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

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Pvp and pve isn't mutually exclusive. Ashes is a pvp game as well as a pve game. Can you post the comments you are referring to?

People will look for pvp with or without this system. I see something like this being an easier way for two groups to duke it out similar to a duel if another system can't fill this role. We have both node and guild wars which will allow something similar.

Should duels also not be allowed?

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Wow look at this elitism. You should take a second to look around the forum(s) for being as one dimensional as my opinion is, there sure are a lot of people who agree with me (in multiple threads that you pop up in) with very little to no one in agreement with you. For as uninformed as you seem to be I'm not sure what you've done with your time over these "years of discussions" other than completely lose touch with reality.

Instead of just writing non stop bs and pounding your chest. Why don't you post something that proves your point. Link a video, text, wiki or other form of proof that backs up anything you're saying @Noaani otherwise just move on. - to be clear you are literally taking a stance against an option that currently exists in the game (pre alpha or not it's there and you can't prove it wont be at launch).

Woke us or get out.

CROW3

Tyrantor wrote: »

Woke us or get out.

Not sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

Tyrantor

CROW3 wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Woke us or get out.

Not sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

I'll eat my words if he can prove anything he says (ever).

Kneczhevo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A3ynyWoZIMA&list=PLn-q3RuL2MvhZOEqhNncA9sjXDWGv-bIt&index=14

Nagash

I can't remember if this is PvP complaint thread 23 or 24

Dolyem

Nagash wrote: »

I can't remember if this is PvP complaint thread 23 or 24

you may want to toss a 0 on the end of those numbers

bloodprophet

Ya probably closer to 50ish.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

People will look for pvp with or without this system.

This is 100% true, and is a good thing for the game.

However, player actions and player perception of the game are 100% dictated by the systems the game offers players. A game that offers a system for players to more easily gather together to do literally nothing other than PvP with other players will see more people doing exactly that.

While this may seem like a good thing, it also seemed like a good thing to many players when WoW introduced the LFG system - I mean, more people running content is a good thing, right?

My point here is about 90% based on player perception of the game, and how changes to systems in the game change player perception of the game. While this suggestion is in itself a small thing, it is a system designed specifically and solely to facilitate meaningless PvP (as described by Intrepid).

This shifts player perception of the game from being a PvX game to being more of a PvP game - I mean, why does a PvX game need a system that serves no purpose for anything other than meaningless PvP?

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Woke us or get out.

Not sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

I'll eat my words if he can prove anything he says (ever).

Well, this depends on what it is you want me to prove.

If you want me to prove that Intrepid have said they want PvP in this game to be meaningful, then this quote from 2017 should do.

We want there to be a meaning to this conflict. We want players to actually have some skin in the game when it comes to participating in PvP.

That quote is pulled directly from the Kickstarter video for this game, where Intrepid outline the four pillars of this game.

This is the only thing I am presenting as a fact in this thread, everything on top of that is my opinion. As the only fact I am presenting, it is the only thing that a request to back up can be made for. Since that request has been fulfilled, I expect you will now eat your words, as you said above.

It is a fact that Intrepid want people to always have some skin in the game when it comes to PvP in Ashes - they want PvP to be meaningful. As far as facts go, this is essentially undisputable - but feel free to find someone at Intrepid saying they want PvP in Ashes to be meaningless (you want me to back myself up, I did, now it's your turn, @Tyrantor ).

On top of this one fact above, I am saying that it is my opinion that any game system that enables people to go around the game world looking specifically for PvP is by definition not meaningful PvP, as there is no real skin in that fight.

The idea that resources will change hands in this situation is unlikely, as if you are going out specifically looking for PvP, you will not take resources with you (why would you?). Since your claim here is that you want to go out looking for similarly flagged players, and those players will not have resources on them (why would they), then there are no resources at stake here. The only way there should be resources at stake with a group like this is if you also attack others that are not flagged up for PvP.

The notion of node experience is also absurd, as if you are going out to gain experience for your node, you would not be going out looking for a singular activity - you would be looking to go out to do what ever you could find to do. Additionally, if you are gaining experience for your node via this PvP, then you are attacking other players within the ZoI of your node. This would understandibly see these players leave your nodes ZoI. The problem there is that these players were previously generating experience for your node, as they were in your nodes ZoI. What node they are a citizen of mas no influence on where the experience from their activities goes - that experience is 100% sent to the node in control of the area in which the activity took place. In other words, this activity is more likely to reduce the experience your node gains than it is to increase it.

---

One thing I will say is that I am always willing to collaborate to find a workable solution to a percieved situation.

Since the intention with this is that it is people flagging up going around looking for other people flagged up so they can all PvP, the obvious workable solution to make this an acceptable system in Ashes, where PvP is meaningful, is to make it so that you gain tripple corruption if you are flagged via this method. This means that flagging up in this manner is somewhat risky in situations where there is a chance you may "accidently" attack someone that is not flagged, and that risk could be considered a form of added meaning to flagging up in this way. While not altering the core of this to a form of meaningful PvP (when done as per the request), this would introduce a form of meaning to this type of flaging, which to me makes it acceptable to add to the game without altering the core concepts the game is built upon.

