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: »

Dolyem wrote: »

You never outright said it word for word but you were saying that simply because it wasn't formally stated that "meaningless" pvp was being promoted that this meant it wasn't necessarily condoned.

There is a massive difference between something that is not encouraged, and something that is condemned.

An action that is condemned is one that Intrepid would take action on the account of anyone caught performing that act. Your question was basically asking if open world PvP is looked at in the same lilght as botting, RMT'ing, hacking and other exploits - all of which are condemned.

This is what a condemned action is.

I said absolutely nothing at all in this regard, and again, you suggesting that I did is either disingenuous, or dishonest.

I said it is not the type of PvP that Intrepid want to encourage. I didn't say it was going to be something that could get you banned -as you are suggesting I was saying - I simply said they want the caravan system, the siege systems and the war systems to be the focus of PvP in Ashes.

That is the comment I made - if you want to ask Intrepid for a quote to prove me wrong, then ask them this;

Would it be fair to say that the intention of PvP in Ashes is that the focus of such activities is based on the caravan system, sieges and guild/node wars, with other forms of PvP being present in a secondary capacity in the over all grand scheme of things.

That is what I am saying, and if you want to get a quote to prove me wrong, you absolutely NEED to get what I am saying right first. You also need to abstain from using strong words (like condenmed) that I never used in the discussion.

Not doing so is - once again - either disingenuous or dishonest.

I acknowledged that, if that is the case then at the very least we got it in writing that it isn't in any way condemned. And while I see a point you are trying to argue the "focus" of PvP systems, but I would say that you don't actually need to openly focus on open world pvp because it isn't a designed system in the same way a siege or a caravan is design. It is basically a switch that gets turned on with the game and the players determine the amount of focus it actually gets during play. Intrepids focus on open world pvp would be reflected through the corruption system, it is a very important system in the game, and is directly related to open world pvp. So I guess I would argue that the same amount of focus that is going into meaningful conflict systems also includes the corruption system, and carries over to open world pvp.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

It is basically a switch that gets turned on with the game and the players determine the amount of focus it actually gets during play.

Yes, this is all basically what I am saying.

What this means though, is that because of all of this, there is no need for a toggle for the combatant status in order to aid players in finding others to PvP with without any other meaning to it - which if you go back to the OP of this thread, is what was asked for.

The focus of PvP is the caravan, siege and war systems, and open world PvP (aka, corruption based PvP) is there as well, as a secondary system, that doesn't need additional encouragement to be used because players will use it when it is needed.

Players are already determining how often that system gets used - as it is purely a system that is there to be used when needed. There is no need to encourage open world PvP further than that, because the active encouragement of PvP in Ashes is in the caravan, siege and war systems. The corruption system is there to fill in the gaps, not to be any sort of focus.

This kind of thing is what happens when you argue an individual post, rather than arguing a full point of view.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

It is basically a switch that gets turned on with the game and the players determine the amount of focus it actually gets during play.

What this means though, is that because of all of this, there is no need for a toggle for the combatant status in order to aid players in finding others to PvP with without any other meaning to it - which if you go back to the OP of this thread, is what was asked for.

The toggle idea is just to toggle always being a combatant in the system that exists, it doesn't aid in finding others to PvP, it simply allows others currently around you to engage without fear of getting corrupted. It doesn't promote griefing or anything negative to people other than the ones opting to turn it on. So what is the issue with the toggle?

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

So what is the issue with the toggle?

There is a 9 page thread detailing the issues with it. You can find it here.

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

So what is the issue with the toggle?

There is a 9 page thread detailing the issues with it. You can find it here.

but you're wrong.

daveywavey

Attacking a random player every 5 minutes then running off without killing them, just to achieve the Combatant flag, still just seems to me like a workaround. Allowing a player to set their base PvP status seems to be a reasonable solution.

