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

LieutenantToast

Hiya folks - ty for chiming in with your thoughts on flagging in this thread!

While this whole system and the corruption mechanic in general are something we'll be heavily testing with your help during Alpha and beyond, if you wanted to ask more specifically whether or not we were planning to implement a combatant opt-in that didn't require you to attack first, I might recommend dropping it in an upcoming live stream Q&A thread so our team can dive in further!

Caeryl

LieutenantToast wrote: »

Hiya! In the original example you provided:

Tyrantor wrote: »

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.

If both groups were originally flagged as non-combatant, they wouldn't gain corruption just for killing another non-combatant they would simply become combatants. If you were a combatant to begin with though and your opponents weren't, they would flag combatant as soon as they attacked you - to be more fair about giving them an opportunity to fight back if they weren't expecting it prior to their death!

While this whole system and the corruption mechanic in general are something we'll be heavily testing with your help during Alpha and beyond, if you wanted to ask more specifically whether or not we were planning to implement a combatant opt-in that didn't require you to attack first, I might recommend dropping it in an upcoming live stream Q&A thread so our team can dive in further!

Bruh you’re a mod and the info you just gave on flagging is completely wrong

A non-combatant group engaged on another non-combatant group, one group kills the enemy healer before they can flag up, the killing blow on that healer causes corruption.

This has been the way it’s been stated to work since day one. If you have access to sources that directly conflict the established understanding as stated by Steven and the rest of the development staff, please share. But as is, your info is just not accurate.

maouw

I think the chart said you become purple if you attack a green (not kill).

But best let Toast confirm.

George_Black

Caeryl wrote: »

LieutenantToast wrote: »

Hiya! In the original example you provided:

Tyrantor wrote: »

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.

If both groups were originally flagged as non-combatant, they wouldn't gain corruption just for killing another non-combatant they would simply become combatants. If you were a combatant to begin with though and your opponents weren't, they would flag combatant as soon as they attacked you - to be more fair about giving them an opportunity to fight back if they weren't expecting it prior to their death!

While this whole system and the corruption mechanic in general are something we'll be heavily testing with your help during Alpha and beyond, if you wanted to ask more specifically whether or not we were planning to implement a combatant opt-in that didn't require you to attack first, I might recommend dropping it in an upcoming live stream Q&A thread so our team can dive in further!

Bruh you’re a mod and the info you just gave on flagging is completely wrong

A non-combatant group engaged on another non-combatant group, one group kills the enemy healer before they can flag up, the killing blow on that healer causes corruption.

This has been the way it’s been stated to work since day one. If you have access to sources that directly conflict the established understanding as stated by Steven and the rest of the development staff, please share. But as is, your info is just not accurate.

Maybe she was referring to this topics proposed flagging toggle (a guy not in combat but flagged for combat).
Otherwise....
Toast!

Tyrantor

Looks like it was probably a typo regarding the non-combat killing attacking non-combat.

@LieutenantToast I will ask in the next Q&A thanks for stopping by.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Looks like it was probably a typo regarding the non-combat killing attacking non-combat.

LieutenantToast I will ask in the next Q&A thanks for stopping by.

Yeah, I think it would have just been a typo - either that, or we just had an announcement of a major change to the open PvP system.

And for sure, I think it's a good enough question to ask in a Q&A.

I am somewhat intereted to see if you still disagree with anything I've said in relation to how it is not currently the plan to have a toggle though.

Edit, I'm happy to carry on discussing the merits of the system though, if you want to carry on.

Tyrantor wrote: »

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.

While this may be true, it is also why I have been trying fairly hard to point out to you that I am not just talking about one attacker, or one defender. I even attempted to do this with the rock, paper, scissors analogy earlier - but I'll recap it for you.

While some classes will be harder for me to kill based on my class, there will be other players of other classes that are also out looking for PvP for profit - and the classes that I find easy they may find hard - while the classes I find hard they may find easy. However, both of us are likely to pick non-combatants over combatants - but then I am also not only talking about 2 people attacking, I am talking about hundreds of people looking at tens of thousands of potential targets, all of whom are going to look at combatant vs non-combatant as the first thing they look for, and then break off in to the individual things that each player is looking for.

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Looks like it was probably a typo regarding the non-combat killing attacking non-combat.

LieutenantToast I will ask in the next Q&A thanks for stopping by.

Yeah, I think it would have just been a typo

GUYS!

You just agreed on something!

