Combatant Opt-In

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).

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

The developers have specificially said they want PvP in Ashes to be meaningful, as in, who wins or loses actually matters.

Take it up with them if you don't like it, but that is what this game is. That is why this is a PvX game rather than a PvP game.

Random open world PvP gives rewards by allowing the winners to take resources from the losers. It is a game mechanic, and it is meaningful due to the rewards one can receive.

bloodprophet

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Indeed.

The only people this would be for are people wanting meaningless PvP - and that is not what Ashes is about.

There will be no shortage of meaningful PvP out there for those that want it, stick to that imo.

Is fun not the whole point of playing the game?
There are a lot of us running around in the open world that want the added challenge of possibly being attacked at any point. Doesn't mean it will or will not happen. But open world pvp just for lol's with out a preset goal other then the fun of a random brawl doesn't make it meaningless.

The game provides players with the ability to attack any one at any point.

Open world PvP without any preset goal is literally the definition of meaningless PvP in Ashes.

That is not what this game is about. As I said earlier in this thread, asking for that in Ashes is no different to asking for a full instanced raid progression. Both are things people enjoy in MMO's, neither of them fit in with Ashes.

...fun is the goal...therefore it is meaningful

This is my point if it is fun then it has meaning. We all like different things. I like big group stuff weather raiding or PvP. and raiding while PvPing is even more fun. Just personal opinion but the added randomness you get from other players making a mess of things is exciting.

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

The developers have specificially said they want PvP in Ashes to be meaningful, as in, who wins or loses actually matters.

Fighting and beating other players in open world without getting corruption is fun. This is subjectively meaningful and actually matters to me.

If I’m flagged and killed by another player, I lose 50% fewer mats / xp / etc than if I’m a non-combatant. That’s statistically meaningful and actually matters.

I still don’t see the argument against having this flag present. If you don’t want it on, then turn the setting off.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Fighting and beating other players in open world without getting corruption is fun. This is subjectively meaningful and actually matters to me.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "meaningful".

Doing a thing for fun is not meaningful.

Doing a thing because of the desired outcome of the thing is meaningful - as in, there is actual meaning to doing the thing.

A fully instance based raid progression is fun. By your argument, you should be all for that being included in the game as well.

Thing is, neither of them particularly fit in with Ashes, and so neither of them should be included.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Fighting and beating other players in open world without getting corruption is fun. This is subjectively meaningful and actually matters to me.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "meaningful".

Doing a thing for fun is not meaningful.

Doing a thing because of the desired outcome of the thing is meaningful - as in, there is actual meaning to doing the thing.

A fully instance based raid progression is fun. By your argument, you should be all for that being included in the game as well.

Thing is, neither of them particularly fit in with Ashes, and so neither of them should be included.

You keep comparing it to mechanics that intrepid are against. I do recall hearing that @Steven Sharif wanted to promote "meaningful PvP" but what I do not recall is him ever stating that he didn't want to promote random PvP that you would call meaningless, And by your definition, random PvP would be meaningful if it was done to win resources from people you kill. Or even to gain notoriety on the server or competition with citizens of neighboring or rival nodes. So even if you don't categorize fun as meaningful (which it is), it is still meaningful due to the fact that one can be rewarded from it and even affect a nodes progression because of it.

bloodprophet

Noaani wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Fighting and beating other players in open world without getting corruption is fun. This is subjectively meaningful and actually matters to me.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "meaningful".

Doing a thing for fun is not meaningful.

Doing a thing because of the desired outcome of the thing is meaningful - as in, there is actual meaning to doing the thing.

A fully instance based raid progression is fun. By your argument, you should be all for that being included in the game as well.

Thing is, neither of them particularly fit in with Ashes, and so neither of them should be included.

That is all perception.
The ONLY reason I play the game is for fun. Not trying to change the world or something. The fun part is the meaningful part. Be it raiding or random PvP.

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "meaningful".

Doing a thing for fun is not meaningful.

Doing a thing because of the desired outcome of the thing is meaningful - as in, there is actual meaning to doing the thing.

A fully instance based raid progression is fun. By your argument, you should be all for that being included in the game as well.

Thing is, neither of them particularly fit in with Ashes, and so neither of them should be included.

Lol. Well, ignoring your straw man rebuttal. Let’s see if you recognize the irony of your response. 😉

Tyrantor

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "meaningful".

Doing a thing for fun is not meaningful.

Doing a thing because of the desired outcome of the thing is meaningful - as in, there is actual meaning to doing the thing.