Since the intended use case of this system should not result in any corruption, this shouldn't be an issue.

Tyrantor

What happened to all those years of discussions? lol

You're saying that the only "fact" you've got after all these years is that the developers want you to have "skin in the game" which you're either taking out of context or didn't listen to the full sentence when it was spoken. In this exact reference they were talking about people who are residents of nodes, own homes etc. So their "skin" in the game would be to participate in the pvp to defend what is theirs.

The Kickstarter video says they want "meaningful conflict" not 'meaningful pvp' which is what you've been touting and forcing your "opinion" down peoples throats - so would you like to back track on that argument with everyone here and let them know you were wrong?

If you thought I need to eat my words after you failed to provide anything relevant you're going to be disappointed.

Glad you could prove to all of us that you're just a bunch of hot air much appreciated.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

People will look for pvp with or without this system.

This is 100% true, and is a good thing for the game.

However, player actions and player perception of the game are 100% dictated by the systems the game offers players. A game that offers a system for players to more easily gather together to do literally nothing other than PvP with other players will see more people doing exactly that.

While this may seem like a good thing, it also seemed like a good thing to many players when WoW introduced the LFG system - I mean, more people running content is a good thing, right?

My point here is about 90% based on player perception of the game, and how changes to systems in the game change player perception of the game. While this suggestion is in itself a small thing, it is a system designed specifically and solely to facilitate meaningless PvP (as described by Intrepid).

This shifts player perception of the game from being a PvX game to being more of a PvP game - I mean, why does a PvX game need a system that serves no purpose for anything other than meaningless PvP?

I feel like what is being recommended hear and LFG is an apple and oranges comparison.

This is a minor QoL change for open pvp. It allows players who want to participate in pvp to opt in without having to attack someone.

Should they also remove duels? That's "meaningless" pvp isn't it?

As I said, I don't see how this change is a large departure from the existing system. Just because you are able to manually flag yourself without attacking someone doesn't mean you are able to pvp without punishment. You still gain corruption if you kill someone who isn't flagged.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

I feel like what is being recommended hear and LFG is an apple and oranges comparison.

It absolutely is.

The only reason it is valid here is as a means to point out how QoL changes to a game (because LFG really was a QoL change) can drastically affect player behavior. It works as a comparison in that sense, but only in that sense - it is, as far as I know, the most obvious case of a QoL change in a game that altered player behavior.

As for duels, as long as they don't result in a death penalty (including resource shifting, experience debt, and having to respawn), then it's fine. Such activities can barely even be considered PvP imo. I once had someone try to tell me that playing the games market was a form of PvP, as you are actively going against other players - I think that player has about as much of a valid point that this is PvP as someone that duels does in claiming tht duels are PvP.

Bricktop

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I feel like what is being recommended hear and LFG is an apple and oranges comparison.

As for duels, as long as they don't result in a death penalty (including resource shifting, experience debt, and having to respawn), then it's fine. Such activities can barely even be considered PvP imo. I once had someone try to tell me that playing the games market was a form of PvP, as you are actively going against other players - I think that player has about as much of a valid point that this is PvP as someone that duels does in claiming tht duels are PvP.

While I can appreciate your distaste for somebody who believes the market is PvP, dueling is most certainly PvP. You are actively 1v1ing against another thinking breathing person with your character in an MMO. I can share your need for a more risky form of PvP, so duels have never been my thing personally.

However, fighting in the open world whether you are flagged 100% of the time or not will be equally risky regardless, because you can lose gatherables one way or the other. 100% flagged state is more risky for the person who initiates it because it opens them up to try and be ganked by someone who is feeling ballsy that day (which would lose them any materials) by giving them first strike capability for free. Absolutely nothing would change in the core form of gameplay unlike instancing 50% of the game which completely changes everything. People will still PvP the absolute most over world bosses, caravans, and castles guaranteed. And I assure you people will be roaming looking for fights no matter what.

Obviously I hold the opinion that PvP should be encouraged and not hindered at all. PvP is the lifeblood of open world player driven games. I absolutely fail to see how an opt in toggle for 100% flagged all the time would break the game in anyway. I do not want to see the game or the vision changed or taken away from, so I really am approaching this with an open mind.

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

- I think that player has about as much of a valid point that this is PvP as someone that duels does in claiming tht duels are PvP.

A duel is surely one Player vs another Player. How is that not the very definition of PvP? Player vs Player......

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Glad you could prove to all of us that you're just a bunch of hot air much appreciated.

It really is too easy to get you to argue against me, rather than arguing for your point.

The Kickstarter video says they want "meaningful conflict" not 'meaningful pvp'

The quote I posted is verbatium from that video, that they want people to have skin in the game when it comes to participating in PvP. Not when it comes to conflict. Not when it comes to sieges. Not when it comes to guild wars. When participating in PvP.

Argue that point with Steven if you disagree, not with me. They are literally his words.

