daveywavey wrote: » 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.
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.
Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » 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. So attack a random player every 5 minutes, but don't kill them.
daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » 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. So attack a random player every 5 minutes, but don't kill them. But, if the Corruption system is designed to decrease the likelihood of players getting randomly attacked, then that goes against that whole concept.
Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » 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. So attack a random player every 5 minutes, but don't kill them. But, if the Corruption system is designed to decrease the likelihood of players getting randomly attacked, then that goes against that whole concept. That isn't what it is designed to do, that is just a thing that it will do. It is designed as a punishment to people that *kill* non- combatants, it has no design intention in relation to people simply attacking others, which is why it doesn't really do anything if you simply attack another player. I mean, if the idea of the corruption system was to prevent people from attacking other players, then surely the penalty associated with corruption would be applied when you attack other players, not when you kill non combatants - wouldn't you think?
daveywavey wrote: » Why would you ever want to attack another player without wanting to kill them? Is there a benefit to it that I'm not aware of?
Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Why would you ever want to attack another player without wanting to kill them? Is there a benefit to it that I'm not aware of? You gain the combatant flag.
daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Why would you ever want to attack another player without wanting to kill them? Is there a benefit to it that I'm not aware of? You gain the combatant flag. That's what this entire thread is about. Gaining the Combatant flag without having to piss off other players.
Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Why would you ever want to attack another player without wanting to kill them? Is there a benefit to it that I'm not aware of? You gain the combatant flag. That's what this entire thread is about. Gaining the Combatant flag without having to piss off other players. No. This thread is about a toggle that players can switch on at will. This is a bad idea, and not at all necessary.
Noaani wrote: » 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.
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.
Noaani wrote: » 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.
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?
Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 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. Yeah I agree the guy gathering berries probably isn't going to flag for combat but how about this. If you've got a group of 8 farming a dungeon (or other xp area) it's been my general experience to continue until I'm encumbered before "banking" - now lets say the entire group has full inventory/mules and you decide you want to go back to your node. This group of 8 will essentially be carrying the same amount of resources as a single personal caravan can hold no? So what is the difference here if the same 8 players would have to flag for combat to transport the same amount of goods with a caravan versus flagging themselves to ride back to town? You understand the irony here is that the Caravan gives everyone who wants to attack it the option to also toggle into combatant mode by accepting attack on the prompt right? So by definition it's the exact same thing. You've got 8 players who opted into combatant mode by initiating the caravan and X # of players also opting into combat just by accepting to attack the caravan. To further illustrate the point these will likely be groups of players "roaming" the open world for PvP go figure. Noaani wrote: » 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. You very clearly do not understand the conversation - if a player flags themselves as combatant it opens them up for being attacked with no penalty for the attacker to do so. Which is exactly the same thing as fighting back but the attacker has additional risk in that scenario. If I'm the player making the decision to flag myself I create more risk for myself and less risk for anyone who wishes to attack me. If you're trying to equate the "core" system of the game i.e. corruption system to being tied to a player "fighting back" it's not true. Player agency is the core aspect of the game and if that is the case then flagging ourselves for combat should be allowed. Here is a quote you can digest. Here is a quote you should digest. You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[32] – Steven Sharif Right now as you wish the game to be it will give the attacker all of the player agency in the sense of risk vs reward. For example if the attacker believes the benefits to go corrupt outweigh the risks of doing so they can attack and kill anyone they want where as if the non-attacking player would prefer the risk of forfeiting any corruption protection to avoid the additional death penalties they can not without having to actively react once another player chooses to attack them. Frankly it seems ass backwards to me from a player agency perspective since the decision isn't available until after being attacked for the defending non-combatant versus available as a decision before anyone has attacked anyone. You absolutely don't understand group PvP if you believe players need to get better if they can't "fight back" in every single situation - though if a player is really that bad shouldn't they be given the option? I mean if they suck at the game so much they never get a chance to fight back then that means they have no player agency. The general TTK outlined for live game is currently 30s to 1m in a 1v1 scenario. If it's 3v1 or 8v1 or 16v1(this ratio is intended as an example of a target being called in group v group combat) etc it would seem probable that after an opening attack, sustained or long CC that a focused attack on one player could result in death prior to having any ability to "fight back" again removing all player agency from the defending side of the equation. While it's understandable that 1 or more targets may go corrupt as a result of this however that doesn't justify removing player agency from one side of the equation as a punishment for the player who was killed, this becomes a double punishment for the non-combatant imo. Lastly since we're going to actively flag into combatant for every other aspect of PvP (Caravans, Sieges, Guild Wars and Arena play) Why then should Hunting Grounds be any different? If the game is at it's core designed around risk and reward and player agency why then should this be limited or restricted in a single aspect of the game?
daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Why would you ever want to attack another player without wanting to kill them? Is there a benefit to it that I'm not aware of? You gain the combatant flag. That's what this entire thread is about. Gaining the Combatant flag without having to piss off other players. No. This thread is about a toggle that players can switch on at will. This is a bad idea, and not at all necessary. So, if this was a choice you made at character creation that stayed with you for the rest of the game, would you have a problem with it then?
