Thoughts on Greens Attacking Reds.
Sathrago
Member
I was just thinking about this, and honestly, there needs to be a bit of nuance here. I'm wondering if it might be better for the game if green players flag purple when they initiate an attack on a red player, but if they're attacked first, they can fight back without going purple.
What this does is loosen up the restrictions on red players a bit and discourages greens from turning around to kill reds just because a swarm of other players rolled by.
If you don’t want to PvP, then you can’t be the one making the first move. You already have CC immunity, so having the risk of losing that in order to attack reds on sight seems like a better system.
The reason I suggest this is that I don’t like the idea that, to clear someone from a farming spot, you might go red, and then an army of greens throws themselves at you, either killing you or increasing your corruption, when your only aggression was against the initial party.
If Steven wants players to have a way to express their frustration or contend with others, he needs to avoid forcing us to dig a hole to our doom every time we engage with it.
Anyway, what do y’all think? Stupid? (It's only alpha, hurr durr?) Let me know regardless. I’ll be fishing in Throne and chillin’.
What this does is loosen up the restrictions on red players a bit and discourages greens from turning around to kill reds just because a swarm of other players rolled by.
If you don’t want to PvP, then you can’t be the one making the first move. You already have CC immunity, so having the risk of losing that in order to attack reds on sight seems like a better system.
The reason I suggest this is that I don’t like the idea that, to clear someone from a farming spot, you might go red, and then an army of greens throws themselves at you, either killing you or increasing your corruption, when your only aggression was against the initial party.
If Steven wants players to have a way to express their frustration or contend with others, he needs to avoid forcing us to dig a hole to our doom every time we engage with it.
Anyway, what do y’all think? Stupid? (It's only alpha, hurr durr?) Let me know regardless. I’ll be fishing in Throne and chillin’.
2
Comments
I think is not stupid.
But might allow strategies where the larger group sends a small team to tempt the opponents to become red.
yes, but how do you think someone can run from a green thats cc immune?
I personally dont like it when protected players roam around using that protection as a weapon to further punish someone whos already going to lose a good amount of stuff when they die. If the red defends themselves they lose even more. It would be less of an issue if greens were not cc immune. Then you could pull some tricks to try and get away but as it stands if you happen to be the unlucky guy in your group to get a last hit you become the juicy piece of meat to everyone within that area.
This change is for those kinds of players just trying to contend for a farming spot or drive someone off and happen to go red. Since there is no option to choose non-lethal attacks the least that could be done is making greens flag as purple if they initiate against a red.
(You've asked for opinions, that's my opinion on that)
Yes in that interaction you take on the risk of going red and if you do go red its for that single action. My point is that because green players can attack you without flagging purple, you are now in a situation where if you want to live you have to kill more greens or somehow get away from someone that cant be cced. In most cases you will either die or kill more greens.
I think this is too much of a cascading punishment. They are already red and will take a massive debt of exp, drop items, durability, and potentially lose a full item piece they have equipped from that first kill that made them red.
Lets add a tiny bit of breathing room so that mistakes and one off fights are not the end of the world for a player.
in group conflicts I can see it happening all too often because people will die before they will get to attack back. the perfect example of this is their showcase of the caravan pvp where they ambushed from above with multiple ranger snipes killing one player instantly. ( I understand that caravan pvp is not corruptin pvp) In open world dungeon pvp it will be chaotic and you will see many reds.
But yeah, this change just makes things less one sided by a small degree. a green player initiating pvp with a red player means they consent to pvp, and they should therefore be flagged for it. Thats the long and short of my thoughts on it.
So, everything is alright - I'm just special when it comes to balanced and fair frameworks in pvp fights, I dislike unbalanced pvp fights, where one player wants to pvp and fight and the other player (at this particular moment) doesnt want to fight (for whatever personal reason) back.
So, taking the risk to kill a green ("clear him, because he is on my farming spot") means getting the consequences and punishments. Other players showing up, corruption, bounty hunters. Just everything. I like it. Greens would already be purple if there is a consent to pvp (they flag to purple by attacking, not only up from killing another green or purple), so as long as there is no consent, the green is bit in advantage (beside death penalty) or let's say will not face bad flagging consequences.