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

Attacking a random player every 5 minutes then running off without killing them, just to achieve the Combatant flag, still just seems to me like a workaround. Allowing a player to set their base PvP status seems to be a reasonable solution.

It is, but it also isn't something most players will do.

Most players will realize very quickly that there will almost always be a chance to flag up, and those rare times that there won't will be so rare, that less than 0.01% of the population will ever see it happen. I guarantee that if you go in to the game with the intention of doing this, that intention will cease by the end of your first day.

Making your flag state 100% based upon your actions is a reasonable mechanic.

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

It is, but it also isn't something most players will do.

It isn't something you will do, or it isn't something most players will do?

I'd be interested to see your evidence for that comment.

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

It is, but it also isn't something most players will do.

It isn't something you will do, or it isn't something most players will do?

I'd be interested to see your evidence for that comment.

There won't be any evidence until the game launches - at which point every green player you see will be evidence.

What we have between now and then though, is logic.

If you attempted to keep up your combatant flag all the time, how much time and effort do you think you will spend on that? Contrast that with the very, very few times (likely never) that you are attacked in a manner where you are unable to even flag before being killed, and you will soon realize that all of that time spent keeping your combatant flag up was a total waste of time.

Simple, basic logic dictates that this will not be common behavior - at least not by people that actually think about what they are doing.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

It is basically a switch that gets turned on with the game and the players determine the amount of focus it actually gets during play.

Yes, this is all basically what I am saying.

What this means though, is that because of all of this, there is no need for a toggle for the combatant status in order to aid players in finding others to PvP with without any other meaning to it - which if you go back to the OP of this thread, is what was asked for.

The focus of PvP is the caravan, siege and war systems, and open world PvP (aka, corruption based PvP) is there as well, as a secondary system, that doesn't need additional encouragement to be used because players will use it when it is needed.

Players are already determining how often that system gets used - as it is purely a system that is there to be used when needed. There is no need to encourage open world PvP further than that, because the active encouragement of PvP in Ashes is in the caravan, siege and war systems. The corruption system is there to fill in the gaps, not to be any sort of focus.

This kind of thing is what happens when you argue an individual post, rather than arguing a full point of view.

You suggesting that the open world pvp is a secondary system is confusing to me. Considering the open world pvp (or rather ability to pvp) is actually the primary system in the game and all of the objective based pvp systems are in fact secondary systems designed to feed off of the open world pvp (conflicts).

The reason to allow players to flag is not to "find pvp" but rather to aid players in finding other players who accept the threat of pvp. You keep getting things twisted because you're looking at it from a perspective of someone who doesn't want to be in combat.

You're still here arguing that the toggle doesn't exist or won't exist based on contradictory proof that it currently does and will.

Infamouse

Interesting thread, couple things.
One this is my first post, what initially attracted me to Ashes of Creation is the Open world PVP flagging system that is identical to L2. (Im a 10+ year L2 player).
Assuming AoC's pvp is similar to L2s in the sense that open world PVP is a constant threat you would never ever ever want to run around constantly flagged, culturally if it follows the same path as L2 (which the system itself kind of dictates/invites) being flagged is inviting people to attack you, and also a combat disadvantage.

In L2, flagging order (especially in the early years, not so much in the later ones) was a HUGE part of pvp.
What I mean by this is your tanks, heavy warrior classes, and tanky bard-buffers (Swordsingers and Bladedancers in L2) would be flagging in a pvp encounter, generally in that order, with your high DPS Mages, Rogues, Archers and most of all, healers trying to stay non-combatant as long as humanly possible, or until a soft target (Another healer, or your enemy parties top DPS who you desperately want to knock out of the fight early) flag.

