Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!

For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.

You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.

Technical aspect of the flagging system

1235»

Comments

  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    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.
    Normal death penalties for dying as a Non-Combatant.
    Less (half) death penalties for dying as a Combatant.

    Thank you, that's correct
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »
    Otr wrote: »
    And if the Guards attack and kill that player, from his ashes the other 9 friends can take the resources, whatever the game resource sink left us to loot?
    Don't think they ever said anything about resources being sunk during normal death penalties. Only caravan sinks have been stated.

    As for loot, yes, right now it seems that anyone will be able to just loot a corpse. I've given several different points of feedback on that in the past, but until we see what the reality is, it's hard to say what exactly requires balancing.

    Ah right. Gear durability is lost which requires resources to restore.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Otr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Unlike WoW, Ashes is a game where the people on your server are the entire pool of people with which you can run content. Further, due to traveling time, that pool of players will generally be further restricted to those thst have made nearby nodes home.
    I think the influence of the big map and traveling time is overestimated.
    There will be family summon, mounts on roads or gliding will help too.
    I think 30 minute travel will be acceptable and guild members will wait each other for that amount of time.
    Traveling over the ocean might be slower.
    I think you completely missed the point here - a result of only paying attention to one post in a longer discussion on various things, no doubt.

    The main point I was reiterating to the poster I was replying to was that either you travel a distance away from home in order to PK players, or there absolutely are negative side effects to opportunistic killings.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Otr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Unlike WoW, Ashes is a game where the people on your server are the entire pool of people with which you can run content. Further, due to traveling time, that pool of players will generally be further restricted to those thst have made nearby nodes home.
    I think the influence of the big map and traveling time is overestimated.
    There will be family summon, mounts on roads or gliding will help too.
    I think 30 minute travel will be acceptable and guild members will wait each other for that amount of time.
    Traveling over the ocean might be slower.
    I think you completely missed the point here - a result of only paying attention to one post in a longer discussion on various things, no doubt.

    The main point I was reiterating to the poster I was replying to was that either you travel a distance away from home in order to PK players, or there absolutely are negative side effects to opportunistic killings.

    That depends. One may want to lower a node they are in so another may rise for content reasons. Not to mention node sabotage. Both of which could include inner node turmoil. But generally you're right.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Otr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Unlike WoW, Ashes is a game where the people on your server are the entire pool of people with which you can run content. Further, due to traveling time, that pool of players will generally be further restricted to those thst have made nearby nodes home.
    I think the influence of the big map and traveling time is overestimated.
    There will be family summon, mounts on roads or gliding will help too.
    I think 30 minute travel will be acceptable and guild members will wait each other for that amount of time.
    Traveling over the ocean might be slower.
    I think you completely missed the point here - a result of only paying attention to one post in a longer discussion on various things, no doubt.

    The main point I was reiterating to the poster I was replying to was that either you travel a distance away from home in order to PK players, or there absolutely are negative side effects to opportunistic killings.

    I think your statement was complete enough.
    You said
    "If you go around attacking players on the off chance they may have materials that you want, that is a potential black mark against you, and against your guild."

    My statements are:
    I will try to play on the entire map (distance is not a problem for me)
    Other guild members will attack and when needed I will help them.
    I find it ok entire guilds to be marked as enemies because some players attacked.

    So I am interested to know what do you think will happen when small guilds which were marked as enemies end up being on the same side because the node relationships change (e.g. their nodes end up having the same parent node or one the vassal of the other).
    I want your opinion about how you think guild relationships will change, if they remain enemies or will they start to cooperate.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    ReLamas wrote: »
    That's a very interesting point and raises an important question about the flagging system in Ashes of Creation.

    The idea of being attacked and then flagged as a combatant just for defending yourself can indeed seem unfair, especially when considering the scenario you described. If I were feeding pigeons and someone attacked me, my natural reaction would be to defend myself. However, being flagged as a combatant on the same level as my aggressor could cause confusion for other players who might not know who initiated the conflict.

    It would be great if there were some kind of mechanism in the game that clearly indicated who is defending themselves and who started the attack. Perhaps a different flagging system, where the defender has a visible mark indicating they are responding to an attack, could help address this issue. This would allow other players to see that someone is simply trying to protect themselves, rather than assuming both players are equally involved in a hostile confrontation.

    Additionally, such a system could help maintain fairness and clarity in the game, encouraging more just gameplay and preventing peaceful players from being unjustly punished for defending themselves. This kind of nuance in the combat flagging system could really make a difference in the overall player experience.

    I hope the developers of Ashes of Creation consider these concerns and implement solutions that make the combat system clearer and fairer for all players.

    there isn't any real issue. why is the defender more important than the attacker? there isn't any real reason for it and people are only looking at one side of the interaction.

    what if there is a system that identifies the attacker and defender, to keep the game just or whatever dumb thing. I'm feeding pigeons minding my own business. I'm usually peaceful but someone attacks me because he wants those pigeons. lets also say that person is stronger than me (maybe better gear or higher levels). I run away, wait some time and heal myself, then I come back to re claim my spot from the attacker. i want to hit him a few times before he has a chance to hit me back since he is stronger than me, but guess what? he is back to being green. if I attack him now, I'm marked as the attacker, when I'm clearly not the person who initiated the conflict. anyone passing by will think I'm "the bad guy" here and attack me.

    so players who decide not to hit back right away because they got down to 10% hp before they could even click their attacker are now being punished simply because they ran away and waited a lil longer to fight back instead of fighting right away. highly abusable system that keeps things "fair" lol. hell, attackers could even hit then run away, drop the flagging status and come back and bait the other person to attack them so that they are marked as the attacker xD
  • cupicupi Member, Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    why is the defender more important than the attacker?

    It doesn't matter really I agree. I made the thread in the spirit of trying to see if it mattered to people that anyone could break a fight. And it seems that people don't really care.

    The point I was trying to make is that other PvP MMOs (with a PK system) chose a design that makes the one defending remain unflagged, or only flagged to the attacker. In such a way, the two players can have their battle uninterrupted
    fa0c5qqwh2l8.png


    So far someone mentioned L2 but I'm not aware or any other MMO that flags someone to everyone else for defending against unsolicited engagement.

    This thread derailed a bit and went on the PK system but the main point wasn't clearly addressed.

    If two people are fighting, why make it so easy to interfere when it could be avoided ? It just doesn't make sens to me because of the griefing scenarios it enables.

    To put it simply, why not leave the one defending green?
  • CadacCadac Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I dislike becoming globally combatant for defending myself in 1 vs X scenarios, but if we flagged only to each other, group vs group in the open world would be a corruption fest, or no?
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Cadac wrote: »
    I dislike becoming globally combatant for defending myself in 1 vs X scenarios, but if we flagged only to each other, group vs group in the open world would be a corruption fest, or no?
    Yes, group pvp would be non-existent outside of events. This would also lead to changes in the corruption as well, cause if they went for something like "the entire party is now flagged specifically against their victim" then that leads directly to "if the victim dies - the party is corrupted".

    This has been suggested before already, but all that it would lead to is just more PKing, but way less owpvp.
  • cupicupi Member, Alpha Two
    Cadac wrote: »
    I dislike becoming globally combatant for defending myself in 1 vs X scenarios, but if we flagged only to each other, group vs group in the open world would be a corruption fest, or no?

    No, the attacker is flagged, and someone attacking this flagged player becomes also flagged. In this design the one originally engaged stays unflagged unless they chose to engage another flagged player (other than their aggressor).
Sign In or Register to comment.