A fully instance based raid progression is fun. By your argument, you should be all for that being included in the game as well.

Thing is, neither of them particularly fit in with Ashes, and so neither of them should be included.

Lol. Well, ignoring your straw man rebuttal. Let’s see if you recognize the irony of your response. 😉

You're asking for way too much.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "meaningful".

Doing a thing for fun is not meaningful.

Doing a thing because of the desired outcome of the thing is meaningful - as in, there is actual meaning to doing the thing.

A fully instance based raid progression is fun. By your argument, you should be all for that being included in the game as well.

Thing is, neither of them particularly fit in with Ashes, and so neither of them should be included.

Lol. Well, ignoring your straw man rebuttal. Let’s see if you recognize the irony of your response. 😉

There was no strawman in there.

Steven has said that he wants the bulk of PvP in Ashes to be meaningful, and has said that meaningful PvP should alter some world state. Whether that is who owns resources, who owns castles, who has access to content, what level a node is, who is mayor of the node, what ever. If there is no actual change to something in the game, then the PvP was meaningless, and they want to avoid meaningless PvP.

Again, this is NOT a PvP game.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

There was no strawman in there.

Steven has said that he wants the bulk of PvP in Ashes to be meaningful, and has said that meaningful PvP should alter some world state. Whether that is who owns resources, who owns castles, who has access to content, what level a node is, who is mayor of the node, what ever. If there is no actual change to something in the game, then the PvP was meaningless, and they want to avoid meaningless PvP.

Again, this is NOT a PvP game.

I feel like you are avoiding my responses because I have pointed out many reasons why random pvp is meaningful... are you just trolling? Also as I stated before, @Steven Sharif has never stated that he doesn't want random open world PvP to be promoted, the only PvP he wants to mitigate is griefing. But yea, feel free to try to make a worthy argument against what I have stated to argue against what you keep on repeating.

Blrrgh

"The game provides players with the ability to attack any one at any point.
Open world PvP without any preset goal is literally the definition of meaningless PvP in Ashes.
That is not what this game is about. As I said earlier in this thread, asking for that in Ashes is no different to asking for a full instanced raid progression. Both are things people enjoy in MMO's, neither of them fit in with Ashes." -Noani

I think it is clear that the meaningful PvP they are alluding to is gonna be happening all around the non instanced bosses, mobs, and juicy harvesting materials on your person. It will be meaningful to protect yo lootz when I am smashing you on the head with my hammer.

"The developers have specificially said they want PvP in Ashes to be meaningful, as in, who wins or loses actually matters.
Take it up with them if you don't like it, but that is what this game is. That is why this is a PvX game rather than a PvP game."- Noani

And once again you have no idea what PvX means. The reality is you will not be able to faceroll around without risk, without forming social ties, and without a plan. If you want to teleport around the world harvesting instanced lootz with brief windows of actual vulnerability then, as others have stated previously, this game might not be for you.

Bricktop

Two groups fighting each other with the victors looting the materials off the dead group is meaningful PvP no matter how much you try and claim otherwise. Additionally, anybody who has basic critical thinking skills will easily see through this argument of equating people PvPing in an open world game to instancing 50% or more of the game and completely changing how the game plays. I mean seriously come on.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

I feel like you are avoiding my responses because I have pointed out many reasons why random pvp is meaningful.

No you haven't.

You have simply confused the word meaningful with the word enjoyable.

And fyi, the reason I introduced the word meaningful in terms of PvP in to this topic is because that is what Intrepid have said.

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

Two groups fighting each other with the victors looting the materials off the dead group is meaningful PvP no matter how much you try and claim otherwise. Additionally, anybody who has basic critical thinking skills will easily see through this argument of equating people PvPing in an open world game to instancing 50% or more of the game and completely changing how the game plays. I mean seriously come on.

Part of the reason this PvP is meaningful in Ashes is because the person or group of people that initiate combat here run the risk of acquiring corruption. That is a large part of the meaning in regards to this PvP.

This suggestion is attempting to bypass that, at least in part.

The suggestion is being made on the basis of PvP for the sake of PvP, not for the sake of materials, any attempt to argue otherwise is simply obfuscating the original purpose of the request.

Marcet

I think Intrepid wants you to duel or do arenas when you want "for fun" PvP. They want the world to feel more realistic in the sense of killing is serious and has repercusions, not push the narrative of let's all slaughter each other for fun, wich they have already moments for it. I don't have a strong opinion on this but I think this is how Steven feels about it. They want you to comit "crimes" when it matters.