If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would have realized that there are many times developers have talked about meaningful PvP in regards to Ashes. You've read enough of my posts to know I don't usually offer up quotes this readily, prefering instead to let debate stand by itself (or, to let people make fools of themselves over a week or so, before offering up said quote). The fact that I offered up a quote from what is essentially the foundational document of this game the first time it was asked should maybe give you reason to pause for a second, and do some searching as to how often Intrepid talk about meaningful PvP in Ashes.

As I specifically said in my above post, my take on the system being requested is that it creates meaningless PvP - but that is an opinion. That is where you should be focusing any further debate - assuming you want to argue the point, not the person.

Though I have to admit, I don't think you really care about the point, I think you are more interested in arguing with me.

Tyrantor

Here is the video incase you want to refresh your memory or anyone who hasn't seen it wants to watch this meaningful conflict and skin in the game I've time stamped it as the specific topic comes up:

youtu.be/Vut1tIsfoww?t=322

@Noaani while the quote you posted might be verbatim if you're going to cut the sentence off before it finishes then you're taking it out of context to fit a narrative you want to create.

Dolyem

@Noaani again...for like the 7th time. Steven wants to promote meaningful conflicts... but he has not even once said he doesn't want to promote random open world pvp encounters.

"Because players are motivated by different things, because they want something from the game that other players don't want, that's going to cause people to butt heads" "different players are going to want different experiences and the conflict between the two of them will create a bigger and better thing, out of strife comes rebirth. And that's a core symbol, its a core theme that occurs throughout the game."

at 5:30

https://youtu.be/Vut1tIsfoww?t=330

Hate to break it to you, but part of the core of the creation of conflicts will directly be affected by "meaningless" pvp as you like to call it.

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

While I can appreciate your distaste for somebody who believes the market is PvP, dueling is most certainly PvP. You are actively 1v1ing against another thinking breathing person with your character in an MMO.

I mean, it is, obviously - but duels are teh PvP equivlent of solo PvE content.

It's there to keep a few people happy, and in most games it generally just doesn't matter. When talking about content in general terms for both (PvE content in general, and PvP content), each of these things really isn't an important consideration.

One major difference between the two though is that duels are completely removed from the risk vs reward structure (both ends of it - no risk and no reward). When talking about PvE content you will almost never hear me talking about solo content, as it just doesn't matter. The same is true with PvP content and duels - they just don't matter and aren't really worth talking about.

I actually kind of agree with most of the rest of your post here, honestly.

In solo situations, I don't see this as being an issue at all. If the suggestion were only to apply to people running around solo, I'd actually be fine with it.

It's when you have large groups of people all flagging up and running around that it changes. A game (or even a server) with large groups of players running around flagged for PvP has a completely different feel to it than a game (or server) without such groups.

As I said in an above post, my main concern with something like this absolutely is the way it will change the player perception of the game - and perception between the two gamse (or servers) above absolutely will be different.

While I do agree with you that PvP is the lifeblood of an open world MMO like this (which may well shock you), I personally also consider the economy and it's components to be of equal imprtance. The main mover of a games economy in every MMO I have played are the solo harvesters and farmers. While large guilds may be the end repository for large amounts of coin and resources, it is usually players out by themselves that generate the bulk of that wealth.

I'm not going to attempt to argue that a change like the suggested one will chace them all away, that would be a foolish argument to make. It will, however, alter the way they play the game. I don't know what the end result of that will be, but I don't think it would be good in the long run.

All up, I don't think it is worth the risk of changing the feel of the game to a somewhat important segment of the playerbase all for what is essentially a minor and unimportant QoL change, especially when that change isn't necessarily directly in concert with the aims of the game.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

Hate to break it to you, but part of the core of the creation of conflicts will directly be affected by "meaningless" pvp as you like to call it.

So, you just went through a video that talk about all the meaningful PvP in Ashes, and came to the assumption that this means it is going to be full of meaningless PvP?

The video we are all talking about is specifically talking about nodes, castles, religions, guilds, social organizations and such, and how people wanting different ones of these to progress will butt heads with each other, causing strife.

This is literally the meaningful PvP that I am talking about. That is what Ashes is from a PvP perspective - fighting against people that want different, incompatible things from what you want.

Flagging up for PvP and fighting who ever you come across does not facilitate that at all.

but he has not even once said he doesn't want to promote random open world pvp encounters.

It could be argued that the stance of promoting meaningful PvP would require not promoting meaningless PvP, as every act of meaningless PvP means less potential for meaningful PvP.

Additionally, absence of comment on a topic should not be considered positive proof of an assertion. To argue this point, you really do need a comment that Intrepid plan to promote meaningless PvP in the open world - otherwise we could all argue anything Intrepid haven't specifically commented on, and that is clearly an absurd notion.

Edit; a better point for you to argue would be that sure, it doesn't make sense to put in the game from some perspectives, but it wouldn't be the only thing in the game that doesn't make sense.

I do seem to be helping you guys out a lot in this thread.

Child Item