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

maouw

Nagash wrote: »

I do wonder how much of the pvp thread would be solved if people read the wiki for a bit. we may never know

This comment + your signature's gif = giggles

At the very least, I'm holding off talking about this until I've tried it myself to judge how clunky/smooth it is.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If there are more people running around as combatants, then there are fewer ways in which people can gain corruption.

There are people in this thread that have said they would never turn this flag off, meaning there will absolutely be fewer people in the game over all by which players can gain corruption.

This means fewer people with corruption, and those with corruption will have less of it. In turn, that means the bounty hunter system - which is a progression path in Ashes - is significantly less valuable as a path on which to spend time.

The Corruption system is to deter griefing. If there are less players being griefed, then surely that's a good thing?

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

The kind of people that would be griefed in a game like Ashes are not the kind of people that would use a toggle like this.

It's obvious you don't know what any of us are saying.

No, it just doesn't make sense.

The idea of this suggestion is so that people that want PvP get PvP - is it not? I mean, if you don't want to be attacked, you are not going to use this toggle.

How would that impact on the people that don't want PvP? They clearly wouldn't use it.

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

No, it just doesn't make sense.

The idea of this suggestion is so that people that want PvP get PvP - is it not? I mean, if you don't want to be attacked, you are not going to use this toggle.

How would that impact on the people that don't want PvP? They clearly wouldn't use it.

You could say similar about many aspects of the game. If someone doesn't want to go on the ocean, they won't use Shipbuilding. Does that mean it shouldn't be included in-game? No. Somebody who doesn't like Dwarves won't be playing as one. Does that mean it shouldn't be included in-game? No. Someone doesn't want to toggle to Combatant status from Non-Combatant. Does that mean it shouldn't be included in-game? No.

Caeryl

daveywavey wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

No, it just doesn't make sense.

The idea of this suggestion is so that people that want PvP get PvP - is it not? I mean, if you don't want to be attacked, you are not going to use this toggle.

How would that impact on the people that don't want PvP? They clearly wouldn't use it.

You could say similar about many aspects of the game. If someone doesn't want to go on the ocean, they won't use Shipbuilding. Does that mean it shouldn't be included in-game? No. Somebody who doesn't like Dwarves won't be playing as one. Does that mean it shouldn't be included in-game? No. Someone doesn't want to toggle to Combatant status from Non-Combatant. Does that mean it shouldn't be included in-game? No.

Your comparisons don’t even make sense. It’d be like you were asking for a toggle to show you intend to build a ship. Like, ok but if you‘re going to build a ship you don’t need an indicator to do so.

Same with the dwarves, you wouldn’t ask for a toggle on your account to indicate you want to play a dwarf character. You just make a dwarf.

That’s why this suggestion is so pointless. If you want to PvP, attack people. Nothing’s stopping you. Someone comes up to your while you’re gathering and you want to PvP? Attack them. If you don’t care about getting some PvP combat at the moment, then don’t attack them. You don’t need a toggle to invite PvP. You don’t need a toggle that just reduces the options other players have.

It’s not needed for PvP-happy players, not of any positive functional value in any way, and disrupts core systems of risk and reward by negating the risk that attackers are supposed to be weighing and by inherently reducing the attacker’s potential gains by half at all times.

daveywavey

Caeryl wrote: »

Your comparisons don’t even make sense. It’d be like you were asking for a toggle to show you intend to build a ship. Like, ok but if you‘re going to build a ship you don’t need an indicator to do so.

The point was that just because some players aren't going to use a feature, it doesn't make it pointless putting it in if others will be using it.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

It's obvious you don't know what any of us are saying.

No, it just doesn't make sense.

The idea of this suggestion is so that people that want PvP get PvP - is it not? I mean, if you don't want to be attacked, you are not going to use this toggle.

How would that impact on the people that don't want PvP? They clearly wouldn't use it.

You're lost man. The idea of the suggestion is to remove accidental or unintended corruption from the game by allowing players to opt into combat manually. It should take some pressure off of players who do not want PvP by making it more obvious in terms of who's going to accept a fight or not.

Does the toggle stop combatants, corrupt or other non-combatants from attacking non-combatants? No. Does it stop someone who starts as combatant from going corrupt when killing a non combatant? No. Would it reduce the need for players and groups to tip toe around a bullshit non-combatant flagging when attacking each other in circumstances where all parties involved have combat toggled on? Yes. Will everyone use it? No. Would it make sense to use it 100% of the time? No. Does it add to player agency? Yes. Does it hurt the game? No. Will @Noaani ever use it? No. Will other people use it? Yes.

Caeryl

daveywavey wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Your comparisons don’t even make sense. It’d be like you were asking for a toggle to show you intend to build a ship. Like, ok but if you‘re going to build a ship you don’t need an indicator to do so.

The point was that just because some players aren't going to use a feature, it doesn't make it pointless putting it in if others will be using it.

Except, again, your comparisons make literally no sense. You aren’t prevented from seeking PvP in any way without this toggle which has no functional value. Avid PvPers don’t need it anyway, as you aren’t required to be a Combatant to attack others. It’d be no different than asking for a toggle to show that you intend to build a ship, even though you aren’t required to announce your intent before you can buy or craft ship materials.

It provides no functional difference in the open world. It has no impact on your ability to seek out PvP. You can just as easily goad strangers or openly invite them to attack you. The only time there’d be any “unintended corruption” being avoided is if you went afk and someone killed you while toggled. With a 1 on 1 ttk being 30s to 1min, there’s nothing “unintended” about earning corruption.

