Thoughts on Greens Attacking Reds.

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’.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Otr

Sathrago wrote: »

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’.

I think is not stupid.
But might allow strategies where the larger group sends a small team to tempt the opponents to become red.

Caeryl

Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption

Sathrago

Caeryl wrote: »

Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption

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.

Ungohil

Sathrago wrote: »

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,

Which is the consequence of your actions, your risk. So, it's completely fine for me, that you, as the attacker of a green/non-combatant, are facing the consequences - it's a smart "cause and effect" topic.
(You've asked for opinions, that's my opinion on that)

Sathrago

Chaliux wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

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,

Which is the consequence of your actions, your risk. So, it's completely fine for me, that you, as the attacker of a green/non-combatant, are facing the consequences - it's a smart "cause and effect" topic.
(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.

Otr

How often will players become red really?

Sathrago

Otr wrote: »

How often will players become red really?

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.

Ungohil

Sathrago wrote: »

I think this is too much of a cascading punishment.

I got your point, but I disagree, I like that you (not you, but the player that attacked before) gets high punishment for it. But that's because I like pvp under same conditions, so if both parties are willing and ready to pvp. If only one side is willing and ready to pvp (here the player attacking the green one), I'm convinced in my view and opinion that this attacking player should get the consequence out of it, during the attack (more precise: kill) and if possible afterwards. That's against your view on "competetion" of the game (like this particular farming spot), I know that, but I'm different when it comes to owpvp behavior. Objective-based pvp, event triggered pvp (also owpvp) is something I appreciate and love, because all are willing and ready to pvp against each other at this point of time in this area - thats generally purples vs purples. This is not really true if some green guy is fishing (my common example) and another player is starting to harass / attack him, so disturbing him - if killing him -> red.

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.

Pendragxn

I have an idea why don’t we just make the whole map a lawless zone? Hear me out this would solve all problems and we can all have one massive battle royale and I also think we should make it full loot

Azherae

Afaik my group unanimously believes that the current solution is fine, and that the problem lies with 'how one goes red', not 'can greens attack you and cause this to cascade'.

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'.

CROW3

Hm...I get the nuance, but I'm a big fan of reds reaping what they've sown. Reds being ganked by greens may help the player think twice about killing a green in the first place. If greens flag purple when attacking reds, I can see groups drawing greens into ganking ambushes without incurring any punishment.

George_Black

It beats the purpose of the system.
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.

George_Black

Pendragxn wrote: »

I have an idea why don’t we just make the whole map a lawless zone? Hear me out this would solve all problems and we can all have one massive battle royale and I also think we should make it full loot

Go play Cyrodiil.

Lodrig

Sathrago wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption

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.

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.

Pendragxn

George_Black wrote: »

Go play Cyrodiil.

Dygz

I think we had this topic a few months ago...?

Sathrago

alright fair enough. The baiting of greens to turn purple would be a bad meta to have take place.

CROW3

It was a worthwhile question, @Sathrago. We've been discussing these aspects for so long now, always good to check our collective assumptions.

Elo

I do wish that greens would stay green even if defending oneself.

Caeryl

Elo wrote: »

I do wish that greens would stay green even if defending oneself.

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.

Child Item