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

Neurath wrote: »

If a green (Non-Combatant) attacks a Purple (Combatant) then the green becomes purple. Then both parties will be purple and no one will turn red from a death.

The only time you will turn red is if you are purple and you kill a green (Non-Combatant).

I think you will find most players will fight back and thus the system will work. I do not believe we require a toggle because if we required a toggle IS would've given us a toggle.

The toggle doesn't give any advantage and is more of an agreement mechanic for when two raids want to duke it out outside of a siege or any other kind of pvp event. Without it, you might be doing a weird dance to make sure you don't accidentally kill someone who hasn't had a chance to fight back. With it, the two raids can just flag up before the fight and go all out when they engage.

Songcaller

Well, the good news is Ashes isn't a WoW Clone and so far any attempts to turn Ashes into a WoW Clone has failed. WoW went the toggle route and thankfully I don't play WoW.

Its not like I wasn't shunned the last time I explained there would be no toggle. So much is subject to change though I don't feel like beating a horse to death. I have given the official line and the official line is the best line to follow.

You seemed unfamiliar with the systems in the way you relayed your desires. We have straightened the issue and it seems you are informed to the best outcomes. I can agree to disagree but reserve my rights to disagree as I'm happy with the Ashes direction. I don't want to hinder suggestions though so I bow out of this thread.

Edit: I'm not sure how contestation will work, McStackerson. If the PvE Areas are contested areas they may be removed from the corruption system. It remains to be seen if the prerequisites live through Alpha 1 and Alpha 2.

CROW3

Therealnightblade wrote: »

I’m already familiar with the current system. I think you misunderstood my post.

I must be.

Help me understand - you keep using the word ‘attack’ for players to turn red, which isn’t a thing. A player only flags red when they kill a green.

If I can choose to always flag purple, could you explain how a green attacking another green should go red, and still conforms to the flagging rules (as laid out in the wiki)?

Again, I think it’s fine to disagree with the idea, but it’s helpful to be clear why...

GrinningJack

Are you guys talking about AOC or some other game?

CROW3

BCG l LordofSalt wrote: »

Are you guys talking about AOC or some other game?

I’ll leave you to your deductions.

GrinningJack

CROW3 wrote: »

BCG l LordofSalt wrote: »

Are you guys talking about AOC or some other game?

I’ll leave you to your deductions.

Well going based on the thought that one would have read up on the pvp flagging system as well as the corruption system, I would come to the conclusion that you guys are not talking about ashes of creation and maybe about new world

Therealnightblade

CROW3 wrote: »

Therealnightblade wrote: »

I’m already familiar with the current system. I think you misunderstood my post.

I must be.

Help me understand - you keep using the word ‘attack’ for players to turn red, which isn’t a thing. A player only flags red when they kill a green.

If I can choose to always flag purple, could you explain how a green attacking another green should go red, and still conforms to the flagging rules (as laid out in the wiki)?

Again, I think it’s fine to disagree with the idea, but it’s helpful to be clear why...

If you’re unable to understand that any green can toggle to purple at will anytime than I don’t know what to tell you.

Therealnightblade

Neurath wrote: »

Well, the good news is Ashes isn't a WoW Clone and so far any attempts to turn Ashes into a WoW Clone has failed. WoW went the toggle route and thankfully I don't play WoW.

Its not like I wasn't shunned the last time I explained there would be no toggle. So much is subject to change though I don't feel like beating a horse to death. I have given the official line and the official line is the best line to follow.

You seemed unfamiliar with the systems in the way you relayed your desires. We have straightened the issue and it seems you are informed to the best outcomes. I can agree to disagree but reserve my rights to disagree as I'm happy with the Ashes direction. I don't want to hinder suggestions though so I bow out of this thread.

Edit: I'm not sure how contestation will work, McStackerson. If the PvE Areas are contested areas they may be removed from the corruption system. It remains to be seen if the prerequisites live through Alpha 1 and Alpha 2.

Yes, I’m informed on the best outcome and in my opinion it is what I suggested above.

CROW3

BCG l LordofSalt wrote: »

Well going based on the thought that one would have read up on the pvp flagging system as well as the corruption system, I would come to the conclusion that you guys are not talking about ashes of creation and maybe about new world.

Well, based on the premise that this thread is at it's core a proposal, and has not only referred to, but stays within the constraints of both the player flagging system and corruption system, one would expect it's not going to be a complete regurgitation of the exact system, but represent a small change - hence a proposal - not a recital.