The only functional uses I can even imagine are all toeing the line of exploits. A low adventuring level crafter securing themselves a permanent safety net in which they always halve their penalties even when killed by a high adventuring level player even though they would almost always die before they could get a hit back. A player toggling on so they can step away from their computer for a minute knowing at worst they’ll take half the death penalty.

There’s not a doubt in my mind we’ll end up with a way for non-combatants to flag on a corrupt players before the game goes live, so I don’t even see that as an arguable point.

daveywavey

The current method of "toggling purple" to go out on your business is to run through a town, swiping random people once with your weapon as you run past. That's pretty darn sloppy.

Caeryl

daveywavey wrote: »

The current method of "toggling purple" to go out on your business is to run through a town, swiping random people once with your weapon as you run past. That's pretty darn sloppy.

And it’s also completely and utterly unnecessary! You don’t have to be pre-flagged to invite and engage in open world PvP.

George_Black

How's the battle of egos going?
People will go around looking for flagged on players to fvck around with, instead on focusing on playing the game.

What dont you still get?

CROW3

George Black wrote: »

People will go around looking for flagged on players to fvck around with, instead on focusing on playing the game.

Except for those folks, that IS how they are playing their game.

That said, I feel like this has pretty much been argued into the ground and the devs will do what they will.

Tyrantor

CROW3 wrote: »

That said, I feel like this has pretty much been argued into the ground and the devs will do what they will.

This.

George_Black

Tyrantor wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

That said, I feel like this has pretty much been argued into the ground and the devs will do what they will.

This.

"This" but keeps going on with the thread for weeks.

CROW3

So... pie?

Tyrantor

More of a cake guy.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

You're lost man. The idea of the suggestion is to remove accidental or unintended corruption from the game by allowing players to opt into combat manually. It should take some pressure off of players who do not want PvP by making it more obvious in terms of who's going to accept a fight or not.

I totally concede that there may well be some players out there that won't attack an unflagged player because the first player wants an actual fight, and that unflagged player may not give it to them. I don't dispute this at all.

What I do dispute is that this will have an impact over all. You see, for every player that doesn't attack an unflagged player, there is another player out there that PvP's for profit - and that player is unlikely to attack any player that has flagged, as they are clearly not going to be as valuable a target.

What this system will do is focus people that want to PvP for profit or griefing on to the players that are least wanting PvP, and seeing them easily avoid those that actually want that PvP.

Now, it may well turn out that this suggestion would make life harder for people not wanting that PvP - it would make it easier for people wanting to grief others as they can more easily identify those easier targets. However, I am not suggesting that right now because there is no real way to know which way it would go without testing.

What I am saying though, is that it "could" very easily go either way, and so claiming it will go one way as opposed to the other is kind of missing the point.

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

What I do dispute is that this will have an impact over all. You see, for every player that doesn't attack an unflagged player, there is another player out there that PvP's for profit - and that player is unlikely to attack any player that has flagged, as they are clearly not going to be as valuable a target.

If there is no toggle and green players cannot flag up against red players, you will incentivize corrupt play. Hence the belief that there will be a toggle in the design so that green players have a choice and intrepid does not promote players going corrupt.

Ill be real here, if a green can't flag up against me as purple when i attack them as a corrupted player I am going to FARM the hell out of people like there's no tomorrow. You will see MANY roving bands of players that will take trash gear to gank with and overwhelm solo players for maximum profit/lowest risk.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Now, it may well turn out that this suggestion would make life harder for people not wanting that PvP - it would make it easier for people wanting to grief others as they can more easily identify those easier targets. However, I am not suggesting that right now because there is no real way to know which way it would go without testing.

What I am saying though, is that it "could" very easily go either way, and so claiming it will go one way as opposed to the other is kind of missing the point.

This is it right here 100%. You know the greatest part about this, even in your worst case scenario above? The corruption system would then work as intended. The "easy" targets would get to choose to fight or die and the griefers would get a fight or corruption. That's it.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Ill be real here, if a green can't flag up against me as purple when i attack them as a corrupted player I am going to FARM the hell out of people like there's no tomorrow.

The way the corruption system as a whole is set up, this kind of thing will be rare.

If someone particularly enjoys it, they will be able to do it - but they will be doing it at an over all loss. I am of the opinion that if someone wants to do this at a loss, then the game should (and currently does) allow them to do it.

Once you go deep in to corruption, there is no real way of escaping the experience debt aspect of it, and if you go deep enough, that aspect of it will be very, very time consuming. That is the real punishment of corruption, not gear loss.

Gear loss is simply there so that people don't put on the best gear possible while going for a murder spree, it isn't there as the punishment.

Betweem the low quality gear you will have on and the corruption based penalties you will have, it will be interesting to see how long people could actually carry on like this though. I'm actually wondering now if the penalty for experience debt and the PvP penalty for corruption stack.

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Now, it may well turn out that this suggestion would make life harder for people not wanting that PvP - it would make it easier for people wanting to grief others as they can more easily identify those easier targets. However, I am not suggesting that right now because there is no real way to know which way it would go without testing.

What I am saying though, is that it "could" very easily go either way, and so claiming it will go one way as opposed to the other is kind of missing the point.

This is it right here 100%. You know the greatest part about this, even in your worst case scenario above? The corruption system would then work as intended. The "easy" targets would get to choose to fight or die and the griefers would get a fight or corruption. That's it.

No. With a toggle, all you do is make non-combatants out to be players who won’t put up a fight when attacked. Without a toggle, an attacker has to weigh the odds of their target being ready to fight back even if that target hasn’t been in recent PvP combat.

Your toggle is not needed to PvP, and it doesn’t provide any positive benefit to the game as a whole.

Child Item