Tyrantor wrote: » Yeah I agree the guy gathering berries probably isn't going to flag for combat but how about this. If you've got a group of 8 farming a dungeon (or other xp area) it's been my general experience to continue until I'm encumbered before "banking" - now lets say the entire group has full inventory/mules and you decide you want to go back to your node. This group of 8 will essentially be carrying the same amount of resources as a single personal caravan can hold no? So what is the difference here if the same 8 players would have to flag for combat to transport the same amount of goods with a caravan versus flagging themselves to ride back to town? You understand the irony here is that the Caravan gives everyone who wants to attack it the option to also toggle into combatant mode by accepting attack on the prompt right? So by definition it's the exact same thing. You've got 8 players who opted into combatant mode by initiating the caravan and X # of players also opting into combat just by accepting to attack the caravan. To further illustrate the point these will likely be groups of players "roaming" the open world for PvP go figure.
You very clearly do not understand the conversation - if a player flags themselves as combatant it opens them up for being attacked with no penalty for the attacker to do so. Which is exactly the same thing as fighting back but the attacker has additional risk in that scenario. If I'm the player making the decision to flag myself I create more risk for myself and less risk for anyone who wishes to attack me. If you're trying to equate the "core" system of the game i.e. corruption system to being tied to a player "fighting back" it's not true. Player agency is the core aspect of the game and if that is the case then flagging ourselves for combat should be allowed.
You absolutely don't understand group PvP if you believe players need to get better if they can't "fight back" in every single situation - though if a player is really that bad shouldn't they be given the option? I mean if they suck at the game so much they never get a chance to fight back then that means they have no player agency. The general TTK outlined for live game is currently 30s to 1m in a 1v1 scenario. If it's 3v1 or 8v1 or 16v1(this ratio is intended as an example of a target being called in group v group combat) etc it would seem probable that after an opening attack, sustained or long CC that a focused attack on one player could result in death prior to having any ability to "fight back" again removing all player agency from the defending side of the equation. While it's understandable that 1 or more targets may go corrupt as a result of this however that doesn't justify removing player agency from one side of the equation as a punishment for the player who was killed, this becomes a double punishment for the non-combatant imo.
Lastly since we're going to actively flag into combatant for every other aspect of PvP (Caravans, Sieges, Guild Wars and Arena play) Why then should Hunting Grounds be any different? If the game is at it's core designed around risk and reward and player agency why then should this be limited or restricted in a single aspect of the game?
Noaani wrote: » The main difference is in the risk. In a caravan, you are putting the entire caravan and it's contents at risk. If you are killed as a non-combatant, you are likely to drop 10 - 20% of the raw materials and certificates you have on you (this percentage is not yet known - 10 - 20% is pure conjecture on my part). If you are flagged as a combatant, that amount would then be 5 - 10%. This is as opposed to the 100% loss if you lose PvP while runninga caravan.
Noaani wrote: » You asked what the difference was between someone running a caravan and someone flagging up to run back to town after filling their inventory in group content - I think the above fairly clearly illustrates that difference.
Noaani wrote: » If you fill your inventory in a dungeon and have to run back to town to empty that loot out, what right do you have to halve the risk you are getting yourself in to? If my friends and I are able to kill you before you have time to react, then we absolutely deserve to get that full value of items you drop, as well as the corruption that goes with it. If I am raiding an instanced raid zone and need to run the loot myself and my guild earned in there, we should also not have access to a mechanic that halves any potential loss we may see if we are attacked and killed. If you are able to kill us before we can react, then you deserve that same full value.
Noaani wrote: » You do not need to actively attack a player to flag as a combatant, so CC shouldn't really prevent that from happening. If you are stunned, you can still target an attacker and attempt to activate an ability on them. The ability may not fire, but the fact that you attempted to activate it is enough to flag you as a combatant.
Noaani wrote: » I will point out now that we are a long way from the original suggestion of adding this flag so that parties roaming around the game looking for PvP can find each other easier.
Noaani wrote: » Also, another major sticking point that I haven't felt a need to even bring up yet - if there is an automatic way to flag as a combatant at any time, in any location, that means people that know they are about to die in PvE will simply flag up to halve their death penalty. Even if they make it so you can't flag while in combat, there are many, many times in PvE when you know you are about to die before you are in combat.
Noaani wrote: » I understand the conversation perfectly well. Additionally, if you are flagged, your potential attacker faces both less risk and less reward. They will know they won't gain corruption, but they also know they will only get that 5 - 10% from you. Basically, you are lowering the risk and the reward for all parties involved.