That's why I usually will not fight back against purple players (and perhaps face bit higher death penaltiy) if I'm not in a mood to pvp at this particular point of time or in this situation to try to get the corruption punishment for this attacking player. Ofc this will be completely different if I want to pvp and take part as purple player in owpvp/object-based pvp.
The Green player has the capacity to 'force a retreat' on the Red player, reversing the dynamic that led them to being Red to begin with, or, the Red can fight.
If you are the only Red in a group, your allies will protect you in some way and facilitate the escape, or the Green player(s) can flag up on your group members to be Purple.
1v1 random encounters in the world with Greens is just 'part of being a Red player that isn't in a group'.
1 player from group A attacks group B and goes red.
Players from group B cannot fight back without dying to group A, and group A gets free PvP and the red player gets no additional corruption.
Why discourage people from hunting down a red?
Mind you, in L2, from which this system is taken from and was working fine, green players wouldnt just jump in to kill a red (except for the early days).
That is because people had the common sense to not get involved in situations where they didnt know what went down.
Some greens though though "oh a red pinata" and they killed the red, only to bring war to themselves from a strong guild.
Go play Cyrodiil.
What would you say to a Green player that attacks Reds turn a new color lets says BLUE. And that combat is then normal between them other then the stat reductions the Red suffers? This blue color could also be what any bounty hunter becomes when they activate abilities which detect/find Red players so you can have a 'fair fight' against them. It might even generate less corruption for red players to kill them as the blue started the fight.
Blues revert to green upon killing their red target and the status only exists for the purposes of fighting Reds and they are otherwise treated like greens. You only go blue when on the offense, if the Red attacks greens first they stay green.
Obviously complicating the flagging system should not be done lightly, but I think their could be a justification for differentiating greens who are simply ignoring Reds, and thouse who are activly trying to perform a PKK role.
On a related note we likely need some kind of mutual dualing system and it might be wise to make that also a color flag so that 3rd parties who stumble across a dual can recognize immediatly that it is a dual and not a real fight and that they should not intervine.
They do against reds, which is what matters.
Ashes is a PvP enabled game everywhere. That's something everyone will have to reconcile before they choose to install and play it. It isn't possible to allow players to opt out of PvP while maintaining the core aspect of Ashes.
If you think you're going to die regardless, you can stay green and let them eat the corruption, or you could flag up purple to halve how much of your droppable craft materials the killer gets.
There's a balance between the corruption system that nudges players into certain play patterns by intention. People shouldn't be perma-greens, because it's more detrimental to you than fighting back and makes the PvP focus of the world lesser because too many people are terrified of just yknow, playing the game and trying to fight back.
People shouldn't try to go red as a play style. It's an option if you believe the payout is worth the ding to your stats, but it's not something to reward beyond that initial boost to your gains from the PK itself.
Perma green isn't a play style, except for the petty, who are content to accept more penalties for themselves to apply a penalty to the ones that kill them.
for sure. thanks for the time of day.
As for the OP itself, others have pretty much said what I wanted to say. The system keeps the risk of going red real high, because going red should be your last resort - not a "oh, I should just murder this dude cause I feel like it".
Side tangent but feels a bit related to your early questions/statements is the bounty hunting system doesn't increase the corruption of a red player if they kill a bounty hunter who is tracking corruption. Could be used in other systems but the current way feels fine.
Well if you’re flagged red you’ve already accepted that risk that you could be attacked or plan to attack someone. There’s no reason to initiate greens as combatants as they can only attack or respond to reds.
The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player.
If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away.
There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not.
Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk.
You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players.
If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple.
Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens.
It doesn't matter when the player turned red. They should know not to approach settlements until they've worked off that corruption.
And players coming to avenge their PK'd group mate is a risk you know every time you start combat, that you chose to go red doesn't change that the base play pattern is 'people come back for revenge'.
Reds don't need to be safeguarded, you need to weigh the risk first, not complain about the consequences after you already accepted to go red.
The green who go for revenge are cowards who would not dare to attack him if they know they turn purple?
And yes, the red should not be able to enter cities. I said nothing about that.