Sathrago

daveywavey wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Looks like it was probably a typo regarding the non-combat killing attacking non-combat.

LieutenantToast I will ask in the next Q&A thanks for stopping by.

Yeah, I think it would have just been a typo

GUYS!

You just agreed on something!

I mean I have agreed with quite a few things on other threads with @Noaani its just that sometimes we cant agree on specific stuff. I'm sure @Tyrantor is the same.

daveywavey

Sathrago wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Looks like it was probably a typo regarding the non-combat killing attacking non-combat.

LieutenantToast I will ask in the next Q&A thanks for stopping by.

Yeah, I think it would have just been a typo

GUYS!

You just agreed on something!

I mean I have agreed with quite a few things on other threads with @Noaani its just that sometimes we cant agree on specific stuff. I'm sure @Tyrantor is the same.

DON'T RUIN OUR SPECIAL MOMENT!!! :'(

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

I am somewhat intereted to see if you still disagree with anything I've said in relation to how it is not currently the plan to have a toggle though.

Edit, I'm happy to carry on discussing the merits of the system though, if you want to carry on.

I won't have much to disagree with in regards to it not being part of the plan. As you may remember my original post in this thread was asking them to give us a toggle not assuming it existed. Since that opening post there have been video(s) that confirmed the toggle currently exists and a pre-alpha moderator who confirmed it would exist. My stance will still be in favor of the toggle regardless if it's part of the plan or not so no I wouldn't agree with your reasoning for not having one. I do not believe in forcing a default flagging state on everyone in the game especially when it has higher penalties for death, creates a false representation of how I want to be viewed in the open world and has adverse affects on larger group vs group open world conflict in regards to how the corruption system plays out.

I will say this, If the development team answers the question regardless of the answer it will at that point be in front of them and which ever direction they go is what happens. I wouldn't argue with them about it. So you won't see me jump on the forums and rant about how it's going to ruin the game if they don't offer a toggle, I hope you can agree to do the same if they confirm a toggle.

LieutenantToast

It was indeed a typo regarding attacking vs. killing, my apologies folks! I went ahead and updated my original post to alleviate any confusion on that front. Wrote a long post while looking at references and didn't go back and re-read fully before I hit that dreaded "send"

RIP me!

Here's what I was looking at for reference though, which is what some of you all had mentioned in this thread:

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Since that opening post there have been video(s) that confirmed the toggle currently exists and a pre-alpha moderator who confirmed it would exist.

And both of these things were more than adequately explained at the time.

Not having immediate access to a timestamp for an otherwise undocumented comment that Steven made several years ago, under his breath - as much a thought to himself as a comment to us - is not really reason in itself to not believe that what I was saying was true.

Fact is, a number of people jumped on misunderstood facts (the facts were true, the reasoning wasn't) and assumed that what they wanted was what was happening. I'm not blaming anyone for that, but when there is an obvious and reasonable explination of why those things exist (the toggle is needed for alpha testing, and a moderator is literally just a community member even if they happen to have alpha access), that shouldn't be as easily dismissed as it was.

Essentially, a number of people put their dislike for the argument I was making as to why I don't want a toggle like this ahead of listening to reason - and not surprisingly, reason won out.

So you won't see me jump on the forums and rant about how it's going to ruin the game if they don't offer a toggle, I hope you can agree to do the same if they confirm a toggle.

Other than the fact that I don't see them doing it, it would depend on their reasoning.

There are exactly two aspects of the game that have been stated that I openly disagree with Intrepid on, and have no reason at all to not voice that disagreement in regards to.

Should there be a discussion on combat trackers or the family summons, I am still more than happy to discuss why I think Intrepid are on the wrong track with those two specific decisions, and why the decisions they have made do not gel particularly well with other aspects of the game. Should they decide to add in a toggle like this, that will simply be a third topic in which I disagree with Intrepid.

Unless, of course, they give a solid reason behind adding it. Not an obvious misdirect of a reason as they gave for the combat tracker, nor a "we'll see how it tests out" as they did for the family summons - but an actual reason that I can see at least balancing out in terms of over all impact.

At the end of the day, there are two main groups that this toggle will impact. There are those that want PvP, and this will make it easier to find, then there are those that do not want PvP (at least, not at that point in time), and this will make it so that PvP is forced on them more.

To me, the balance of this comes in the fact that those wanting PvP in Ashes should never have any trouble in finding it, and so any change to the game to make that easier absolutely should not come at anyone else's expense.