This was one of the joys of L2 PVP. Coordinated, skilled parties could absolutely decimate their (better geared/higher leveled) opponents by communicating more effectively.
I played at the high end of pvp in L2 (Castle owning/pvp dominating top 3 guilds) most of my career there (Sieghardt in the early years, took a break, came back to Chronos if theres any other L2 players around

), and my excitement for this game is completely off the charts compared to anything else ive played/seen since then. Issues like what the OP are talking about assuming the system stays as-is are actually not issues, what I mean by that is not accidentally going corrupted is a very real thing that your players/pvpers will have to manage, and they should have to manage it. It makes the open world PVP encounters a delicate game of chess that has to be played in real time at high speed. There will be times where not properly managing these things will cost you a fight to a weaker opponent who you should have otherwise beaten, because they were smarter/more patient/paid more attention to what was going on. It adds an entire element of tactical play to open world PVP that is woefully lacking in other games (been playing wow for a while now, including classic). WOW is a great example of that. I hear people talk about enjoying PVP in that game, and for me, who grew up in L2 pvp, WoW PVP is essentially worthless. Its a mini-game at a carnival at best. Something to be enjoyed for a split second and then forgotten about. I have a feeling that AOC is going to be more of the meaningful, tactical, drama filled PVP that I love.

You will never want to run around flagged for PVP in AOC, needlessly giving up a huge tactical advantage of getting to choose when/where/how to enter a fight. If you do, players like me (and im sure many others) will take advantage of your stupidity and carelessness and punish you, repeatedly, and you will stop doing that. A toggle in a game like this will also be worthless. Fast-travel is limited. Zone/area management via PVP means will be a real thing. Clans and guilds will work to control the best zones and spots. Only the absolute top players/guilds would ever want to be always flagged for PVP. I promise you that there will be guilds that form that declare war on every other guild in the game, and fight all takers at every opportunity. In real life terms, for the average player in AOC, being always toggled for PVP would be the equivalent of dropping your pants to your feet, then handcuffing your wrists to your ankles, and THEN challenging every person you come across on the street to a fight. My old L2 players who are used to this system know this.
If you never played L2 and are not used to this flagging system, youll understand that a toggle completely defeats the purpose of this for open-world PVP. Sieges, caravans, guild wars, etc where everyone involved is a combatant will be treated/handled completely differently. Everyone involved will be ready, on-guard, buffed and paying attention, and the style/way the fights play out will be entirely different than the large open world pvp encounters. Parties will be organized differently, min-maxed to the absolute bleeding edge/limit of the current game knowledge. Your open world encounters wont be like this (unless of course you leave town explicitly to pvp and you prepare for it). Open world will be alot dirtier, grittier, and full of twists. So before you beg for a toggle, play the game first XD

daveywavey

Infamouse wrote: »

Assuming AoC's pvp is similar to L2s in the sense that open world PVP is a constant threat you would never ever ever want to run around constantly flagged, culturally if it follows the same path as L2 (which the system itself kind of dictates/invites) being flagged is inviting people to attack you, and also a combat disadvantage.

Going off his posts, that's exactly what he wants. He wants to be attacked at random as he goes about his business, cos he enjoys it.

Tyrantor

Infamouse wrote: »

You will never want to run around flagged for PVP in AOC, needlessly giving up a huge tactical advantage of getting to choose when/where/how to enter a fight. If you do, players like me (and im sure many others) will take advantage of your stupidity and carelessness and punish you, repeatedly, and you will stop doing that.

I can appreciate the fact you think being in combatant state would be stupid from your experience in L2 I would likely agree with you if this was L2 considering the grind that game involved. However based on the current level grind intended for this game I do not view it the same way. Furthermore I come from games that had no corruption system, no level restrictions on attacking other players etc. What I mean by this is I've played games with full open world pvp without restrictions that also involved death penalties, loot and durability loss no safe zones, no insta kill guards etc etc.

In my opinion I would prefer the pvp to come to me, if I'm going to flag for it myself then i'll be prepared for that to happen. So yes please attack me, it's the entire point of me flagging for combat. I'm not trying to play a cat and mouse game tip toeing around a corruption system that has no business preventing or impacting open world pvp from players who want to participate in it.

