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

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

It doesn't mean that the defender is a good PvPer

On balance though, it does.

Remember, I have been saying for a while now that the individual doesn't matter to statistics. Unless you are trying to suggest that this scenario would be so common as to skew the number of combatants vs non-combatants on the server at all times, then it is statistically insignificant.

Again, I am talking large scale, game wide. I am not talking about - nor am I concerned with - the individual. I mean, the best PvP'er in the game will at times be a non-combatant harvesting materials - but that doesn't mean I have to assume that all non-combatants harvesting materials will be the best PvP'er in the game.

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

It doesn't mean that the defender is a good PvPer

Again, I am talking large scale, game wide. I am not talking about - nor am I concerned with - the individual. I mean, the best PvP'er in the game will at times be a non-combatant harvesting materials - but that doesn't mean I have to assume that all non-combatants harvesting materials will be the best PvP'er in the game.

And yet, you're happy to assume that all purple-flagged players are good at PvP, just because they're purple.

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

It doesn't mean that the defender is a good PvPer

Again, I am talking large scale, game wide. I am not talking about - nor am I concerned with - the individual. I mean, the best PvP'er in the game will at times be a non-combatant harvesting materials - but that doesn't mean I have to assume that all non-combatants harvesting materials will be the best PvP'er in the game.

And yet, you're happy to assume that all purple-flagged players are good at PvP, just because they're purple.

Nope, not all, just the majority.

If you are a combatant and are not either running or hiding, chances are you just won PvP in some form or another. You can consider some of these potential results to be a draw, I'm not overly concerned - the point is that a player that is happily farming away at either mobs or resources was recently successful in either taking over that spot, or in keeping that spot.

As such, there is a better target in the general area - such as the player that just lost.

It may well be that both are great PvP'ers, or it may well be that both are not very good at PvP. This doesn't really matter to this discussion - as the fact that this player is flagged as a combatant means you know for sure there is someone that is easier than them that is close by.

If you are presented with 1000 scenarios of two different targets where one is a combatant and one is a non-combatant, the non-combatant is - on balance - going to be the easier target.

Caeryl

There’s still been absolutely no mention of justification for wanting to separate the flagging system from player behavior.

“I want to be purple all the time” is not a reason. “I want to protect half my stuff at all times without having to fight back” is not a positive addition. “I want people to see me as willing to PvP“ means you are fine with greens being viewed as unwilling to PvP.

Why in the hells would the developers approve of a toggle that adds nothing beneficial, removes the information flag-state is supposed to provide, and is unneeded to fulfill a player’s desire for PvP? There has quite literally been no decent reason presented for feeling a toggle as needed.

Sathrago

I just wish Steven would come in and tell us if there will be a toggle or not so this insane back and forth can be put to rest.

stop watching us squirm!!! lol

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

I just wish Steven would come in and tell us if there will be a toggle or not so this insane back and forth can be put to rest.

stop watching us squirm!!! lol

Intrepid very rarely weigh in on discussions in that manner - I can only think of one time they have, and the discussion in question had been going on for actual years by the time they said anything.

Not that I'd be against it, I just wouldn't expect it.

Besides, debate is fun. If not for the occasional thread of disagreement, these forums would be significantly quieter.

Percimes

Caeryl wrote: »

(...) “I want people to see me as willing to PvP“ (...)

That would make a good guild name! It would always be on display under the character's name... no uncertainty of intents!

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani you spent 1.5 years+ playing a MMO as a solo playe

I don't think that means as much as you think it means.

First of all, that equates to 7.5% of my total MMO play time. As you know, the bulk of the rest was either in or running top end raid guilds - you can't run a top end raid guild without knowing what those in your guild want. Not successfully, at least.

Both of these responses highlight your complete lack of player vs player interaction.

In summary.
1) Solo player for years (avoiding conflict on purpose).
2) PvE player for years

Can you provide any feedback that actually relates to player vs player combat? Something that would justify you're ability to understand how players that actually pvp, grief, siege etc has relevance to your understanding of how you know so vividly how the "large scale game wide" player base is going to play?

You don't think it's telling how your own example from the pvp perspective was that you would (again as a solo player) run around looking for solo non combatants gathering resources? It's also interesting that you would seek out "soft" targets with no consideration for what measure you're using to decide this based on the rock/paper/scissors class system, armor, levels etc. The logic you use here seems odd to me. On one hand you're suggesting this would be "for profit" by going after solo farmers/specific resources, yet at the same time you would risk the potential for 4x corruption (4 non combatant kills) which would then invite others to attack you freely, track you and you would lose all that "for profit" loot you just took including additional penalties.