Therealnightblade wrote: »

If you’re unable to understand that any green can toggle to purple at will anytime than I don’t know what to tell you.

Lol. Clearly.

Bricktop

BCG l LordofSalt wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

BCG l LordofSalt wrote: »

Are you guys talking about AOC or some other game?

I’ll leave you to your deductions.

Well going based on the thought that one would have read up on the pvp flagging system as well as the corruption system, I would come to the conclusion that you guys are not talking about ashes of creation and maybe about new world

They aren't talking about changing to an opt in system entirely. They are suggesting a way to make yourself purple (flagged) 100% of the time to open people up to PvP you with no corruption penalties. Corruption and flagging is still in.

Personally I'm fine with the current system it worked out fine in L2, but L2 had extremely long guild wars that let you bypass "Corruption" with whoever you were at war with. As long as the devs provide enough incentive to encourage people to flag back there won't be a problem and open world PvP will be plentiful. Will dropped materials be enough incentive? Yet to be determined.

Therealnightblade

CROW3 wrote: »

BCG l LordofSalt wrote: »

Well going based on the thought that one would have read up on the pvp flagging system as well as the corruption system, I would come to the conclusion that you guys are not talking about ashes of creation and maybe about new world.

Well, based on the premise that this thread is at it's core a proposal, and has not only referred to, but stays within the constraints of both the player flagging system and corruption system, one would expect it's not going to be a complete regurgitation of the exact system, but represent a small change - hence a proposal - not a recital.

Therealnightblade wrote: »

If you’re unable to understand that any green can toggle to purple at will anytime than I don’t know what to tell you.

Lol. Clearly.

Clearly you didn’t understand my first post was a suggestion that differs from the current system in place. It makes sense that you didn’t understand though because you’re a dogmatic fanboy defending systems that haven’t even been fully tested and are subject to change. lol

CROW3

Therealnightblade wrote: »

Clearly you didn’t understand my first post was a suggestion that differs from the current system in place. It makes sense that you didn’t understand though because you’re a dogmatic fanboy defending systems that haven’t even been fully tested and are subject to change. lol.

Rofl. Nailed it. Make sure you frame it for me.

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

If a group coordinates to take out the healer of a competing group, and successfully 100-0’s them before they can react (which will be very difficult considering the intended TTK is 30+s) then they do deserve to get the full material drop and inflict 100% of the penalties on that player. Corruption is the kickback, but one kill’s worth of corruption will not severely hinder their combat effectiveness.

However that scenario will almost never happen in a group v group because group combat is typically around objectives people will defend and thus everyone will be a combatant anyway.

In general o just don’t see it as useful for group PvP and in solo PvP it provides a guarantee that they only take half a penalty even if they are successfully 100-0’d.

I do like the point you raise about getting more loot from a non-combatant however the developers have stated multiple times that they want to incentivize players to fight back so the only reason the "more loot" exists in the first place is essentially there to motivate the person who gets attacked to fight back instead of just running or dying in vain to cause corruption. The mechanic to get more loot is not in place as a benefit of the attacker it's a punishment for the defender.

Can you explain why it would not be useful in group pvp especially as a way to prevent unintended corruption? Why should the attacking side gain corruption for 1) being better than the side they attack IF they're able to 100-0 the target? 2) Why should people willing to accept the risk of being attacked not be allowed this without having to engage non-combatants?

Also you and maybe I've called it a half penalty by mistake but its just the "normal" penalty. Dying as non-combatant is double penalty.

For your reference I believe more people would be willing to flag themselves as combatants I mean hell you're going to have to do it just to run a caravan through the open world to protect resources. Why would you be unwilling to also toggle this just while your farming gathering the same resources you would willingly toggle combat on to move later? The more players flagged for combat the more healthy pvp the game has. The more non-combatants dying and causing corruption the more unhealthy pvp the game has plain and simple. It benefits anyone willing to accep the risk which is the point of being rewarded for encumbering the risk associated with it.

A PvE (green) death is the standard penalty. PvP death (as purple) is half the standard penalty. Corrupted death is four times the standard penalty.

Regardless of how you frame it, dying as a combatant is half the penalty of dying as a green. Just as .5 < 1 and 1.0 < 2.

In the event groups are fighting over an objective, the majority will be combatants, making the toggle unneeded. You balance corruption against your desire to have an advantage at the start of a fight.

