bloodprophet wrote: » This is already in the game. Turning PvP flag on and off is already there. At 1:16:00 they summon people to the dungeon and talk about people being flagged for PvP. The start telling people to turn the flag off.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkwaYLOuw2s
bloodprophet wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » I've been really thinking about how the Corruption system is going to play out and it just seems like an annoyance from a group/guild pvp perspective. What I mean by this is, in the event there are mutual parties roaming for PvP it seems unfair or simply just out of place that the corruption system may play a part in this combat in a negative way. For example if two groups of 16 players are looking for combat and the first group stun locks a target or multiple and they die before they can "fight back" to initiate combatant mode this will cause corruption for 1 (or multiple) players in addition to added death penalties for the dead player(s) - all while it was the intention of all parties involved to engage in combat. I would like to propose the option to OPT IN to combatant mode at any time to welcome PvP and avoid non-combatant death penalties due to stun lock, low health or other circumstances when being killed by another player. I really can't see a downside to allowing players to opt-in at will for PvP content. I know for a fact I would likely prefer to be in combatant mode for almost all game play, though if for some reason I didn't want to be I could toggle it just like the heal mechanic to avoid the corruption thing. Can anyone see a reason not to allow players to opt in to be flagged combatant at will? I would suggest it has the same "cool down" when toggling it as stepping out of normal combat would, what ever that ends up being (2 minutes, 5 minutes 1 hour etc). This is already in the game. Turning PvP flag on and off is already there. At 1:16:00 they summon people to the dungeon and talk about people being flagged for PvP. The start telling people to turn the flag off.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkwaYLOuw2s
Tyrantor wrote: » I've been really thinking about how the Corruption system is going to play out and it just seems like an annoyance from a group/guild pvp perspective. What I mean by this is, in the event there are mutual parties roaming for PvP it seems unfair or simply just out of place that the corruption system may play a part in this combat in a negative way. For example if two groups of 16 players are looking for combat and the first group stun locks a target or multiple and they die before they can "fight back" to initiate combatant mode this will cause corruption for 1 (or multiple) players in addition to added death penalties for the dead player(s) - all while it was the intention of all parties involved to engage in combat. I would like to propose the option to OPT IN to combatant mode at any time to welcome PvP and avoid non-combatant death penalties due to stun lock, low health or other circumstances when being killed by another player. I really can't see a downside to allowing players to opt-in at will for PvP content. I know for a fact I would likely prefer to be in combatant mode for almost all game play, though if for some reason I didn't want to be I could toggle it just like the heal mechanic to avoid the corruption thing. Can anyone see a reason not to allow players to opt in to be flagged combatant at will? I would suggest it has the same "cool down" when toggling it as stepping out of normal combat would, what ever that ends up being (2 minutes, 5 minutes 1 hour etc).
Bricktop wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani Would you care how to explain how this would change the game for you? What exactly do you think this changes in the flagging system other than people walk around purple instead of green? It isn't how this changes the game for me, it is how it changes the game. This change would make it so people think this is a game where roaming around in groups looking for PvP is encouraged by the game developers. This is not currently something they support, as they want PvP to always be meaningful. Roaming around in a mob actively looking for others to attack is not meaningful PvP. This change would alter the feel of the game more than instancing 50% of the games content would. It would mean the game needs to drop the notion of being PvX and label itself full PvP - as the difference between these two is that PvP in a PvX game is done for specific reasons, while PvP in a PvP game is just done for fun. If you want a game where you can roam around the open world PvP'ing for fun, Ashes is about as suited to you as it is to a player that wants fully instanced raid progression. It's absolutely hilarious you put roaming groups looking for PvP fights on the same level as instancing half the game. You understand that's completely delusional right?
Noaani wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani Would you care how to explain how this would change the game for you? What exactly do you think this changes in the flagging system other than people walk around purple instead of green? It isn't how this changes the game for me, it is how it changes the game. This change would make it so people think this is a game where roaming around in groups looking for PvP is encouraged by the game developers. This is not currently something they support, as they want PvP to always be meaningful. Roaming around in a mob actively looking for others to attack is not meaningful PvP. This change would alter the feel of the game more than instancing 50% of the games content would. It would mean the game needs to drop the notion of being PvX and label itself full PvP - as the difference between these two is that PvP in a PvX game is done for specific reasons, while PvP in a PvP game is just done for fun. If you want a game where you can roam around the open world PvP'ing for fun, Ashes is about as suited to you as it is to a player that wants fully instanced raid progression.
Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani Would you care how to explain how this would change the game for you? What exactly do you think this changes in the flagging system other than people walk around purple instead of green?
Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani Would you care how to explain how this would change the game for you? What exactly do you think this changes in the flagging system other than people walk around purple instead of green? It isn't how this changes the game for me, it is how it changes the game. This change would make it so people think this is a game where roaming around in groups looking for PvP is encouraged by the game developers. This is not currently something they support, as they want PvP to always be meaningful. Roaming around in a mob actively looking for others to attack is not meaningful PvP. This change would alter the feel of the game more than instancing 50% of the games content would. It would mean the game needs to drop the notion of being PvX and label itself full PvP - as the difference between these two is that PvP in a PvX game is done for specific reasons, while PvP in a PvP game is just done for fun. If you want a game where you can roam around the open world PvP'ing for fun, Ashes is about as suited to you as it is to a player that wants fully instanced raid progression. It's absolutely hilarious you put roaming groups looking for PvP fights on the same level as instancing half the game. You understand that's completely delusional right? No it isn't.
Irohnic wrote: » While I believe an optional flagging feature makes sense, I don't think pre-alpha footage is definitive proof of such. It could very well just be an option they have given testers in the mean time because they haven't fully developed the auto-flagging system yet. If anyone knows of verbal confirmation of voluntary flagging from Steven or any other devs, a link/timestamp would be appreciated. To contribute to the discussion, large scale pvp leads to alot of zergs and insta-kills, that's just part of the tactics. If such pvp is consensual it should not contribute to corruption but without an optional flagging system there is a very good chance it will (people will die before they are able to get even one weapon swing in). Not having optional flagging could lead to some pretty immersion-breaking moments where you have members of your own raid dropping group and attacking eachother so they can get flagged before the big fight with the enemies. It makes no sense not to give such a basic feature when you can easily just take a quick swing at a friendly to produce the same effect as voluntarily flagging.
bloodprophet wrote: » From the flagging page in the wikihttps://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging A player may not flag on members of the same party, raid, guild or alliance.[10]
Bricktop wrote: » Yeah it is pal. Instancing half the game and putting gear in those instances completely changes the entire vision of the game. Flagged groups of people roaming around looking for fights while they are looking for world bosses or caravans or whatever else changes absolutely nothing about how the game will be played out. I'm genuinely surprised you could make that leap.
Tyrantor wrote: » So far the argument against this seems to be "development resources" in a game that is in pre-alpha stage for a toggle that already exists in game by design when someone attacks someone else? Guys if you can't explain how this is going to negatively impact the game from a game play perspective no need to reply further thanks. @George Black @Sathrago
daveywavey wrote: » When I played ESO, any time I left the city of Mournhold, I was constantly harassed by people clicking on me to challenge me to a PvP duel. I'd have to keep clicking 'No', cos they had no way of telling whether or not I liked a casual PvP fight. I absolutely won't use this toggle if it's put in-game, as I prefer the large-scale group PvP over solo PvP, but if the toggle tells other PvPers that I'm not interested, then I'm all for it!
Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » When I played ESO, any time I left the city of Mournhold, I was constantly harassed by people clicking on me to challenge me to a PvP duel. I'd have to keep clicking 'No', cos they had no way of telling whether or not I liked a casual PvP fight. I absolutely won't use this toggle if it's put in-game, as I prefer the large-scale group PvP over solo PvP, but if the toggle tells other PvPers that I'm not interested, then I'm all for it! The problem here is - those people can just attack you in this game. They don't need your permission.
daveywavey wrote: » Absolutely, but they know they're going Corrupted if they do. If all they're looking for is a fun fight, then they're going to ignore me. Obviously, there will be players who don't care about being corrupted and will will focus on me more because I'm a non-combatant, but that'll just help to feed to Bounty Hunter system.
Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Absolutely, but they know they're going Corrupted if they do. If all they're looking for is a fun fight, then they're going to ignore me. Obviously, there will be players who don't care about being corrupted and will will focus on me more because I'm a non-combatant, but that'll just help to feed to Bounty Hunter system. People wanting a fun fight have the guild war system - that is likely to be what it is used for 75% of the time. The other 25% will be fighting over content.
Sathrago wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » I’m not following the argument against the combatant flag. I see this flag as having two states: A. flag is on, and I’m always a combatant B. flag is off, normal rules apply What’s the downside? Why would anyone ever turn it off? AoC wiki: A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant. Lets be clear with this as well: Death penalties do not differ between PvP and PvE, but this is subject to change.[48] If everyone plays with combatant on you wont see any corrupted players and this wont deter ganking in the slightest, the whole reason for corrupted being in the game.
CROW3 wrote: » I’m not following the argument against the combatant flag. I see this flag as having two states: A. flag is on, and I’m always a combatant B. flag is off, normal rules apply What’s the downside?
daveywavey wrote: » As someone who isn't going to use it, I don't really care either way if it's implemented, but I can see that it would cater to that part of the community who want that 1v1 experience without having to harass other players.
Mojottv wrote: » you have 2 groups of people or just two people, doesnt matter, group 1 - someone who is farming mobs, group 2- someone who wants to initiate pvp.