Noaani wrote: » However, it is neither the person flagging nor the person that would attack them that is my concern with a system like this - it is the bystander that all of a sudden finds themselves playing a game where most people are flagged as combatants, rather than just those few that have been involved in PvP in the last few minutes.
Noaani wrote: » If you are flagged as a combatant and you come across some lone player harvesting materials, it is a much easier decision to attack them and take some stuff than it is if you come across that same player in that same location, but you are not flagged as a combatant.
Noaani wrote: » The thing is, while that absolutely will happen, it needs to be rare enough that the game and the players in the game can still function. If players have even a 25% expectation of being attacked if they go out to harvest, they won't go out to harvest - at least, not in Ashes.
Noaani wrote: » The main reason for this is because you can force me in to PvP in the open world (hunting grounds), but you can't force me in to any of the other activities. This one fact means open world PvP absolutely needs different rules to other forms of PvP, and this is one such rule.
Tyrantor wrote: » Oh good now you're just flat out lying to try and make points and save face (everyone reading enjoy counting the lies). If a caravan is destroyed (becomes a wreckage) it will drop a portion of the goods it was transporting. I'm not sure how this illustrates anything except for your complete lack of knowledge of the game you've been involved in discussions in for years and years and years beyond mine.
Here you are contradicting yourself in the same post thank you for making this easy. So you've suggested you deserve the loot if you can kill someone before they can react and at the same time you've flat out lied about another game mechanic you have absolutely no knowledge about, but with that same lie you've countered your own arguement as there would be no possible way you could kill someone before they can just click their own ability right? I mean you've told us how rare it's going to be to kill people before they can react unless of course it's just me personally and you know how bad I am at games I can't save myself everyone else can do this right? What do you expect people who are hunting caravans to be doing?
This is inherently untrue (again). If I increase the risk i'm attacked by flagging how am I lowering risk for everyone? I would say it's fair to say you don't understand it (still). Ok so you're worried about the bystanders that see purple tags now? Another lie. The combatant faces the same corruption penalty if they are flagged or not so how does it make the decision easier? Also even in this scenario of yours proved to have any relevance to reality the combatant would go from combatant to corrupt so there would by in large be signifigantly more corrupted players in the world which of course was one of your prior arguments on how the game is going to need more corrupted players and this toggle system would lower that count - so glad to see you can talk out of both sides of your face. Another lie. Players will have a 100% expectation of being attacked (regardless if flagging is an option) since there is no safe zone to "go out and harvest". The open world already has different rules in the fact YOU could remain non-combatant which is the entire point of this system it doesn't affect YOU only the people who want to toggle it on. I sort of lost count but that was about 6-8 flat our lies in your reply... must be getting desperate.
Tyrantor wrote: » I'm confused. Mostly because you seem to be trying to argue around all of my points instead of addressing any of them directly. For example I suggested that Caravans would be no different than players/group(s) of players mulling large amounts of farmed resources and materials back after hours of xp because they would manually flag into combat by initiating or attacking said Caravan. You're response is they're different because there is more risk for the caravan, when it shouldn't make a difference in principle it's the same thing. (group > resources > toggle > PvP). What exactly are you attributing risk to? Cost? Time? The loss of a caravan? You're arguement of risk doesn't even take into consideration what is inside of the Caravan, is it a bunch of level 1 items or level 50 items? This is also suggesting that what a caravan would be worth more than potential loot drops, epic mats? Flying mount eggs? You don't have a single ounce of concept to what is worth what but some how you've drawn a line in the sand to say very specifically the Caravan carries more risk. Impressive. Now moving on you're suggesting that a group of players should be allowed to grief? The fact you're saying a group of players needs the ability to kill someone before that person can fight back so they have the "option" to take more loot if they want to is laughable. The way this reads is that the developers designed the game to allow a group of players to grief solo players if they want more loot because well that's only fair. Can you also prove that all a player has to do while in CC is click an ability while targeting an enemy? Or is this just more brilliant opinion written as fact? You've acknowledged this twice now. Show us something on it or stop claiming bs like usual. So you seem to think that the feel and "mental" barrier to pvp is going to drastically change because certain players opt in for PvP? By this logic should you not be making a thread to suggest that there needs to be a 10 hit rule before you flag for PvP? I mean let's make the barrier to entry mean it. Like 1 hit's not much of a mental barrier but 10 now we're talking. The only "barrier" to attacking someone currently is the corruption system and again this does not change if you don't opt into combat it's really simple. You want to make up barriers to entry keep kidding yourself. Let's see how this plays out in Noaani's head: Group A attacks Group B. Group B defends themselves and is now flagged for combat - well shit now that they're flagged they see a bunch of solo non combatants walking by and say "Well our barrier for PvP is down lets kill them too" right. The non-combatant / combatant / corrupt player status is there to protect the non combatant not to stop people from flagging for combat. This is why it's a PENALTY to die as a non combatant and a corrupted player and the combatant has the least death cost. Why is this concept hard to grasp?
