefer to not risk being baited by a red player who probably has friends who are not corrupted waiting for you to attack, so they can kill you without consequences. It's better to just let the first guy kill you and move to another location.

You do not flag against a red player, because red player is pretty much a mob. So no, there's be quite a few consequences for those friends, because one of them would also become corrupted if they killed you.

BlackBrony

StewBad wrote: »

Why not make it so that Bounty Hunters are the only ones that can differentiate between aggressor and defender? In addition, make it so that if you are the defender, and you kill your attacker you are immediately flagged as non-combatant again..

Why attacking makes me the aggressor? Maybe the person I am attacking said that my guild is a bunch of whiners that couldn't complete Tower of Carphin, and I don't stand for that crap and I fight back.

Aszkalon

BlackBrony wrote: »

Why attacking makes me the aggressor? Maybe the person I am attacking said that my guild is a bunch of whiners that couldn't complete Tower of Carphin, and I don't stand for that crap and I fight back.

It doesn't really matter in a "fight" who the Aggressor is.

What matter is only -> will the attacked Person fight back - - > OOORRR go down without resisting as a Green Player,

effectively transforming/turning the Attacker into a Red/corrupted Player - - - > who is then Open Season for Everyone else ??

Funny enough,
" IF " you come back as a Green Person and attack/kill the Person who killed You first and became corrupted because you did not fight back,

you stay a green Person even if you kill him.

StewBad

BlackBrony wrote: »

StewBad wrote: »

Why not make it so that Bounty Hunters are the only ones that can differentiate between aggressor and defender? In addition, make it so that if you are the defender, and you kill your attacker you are immediately flagged as non-combatant again..

Why attacking makes me the aggressor? Maybe the person I am attacking said that my guild is a bunch of whiners that couldn't complete Tower of Carphin, and I don't stand for that crap and I fight back.

Is this a real question?

cupi

StewBad wrote: »

Is this a real question?

Probably not, the situation at hand is with a carebear being savagely engaged.

tautau

@cupi I cannot answer your "Why?" question above since I was not part of the Korean design team, nor do I know their reasoning. Anything I would say would only be speculation, and there is already too much speculation being presented as facts on these boards!

All I can say is that it seemed to work out surprisingly well.

Arya_Yeshe

CROW3 wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I thought you would continue as green and fight back as green, which is the only thing that makes sense to me

Nope. You fight back, you’re purple.

lol, bad move becomming purple for everybody
you become purple and every roguei the woodworks will unstealth

Noaani

Saabynator wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Saabynator wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Saabynator wrote: »

I was sure, that you could defend yourself, without repercussions. What if you kill your attacker? Will you get a "honor" hit? Or whatever its called. Can you actually get KOS for other players and cities, if you defend yourself? That would be really bad.

There is no KoS for other players or cities - there is simply three states - non-combatant, combatant or corrupt. Fighting back against an attacker does not give corruption, it only moves you to a combatant state. Any player can attack you while you are in any state, which is why there is no KoS state.

As to your hypothetical situation, that kind of thing isn't really an issue. When making the decision to fight back or not, the notion that there may be others coming to assist on either side should be a part of that thought process.

We really dont know if its a thing yet, since the game is not out yet, and people haven not explored all the options.

But if your combatant, people can kill you without sacrificing anything themselves. So my point was, you can get punished by denfending yourself. Meaning, the "law" in the game is so, that defending yourself from murder is illigal.

If you're a combatant, you're losing half as many resources on death, or none because you win. You're punished more for not fighting back.

But others can attack you now as well. They wont lsoe faction or whatever its called now, since you attacked back. So your free game for others, no? I mean, they will become combatants too, but still. It feels weird, that the laws of Verra is, that defending yourself, opens you up for more attacks.

You are supposing that there is someone in the area that wants to attack and kill you, but aren't specifically and only because they assume you will not fight back, and they don't want corruption.

If there's someone around that wants to kill you fir what ever reason, they will attack you to see if you will fight back or not. There is very little reason for them to not do this.

If you were willing to fight back against the first person that you defensed yourself against, you would then most likely do the same if this other player attacked you.

The theoretical situation you are complaining about here isn't really a reasonable one.

Noaani

Ripteye wrote: »

StewBad wrote: »

Ripteye wrote: »

The penalty for certain types of PvP griefing should be exceptionally high.

Fixed it for you.

And the penalties are high for griefing: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption#Player_flagging

And I still say the best option is to let the attacker kill you and move along with your day. Therefore this system doesn't encourage PVP what so ever.

This depends on what the fight is about.

If the game encourages fighting over farm spots like L2 and BDO did, then I would agree. However, that is such a stupid thing to fight over that the bigger issue would then be that the game as a whole is shit.

If there is something of value to fight over (rare mob or resource), then you would probably want to fight back.

The decision to fight back or not should never just be about the corruption you can inflict vs the resources you could drop. There should always be "something" that people are fighting over.

Your complaints are very accurate and valid if the fight is taking place jn a vacuum - if nothing of value is being fought over. However, that should never be a situation in Ashes.

Child Item