I do not believe in forcing a default flagging state on everyone in the game

If the game (or people in it) can force you in to PvP, then there is no real reason to complain if it forces you in to a flagging state - especially not if that state can be changed with very little effort simply by attacking a non-corrupt player.

In terms of things players in Ashes are likely to be forced in to, flagging state is right at the bottom of the list in terms of importance and impact.

Keern

Dolyem wrote: »

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

You are right I just quickly read opt in and my new world trauma kicked in

a permament optin status seems fine too me

CROW3

Still a good idea.

Caeryl

CROW3 wrote: »

Still a good idea.

Once again please provide an actual, positive use that only a toggle can bring. It’s not necessary to find PvP. It’d remove context from flag states which players need in order to make informed decisions. Perma protecting halve your drops even when a coordinated enemy group is able to kill you before you can flag up (a very difficult task given all current information on combat).

It doesn’t bring anything positive to the table

CROW3

Use case: I’m always open to pvp, come have fun.

I’m going to attack you if you attack me, so at best you will always only get 50% the std drop. The flag is the most transparent way to say that.

If you don’t like it then don’t turn it on.

Sathrago

Caeryl wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Still a good idea.

Once again please provide an actual, positive use that only a toggle can bring. It’s not necessary to find PvP. It’d remove context from flag states which players need in order to make informed decisions. Perma protecting halve your drops even when a coordinated enemy group is able to kill you before you can flag up (a very difficult task given all current information on combat).

It doesn’t bring anything positive to the table

I have pointed out earlier in this thread that a toggle gives green players the option to flag up when attacked by a corrupted player. Currently, according to the flagging graph a green player cannot flag up when deciding to attack a red player if there is not toggle.

I believe this goes against the corruption system and pvp system's design of consent.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Still a good idea.

Once again please provide an actual, positive use that only a toggle can bring. It’s not necessary to find PvP. It’d remove context from flag states which players need in order to make informed decisions. Perma protecting halve your drops even when a coordinated enemy group is able to kill you before you can flag up (a very difficult task given all current information on combat).

It doesn’t bring anything positive to the table

I have pointed out earlier in this thread that a toggle gives green players the option to flag up when attacked by a corrupted player. Currently, according to the flagging graph a green player cannot flag up when deciding to attack a red player if there is not toggle.

I believe this goes against the corruption system and pvp system's design of consent.

While I agree that this may potentially be a singular potential positive to a toggle, it isn't something that is necessarily desired, and even if it were, it isn't providing enough of a boon to the game to make up for the negative aspects of a toggle.

As we discussed earlier, it may well be that the idea is that if you are a non-combatant attacked by a corrupt player, Intrepid want to give you every possible reason to fight back - and making it so you have no immediate way to flag as a combatant may well be a part of that. If this is the case (which I am sure you agree may well be), then this is simply one more detraction to a toggle, rather than a boon.

Then you have the fact that a toggle leaves all players not using it as obvious targets for all players that are PvP'ing for profit. This is a much bigger detraction in itself than the potential boon that the above could be assuming it is not Intrepids plan to give non-combatants every reason to fight corrupt players.

CROW3 wrote: »

Use case: I’m always open to pvp, come have fun.

I’m going to attack you if you attack me, so at best you will always only get 50% the std drop. The flag is the most transparent way to say that.

If you don’t like it then don’t turn it on.

You always have the option of attacking every player you see. You don't need to invite PvP, just attack other players and you'll get that PvP you want.

Honestly, of all the invalid reasons presented in this thread, this is the least valid reason for a toggle.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

[
Unless, of course, they give a solid reason behind adding it

Right so basically you'll be here crying about it? Got it.

Also what happened to that video you had.. you know the one you're going to produce later that proves your point? Wouldn't this be the time to post that up instead of saying "well not if they don't give me the answer I want"? lol

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Also what happened to that video you had.. you know the one you're going to produce later that proves your point?

My point was that there is no current plan to add a toggle.

I'm not overly concerned if you don't believe me about a comment made in a livestream or interview several years ago - that comment was not the point I was making.

I don't feel a need to provide a video for that now, and considering finding it could well take a dozen or more hours of my time (which is in short supply right now), I don't think I'll bother. Perhaps if you go through the back catalouge of videos that Intrepid have on the channel - and that the wiki have on theirs (though most of theirs are unlisted) you'll eventually come across it yourself.

As an added bonus to that, you will also find yourself more educated about this game, so it is a win for you either way.

Child Item