In my example of 4 farmers with one being toggled combatant you said you would avoid that person completely - quite literally makes no sense if you're doing this for profit. What if that person was 5 levels below you? Had no armor? Was afk? Your class wins 95% of fights vs that class? You're avoiding the combatant toggled solo farmer 100% of the time just because their purple? Huh? Right..... it makes sense because you don't want flagging.

Noaani wrote: »

It seems that you are missing the very first aspect in the target acquisition process here - which is excluding all combatants. If I enter an area that has 4 solo players, and only three of then are non-combatants, then there are three targets - if my aim is PvP for profit.

Tyrantor

CROW3 wrote: »

The cake is over there @Noaani.

Tyrantor

CROW3 wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

How dare you belittle the power of cake. It may be pie season but cake will have it's day again.

CROW3

bwhahahahahahaha! Nearly a coffee through the nose laugh, but it was worth it.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

In summary.
1) Solo player for years (avoiding conflict on purpose).
2) PvE player for years

Also member of well regarded PvP guild for years - which is what I did in Archeage after deciding I'd had enough of being a pirate (well, after making friends with some people in the guild and them persuading me to join).

But hey, ignore that if it isn't convenient for you.

Tyrantor wrote: »

Your class wins 95% of fights vs that class?

Again, you are looking at the individual.

You realize there will be more than one player that will potentially attack others per server, right? While a particular class may be the paper to my rock, there will be someone around that is rolling scissors that is more than happy to take them on.

Both of us will be looking at flagged state though.

Things like level seem irrelevent to the point here, to be honest. I'm assuming I'll be playing the game for years, and the vast, vast majority of that time people will be max level. As for things like coming across an afk or armorless character in an open world game with PvP is also so rare as to not be worth even bringing up. Again, that won't happen so often as to skew the numbers - why even bring it up?

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Again, you are looking at the individual.

You realize there will be more than one player that will potentially attack others per server, right? While a particular class may be the paper to my rock, there will be someone around that is rolling scissors that is more than happy to take them on.

Both of us will be looking at flagged state though.

Things like level seem irrelevent to the point here, to be honest. I'm assuming I'll be playing the game for years, and the vast, vast majority of that time people will be max level. As for things like coming across an afk or armorless character in an open world game with PvP is also so rare as to not be worth even bringing up. Again, that won't happen so often as to skew the numbers - why even bring it up?

I'm looking at the individual per your example what is confusing to you about that?

Your entire argument was "if there is a purple player you avoid them and only attack the 3 green players" because purple = scary.

What you failed to take into account are any other circumstances or risk factors. The class system, in all likelihood should be the first thing you consider when evaluating a fight in the 1v1 scenario that again (you) suggested. In that situation it will most certainly be irrelevant what flagging state their character is in if in fact you can beat that character under normal or relatively equal circumstances.

The other examples I gave you, may be more limited however I find it fairly reasonable that some players may choose to harvest gatherable materials without equipment especially if their mindset would be to offer the attacking party corruption over fighting back. You see this gives them additional incentive to not fight back as they would not lose any durability for equipment. The point however was simple - you make a broad statement that you will ignore these players simply due to their decision to flag.

At this point the only thing that seems irrelevant is your logic for determining targets. You completely ignore the response about going corrupt while trying to profit? What good is this going to do you?

You should really seek a new approach here it's obvious you are digging a deeper hole.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Your entire argument was "if there is a purple player you avoid them and only attack the 3 green players" because purple = scary.

No it wasn't. That was you misunderstanding an example I was making to attempt to illustrate to you a concept you obviously didn't udnerstand - the fact that you now think that was my entire point just makes me think you aren't even reading what is being said - you are simply skimming through, picking up a few words, assuming what the argument is and running with it.

It is blatantly obvious that you actually haven't been following the discussion for the last 2 pages at least.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

As I have said several times - if I am looking for a target, the first thing I look for is their flag state. If they are combatants, I move on.

This means that all of the remaining players, that 90 that are left, are all more likely to be attacked simply due to not flagging.

I'm not sure how clearer I can be on this point, it is basic middle school level statistics.

Noaani wrote: »

It seems that you are missing the very first aspect in the target acquisition process here - which is excluding all combatants. If I enter an area that has 4 solo players, and only three of then are non-combatants, then there are three targets - if my aim is PvP for profit.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what it is you are saying in this last part. If so, feel free to reword it to be clearer and I'll have another look at answering it for you.