Tyrantor

@Noaani an entire thread dedicated to nothing but PvP flagging and some how you've tried to hijack this into an instanced PvE discussion.

You're actually arguing with people about the definition of the words fun and meaningful - neither of these are relevant to the topic.

Essentially you're just being disruptive to any thread you do not agree with and you can't stay or contribute to the topic in a constructive way.

I'm going to make this very simple for you.

Opting into combatant mode while as others have described could be used for fun, however as I elaborated on when I was asked to it will be done out of choice to avoid non-combatant death penalties. You likely do not understand why anyone would willingly flag themselves for combatant because you would never do it. Corruption in this game is not here to prevent PvP from taking place it is only in the game to prevent people from killing non-combatants who do not wish to engage in PvP. Let that sink in for a minute before you reply.

I would suggest you stick to topics that you've got experience in if you need to argue with everyone within a thread so you're discussion can be constructive and have further merit besides derailing topics to no end.

Nagash

I see another PvP thread has shown up, someone ring the bells

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

@Noaani an entire thread dedicated to nothing but PvP flagging and some how you've tried to hijack this into an instanced PvE discussion.

Not at all.

I am not a fan of the idea of a fully instanced raid progression in Ashes, and have never asked for that. I have asked for a few raid instances (as long as the rewards are still subject to PvP), but not a full progression.

The idea of any fully instanced progression in Ashes fits about as well as this idea fits.

Tyrantor wrote: »

Corruption in this game is not here to prevent PvP from taking place it is only in the game to prevent people from killing non-combatants who do not wish to engage in PvP.

Corruption is in the game for multiple reasons, many of which have been argued and debated on these forums for actual years.

You weren't a part of those discussions, and so your opinion of the point of corruption is very one dimensional - much as your opinion of PvP in Ashes is.

Corruption absolutely is in the game to prevent some PvP from happening, and when you said it wasn't, you then followed that up directly by saying that it was. Preventing people killing others that do not wish to engage in PvP absolutely is preventing PvP. Corruption gives players that don't want to PvP another option. This means they don't have to always PvP when attacked, which if that is not the definition of preventing some PvP, I don't know what is.

However, that isn't why this idea doesn't fit Ashes.

Ashes is not a game where PvP should be what people are attempting to do. It is not a PvP game. PvP in Ashes should only happen when there is a specific reason for it to happen. The idea of being able to turn on a flag to make finding PvP easier is anathema to that core design goal of the game.

Make a system where players can flag up and go looking for PvP, and that is what players wi do. If these players do not find other groups flagged up for PvP, they will find PvP with people not flagged up.

The point is, this game is NOT a game where people should be actively hunting for PvP situations.

The fact that the forums have become more PvP oriented in the last 6 months or so is humorous to me. I spent the last year and a bit on these forums pointing out that the game as presented by Intrepid is not overly PvP focused, because the forums at the time were more PvE oriented. Now there are two or three posters that have the spare time, and think this is a PvP game, and so the feel of the forums is more PvP oriented, and I find myself arguing on the opposite side of the debate.

Thing is, that doesn't make you right. This isn't a PvP game, and that is echoing comments from Steven.

Sathrago

Marcet wrote: »

I think Intrepid wants you to duel or do arenas when you want "for fun" PvP. They want the world to feel more realistic in the sense of killing is serious and has repercusions, not push the narrative of let's all slaughter each other for fun, wich they have already moments for it. I don't have a strong opinion on this but I think this is how Steven feels about it. They want you to comit "crimes" when it matters.

This is probably the closest id get to explaining how I feel about this option too.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I feel like you are avoiding my responses because I have pointed out many reasons why random pvp is meaningful.

No you haven't.

You have simply confused the word meaningful with the word enjoyable.

And fyi, the reason I introduced the word meaningful in terms of PvP in to this topic is because that is what Intrepid have said.

Oh? So affecting node progression and rewards for killing players aren't meaningful? Seeing as both can directly affect your own nodes progression by stunting other nodes progression and fueling other players resources into your own node, I would say that holds plenty of meaning. It just so happens to be enjoyable. And just saying, "It isn't meaningful" without giving reasons and explanations as to why they aren't meaningful according to you just shows you don't have a valid argument against any of this. And as I have said before, @Steven Sharif has stated he wants to promote meaningful pvp, but I don't recall him ever denouncing random open world pvp. He only said he wants to mitigate griefing.

Child Item