Infamouse wrote: »

In L2, flagging order (especially in the early years, not so much in the later ones) was a HUGE part of pvp.
What I mean by this is your tanks, heavy warrior classes, and tanky bard-buffers (Swordsingers and Bladedancers in L2) would be flagging in a pvp encounter, generally in that order, with your high DPS Mages, Rogues, Archers and most of all, healers trying to stay non-combatant as long as humanly possible, or until a soft target (Another healer, or your enemy parties top DPS who you desperately want to knock out of the fight early) flag.

This is a flat out bad design. The corruption system impacting your ability to attack or not attack because of it is wrong. Again the corruption system has no place in pvp unrelated to ganking/griefing players who unwillingly get attacked and killed. There is absolutely no reason two groups fighting each other should risk or become flagged for corruption in this situation or the one I explained in the OP. It's not skillful play having to limit who in your group can attack until XYZ because corruption. It would be more skillful if all players could attack and be attacked at will as there would be no outside concerns and restrictions put on the players.

Infamouse

Tyrantor wrote: »

Infamouse wrote: »

I can appreciate the fact you think being in combatant state would be stupid from your experience in L2 I would likely agree with you if this was L2 considering the grind that game involved. However based on the current level grind intended for this game I do not view it the same way. Furthermore I come from games that had no corruption system, no level restrictions on attacking other players etc. What I mean by this is I've played games with full open world pvp without restrictions that also involved death penalties, loot and durability loss no safe zones, no insta kill guards etc etc.

In my opinion I would prefer the pvp to come to me, if I'm going to flag for it myself then i'll be prepared for that to happen. So yes please attack me, it's the entire point of me flagging for combat. I'm not trying to play a cat and mouse game tip toeing around a corruption system that has no business preventing or impacting open world pvp from players who want to participate in it.

This is a flat out bad design. The corruption system impacting your ability to attack or not attack because of it is wrong. Again the corruption system has no place in pvp unrelated to ganking/griefing players who unwillingly get attacked and killed. There is absolutely no reason two groups fighting each other should risk or become flagged for corruption in this situation or the one I explained in the OP. It's not skillful play having to limit who in your group can attack until XYZ because corruption. It would be more skillful if all players could attack and be attacked at will as there would be no outside concerns and restrictions put on the players.

The corruption/flagging system is designed for PVP and PVE players to be able to co-exist (and sometimes for players to shift between mindstates) fluidly. Maybe today im fired up and ready to go for pvp and thats all i want, running around and giving people an open-handed slap will provoke pvp 90% of the time on these days. Or I could simply go to the best exp zone, start killing some mobs, and wait for someone to try and push me out of it. Or I could go push someone out. But tomorrow I want to work on my animal husbandry, which requires me to focus on resource gathering/farming. Its time consuming as it is, and adding in the element to be ganked repeatedly is not what I want today. Having the ability to choose when to enter combat is a lot of fun. From your stand-point, what your saying is you just want to be attacked. Thats easy. Slap everyone who comes near you and that will happen no problem. The flagging isnt a barrier to regular pvp encounters. Two aggressive players/guilds/alliances wont struggle to PVP each other. It will however let hyper aggressive PVP-only players live side by side with cow-farmers and miners, and these two activities being non-preventative to each other. Also, by being not flagged, you have the ability to enter a chase on a red player and do so without being attacked by other players while you do it. I understand your concerns are it limiting PVP, but previous experience (10+ years) in the system tells me that in and of itself, that wont be the issue. I can extensively tell you all the bad things that can come as a result of this system but thats a text wall for another day, or DM me lol.

Tyrantor

You think attacking random players to find pvp is better than just allowing players who are open to pvp to flag themselves? I get that people will fight back (sometimes and sometimes not) - again the point isn't so I have to randomly attack people. The toggle would be my (our) way of saying we forfeit the corruption system. It has no impact on the PvE player as they wouldn't flag themselves correct? This means we would be co-existing with less intrusion on the PvE player. If we are all green as L2 played, then I have to attack random green players to find the "fight" versus if some are willingly green and some are willingly purple I no longer have to guess who is who.