I mean... feel free to re-read what you said. You very clearly said this is "the very first aspect in the target acquisition process". Explain to me how you're validating that statement. Because you can't then say "it increases the chances of the non-combatants getting attacked" as a follow up to non sense. Especially in a scenario when everyone in that zone is max level as you apparently assumed the majority of the game play will be. If every player in the zone is max everything, there is zero relevance to the characters flagging state at that point from a "target acquisition" outside of avoidance of corruption so the idea that you would endure the corruption to avoid attacking a combatant flagged character is priceless.

You've clearly missed the point that others here have pointed out to you. There is no defined result from the non combatant response. You can assume 50% of them will not fight back, but you're basing that on what? If they make the XP debt and % drop high enough it will be encouraging people to fight back - I mean it's why you want to attack them in the first place is it not? You can't have it both ways, you attack non combatants 100% of the time "for profit" but only 50% of them fight back to save their "profit". It doesn't just get to slide in your favor because you can dream it up in your "basic middle school statistics" class.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

I mean... feel free to re-read what you said. You very clearly said this is "the very first aspect in the target acquisition process". Explain to me how you're validating that statement. Because you can't then say "it increases the chances of the non-combatants getting attacked" as a follow up to non sense.

I'm still not sure how you can not understand - other than the fact that if you admitted to understanding you would need to come up with a new argument.

If I am looking for a target, any target, in an environment that is somewhat target rich (as in, there are more targets there than I am likely to attack), then I will look for the best target that meets my needs.

If my needs are targets that are profitable, I want easier targets.

Green players are generally easier in PvP than combatants - again we are talking as a general rule here, something that if one player follows 1000 times, will see them end up with over all easier targets than if they didn't.

Since combatant status is something that can be seen from a great distance, it becomes the first of a list of criteria you look at when determining a target. Since all otehr criteria are different for different people, but the combatant flag status will be the same for all players wanting to PvP for profit, it stands to reason that if there was a toggle for players to flag as combatants, players that do not flag as combatants will be the people that those looking to PvP for profit go after.

This is not a complex idea.

You want an easy target in PvP, you are presented with someone welcoming PvP, and someone not welcoming PvP. If you are given this choice 1000 times and always pick the player that is not welcoming PvP, you will generally have an easier time than if you always pick the player that is welcoming PvP - as such, with your system, non-combatants would be obvious targets for peopel wanting to PvP for profit, and if they opted to flag as combatants to try and get around this they would then be mistaken for players that are inviting PvP.

It leaves them in a lose/lose situation.

To your credit, I refuse to believe you do not understand this basic premise - you are not that stupid, we both know this. That means you are refusing to understand on purpose - you can't make someone understand something if it is their best interests to not understand it.

Feel free to drop that act now.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

If my needs are targets that are profitable, I want easier targets.

Green players are generally easier in PvP than combatants - again we are talking as a general rule here, something that if one player follows 1000 times, will see them end up with over all easier targets than if they didn't.

Easier target for you will be based on classes that you can beat not based on flagging status. This is where your entire point falls apart. If there is a hard counter for your class their non combat status has no viability for being an easier target. The fact you don't understand that classes are going to be the biggest determining factor in finding easy targets for your own class is sad.

I would think it's reasonable to assume most of us that went out to gather solo probably wouldn't toggle for combatant unless we preferred the idea of pvp while doing so. Which means that the majority of the server population would be non combatant doing that activity - even if the majority of the server population prefers to pvp more often than not. You can't quantify green as being a passive player since all players will toggle back and forth. You will have no measure of reason to expect a player to be bad at pvp based solely on their flagging status.

In the same way do you consider all Red's the hardest to pvp against? Your logic should be that in a zone of 100 people you would seek out the corrupt players as they would drop the most materials and possibly gear and if they're corrupt it means they killed people which also gave them the most loot. Your reasoning is flawed beyond measure.

Keern

for love of steven.. no pvp toggle. It takes away from the games flavor, is abuseable, creates this pressure to opt out of pvp since when opting into pvp your at an disadvantage.

CROW3

How is it abusable?

Dolyem

Keern wrote: »

for love of steven.. no pvp toggle. It takes away from the games flavor, is abuseable, creates this pressure to opt out of pvp since when opting into pvp your at an disadvantage.

its not a toggle to opt-out of pvp, just to switch on a constant combatant status

Child Item