Your reasons for wanting it are the same reasons I don’t. Being able to halve your penalties at will (and by extension halve the rewards a successful attacker could reap) is not something I think benefits the game’s risk-reward design philosophy.

Dolyem

@Caeryl I mean...the increased penalties for dying as a non combatant is to encourage people to fight back in the first place. The corruption mechanic is more for a situation where if you continue to get killed by a player, you can opt to not fight back to penalize them. Its just an anti griefing mechanic, not a mechanic to give players the option to opt out of pvp.

mcstackerson

I guess I don't see that as the intent of the system.

There is still the risk and reward of the current system. The only thing that changes is you don't have to attack someone to flag. That's all that changes.

It will be rare but I could see some times where someone wants to attack but for one reason or another, can't in time. I don't think the system is intentionally trying to punish someone who wants to engage in combat but couldn't.

CROW3

Caeryl wrote: »

Being able to halve your penalties at will (and by extension halve the rewards a successful attacker could reap) is not something I think benefits the game’s risk-reward design philosophy.

Let me flip this around a bit.

From what we know so far, it's going to be a rare occasion when one player can 1-shot another player. So let’s say we’re both green and you attack me. The power to limit your reward is mine. I just have to hit you.
Likewise, the power to give you corruption is also mine. I just have to do nothing. Either way, I have the upper hand – without even having considered whether I can beat you.

Enabling this flag (for those that want it) just makes that dynamic more honest - to the attacker's benefit.

Thoughts?

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Now think about it like this - do you think that the members in Group A who may have suffered additional XP loss and material loss would have preferred to be flagged before combat to avoid the additional death costs?

This statement makes the suggestion even worse.

Part of this game is making a decision when attacked as to whether you want to fight back and potentially win, or at least suffer lower penalties if you lose, or not fight back and force your attacker to suffer corruption.

This is a core aspect of this games open world PvP, and any suggestions that bypass that decision being made at that time really shouldn't be entertained.

If you are being attacked and killed before you can retaliate, you should perhaps just get better at open world MMO's, not ask for the game to be altered to fit.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Why would you be unwilling to also toggle this just while your farming gathering the same resources you would willingly toggle combat on to move later? The more players flagged for combat the more healthy pvp the game has. The more non-combatants dying and causing corruption the more unhealthy pvp the game has plain and simple.

This is blatantly untrue, all of it.

Players out harvesting will rely on not being flagged and players knowing that attacking them will result in corruption is their primary means of protection. Since resources players can hold in their inventory is actually quite small forcing returns to storage areas to be frequent, it is rare that players will find a need to attack someone out harvesting. The resources players stand to gain are minimal, and it is not going to be that long before the player in question needs to run off to dump resources. The corruption gain is not worth attacking the player, even if you want to harvest those same resources.

A game with a lot of players out attacking each other for no reason is not a healthy PvP game. Healthy PvP is not the same thing as a lot of PvP. EvE is a game with healthy PvP, because you basically know when PvP is going to happen (months in advance, usually).

Ashes absolutely needs a reasonably large number of players to gain corruption - there is an entire progression path built on this being true. You are looking at the game in a one dimensional aspect again, where more PvP is always just good - but are totally forgetting that Ashes is not a PvP game.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Being able to halve your penalties at will (and by extension halve the rewards a successful attacker could reap) is not something I think benefits the game’s risk-reward design philosophy.

Let me flip this around a bit.

From what we know so far, it's going to be a rare occasion when one player can 1-shot another player. So let’s say we’re both green and you attack me. The power to limit your reward is mine. I just have to hit you.
Likewise, the power to give you corruption is also mine. I just have to do nothing. Either way, I have the upper hand – without even having considered whether I can beat you.

Enabling this flag (for those that want it) just makes that dynamic more honest - to the attacker's benefit.

Thoughts?

You can never force corruption on another player.

One shot kills of equal level characters shouldn't ever be a thing in Ashes, based on comments made in relation to TTK and character power ratios. The best geared player should still take 10+ seconds to kill the worst geared player of the same level.

So, if I attack you, you have absolute power over whether or not you suffer the full penalty, or only half of the penalty based on whether you fight back. However, you can not force corruption on me. If you do not fight back, I will have the option to disengage. I only gain corruption if I kill you. That power is always in my hands.

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

Players out harvesting will rely on not being flagged and players knowing that attacking them will result in corruption is their primary means of protection.

But, he WANTS to be attacked, cos he really enjoys both the thrill of the fight and the danger that comes with being open to attack. He doesn't want a primary means of protection.

Child Item