The toggle would give everyone the option to play the game as they want without fear of corruption or of course having to play around it. If you want to go tame some animals no one is forcing you to toggle it on.

Infamouse

Tyrantor wrote: »

You think attacking random players to find pvp is better than just allowing players who are open to pvp to flag themselves? I get that people will fight back (sometimes and sometimes not) - again the point isn't so I have to randomly attack people. The toggle would be my (our) way of saying we forfeit the corruption system. It has no impact on the PvE player as they wouldn't flag themselves correct? This means we would be co-existing with less intrusion on the PvE player. If we are all green as L2 played, then I have to attack random green players to find the "fight" versus if some are willingly green and some are willingly purple I no longer have to guess who is who.

The toggle would give everyone the option to play the game as they want without fear of corruption or of course having to play around it. If you want to go tame some animals no one is forcing you to toggle it on.

Totally get your line of thinking, and its completely valid. I understand where you are coming from a bit better, and only basing it off previous experience, very very few people would do this, atleast in L2 on the servers I played on, youd be condeming yourself to death to the point where youd be better of just standing outside of the town gate and attacking everyone who walks by then trying to be in the world that way. Even the players who WOULD do this and be PVP flagged all of the time, were also the players whos own reputations or guilds were already a standing invitation to attack them. In short, it would be an entire system that would be sparsely used, at absolute best.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

The toggle would be my (our) way of saying we forfeit the corruption system.

That is not something you should get to pre-decide.

If you want to decide that every time, cool - I'm sure PvP players on your server will know you are always up for a fight, and will attack you regardless of how much they outnumber you. However, since corruption is a key aspect to the game, and it being acquired at a reasonable rate is actually key to other systems in the game functioning, the wide scale ability to opt out of it is simply not a good fit for this game.

Tyrantor

Look the game is going to be extremely regionalized. Just based on rough averages there will be approximately 9,000 people per Metro ZOI (based on server capacity of 50k and spread evenly across all 5 Metros) which would then equate to roughly 90 people per node so lets say based on this that approximately 3 nodes would likely share general hunting grounds +/- 270 players at peak hours (assuming max online capacity of 10k). If there are roughly 3-4 hunting zones immediately adjacent to each of those 3 nodes we'll be looking at an average of about 25 players per hunting ground near the nodes. I imagine it will likely scale down the further from the nodes you go especially during the early node leveling days of game release.

So now lets put this into further review, 25 people spread across a zone that may take roughly 10-15 minutes to run (or longer) it's likely there won't be that much "risk" with being in combatant state at nearly all times. This would equate to roughly 3 full parties per hunting ground. Sprinkle in a few solos, smaller groups etc it seems like the average risk level won't be that high.

Add in the fact we do not currently know if there are any tracking type classes and of course we always have the option to tuck tail and run when players or groups pop on screen.

Anyway this is some what irrelevant to the OP but it may add some transparency to how spread out the world is going to be with 100+ nodes and all the accompanying leveling areas.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

The toggle would be my (our) way of saying we forfeit the corruption system.

That is not something you should get to pre-decide.

If you want to decide that every time, cool - I'm sure PvP players on your server will know you are always up for a fight, and will attack you regardless of how much they outnumber you. However, since corruption is a key aspect to the game, and it being acquired at a reasonable rate is actually key to other systems in the game functioning, the wide scale ability to opt out of it is simply not a good fit for this game.

What world do you live in? Why should that not be something I get to pre-determine? Where is corruption listed as a "key aspect" to the game in the sense that it's incentivized to become corrupt? It's a deterrent and allowing players to flag for combat has absolutely no impact on the corruption system for it's intended purpose.

CROW3

Still a good idea. 😉

Child Item