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

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

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

It's perfectly valid, you just don't agree with it.

Ultimately, this thread is pages and pages of opinions that folks are trying to turn into objective fact. I like this idea. That's my opinion. If the devs implement it, I'll use it. If you don't like it, you don't need a reason - just don't use it.

Life just isn't that complicated, brother.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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

It's perfectly valid, you just don't agree with it.

You want it to find PvP, in a game where you can literally attack any player you see.

There is no need to look for PvP in Ashes - PvP is literally everywhere.

If you don't like it, you don't need a reason - just don't use it.

The problem with this is when the suggestion being made alters the way others play in relation to me.

This is the same reason why I will never argue for a full instanced raid progression in Ashes. If your argument here were valid, it would also be perfectly valid to attempt to point out that if someone doesn't like instanced raids, they don't need to use them. Problem is, the presence of a full instanced raiding progression in a game like Ashes will alter player behavior, and so the notion of "if you don't like it, don't use it" doesn't work there.

Likewise, it doesn't work here. A toggle will alter the way the game plays, regardless of if an individual player uses it or not.

Caeryl

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.

This is by far the least compelling argument you could give. If purple means you invite and expect PvP, green now means you do not want and do not anticipate PvP. It automatically paints greens as easier targets less willing to fight back, and to be clear it doesn’t matter of that isn’t the case, all it has to be is the perception of truth and it now becomes almost mandatory to flag up in order to avoid “easy target” status. You’re not looking at the game as a whole, on top of not needing a toggle in order to send exactly the message you want to send.

If you invite PvP, start fights. If you want to fight, go to contested areas where PvP is more frequent. If you want to negate half your death penalty, stay alert so you’ll always be ready to flag up. For gods sake just add “Fight me” in your guild tag or title or your character name.

Nothing good comes from what you have stated you want the toggled state to imply. It is a net negative to impose expectations on a flag state that has been completely removed from player behavior. That is all a toggle does, removes context from flag states, context which players should be basing their approach on.

The only, absolutely only use, is to let greens flag on corrupted players. That’s it. And I can almost guarantee the devs will see that oversight and fix it without any sort of unneeded and inherently detrimental toggle.

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

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.

The system IS have put in place to incentivise fighting back is the lesser death penalty for being purple, which we don't appear to be able to do as a green against a red.

Trying to shout this point down with a "well, maybe it might maybe be something like this, maybe" point, guessing at an IS intention they haven't publicly made, is a rather weak argument.

CROW3

Caeryl wrote: »

This is by far the least compelling argument you could give. ... The only, absolutely only use, is to let greens flag on corrupted players. That’s it. And I can almost guarantee the devs will see that oversight and fix it without any sort of unneeded and inherently detrimental toggle.

Honestly, you're trying too hard. I don't need to provide an argument to convince you. You aren't a decision maker for IS, their features, or their roadmap. You can conjecture all you want about the potential impact of this flag on the broader game, which is fine. That's the entire point of this thread. Just keep in mind that we're in the realm of opinion, not objective, data-driven fact. The only way to really gauge the impact is to test it out, which Toast already provided the path by which that could happen.

LieutenantToast wrote: »

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!

So, yeah - I think it's a good idea. We should bring it up and see if IS agrees and interested in testing it out. If it tests poorly, and the team shelves it - I'll buy you a slice of whatever cake you want.

Caeryl

CROW3 wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

This is by far the least compelling argument you could give. ... The only, absolutely only use, is to let greens flag on corrupted players. That’s it. And I can almost guarantee the devs will see that oversight and fix it without any sort of unneeded and inherently detrimental toggle.

Honestly, you're trying too hard. I don't need to provide an argument to convince you. You aren't a decision maker for IS, their features, or their roadmap. You can conjecture all you want about the potential impact of this flag on the broader game, which is fine. That's the entire point of this thread. Just keep in mind that we're in the realm of opinion, not objective, data-driven fact. The only way to really gauge the impact is to test it out, which Toast already provided the path by which that could happen.

LieutenantToast wrote: »

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!

So, yeah - I think it's a good idea. We should bring it up and see if IS agrees and interested in testing it out. If it tests poorly, and the team shelves it - I'll buy you a slice of whatever cake you want.

It’s not conjecture to make simple logical steps from what you yourself have stated you want the toggle to imply. A toggle adds nothing positive, creates no new features, no positive chances on existing features. It cuts off player behavior from flag state, which is the entire purpose of having flag states, to reflect player behavior and inform those around them of that behavior.

This suggestion was made out of a lack of understanding behind the reasons for flag states (which is to reflect player behavior, and reward or penalize it as needed), and continues because some people are refusing to listen to basic logic here.

If purple means “I want to fight, I will fight” then you have created an environment in which green means “I don’t want to fight, I don’t intend to fight”. As I’ve already said and what you continue to ignore, is that these things do not depend on the reality of player behavior, it only depends on perception. It skews the whole PvP environment in a bad way.

CROW3

Caeryl wrote: »

If purple means “I want to fight, I will fight” then you have created an environment in which green means “I don’t want to fight, I don’t intend to fight” ... these things do not depend on the reality of player behavior, it only depends on perception. It skews the whole PvP environment in a bad way

Taking a green flag as 'I don't want to fight' is one possible inference - and if that's how you perceive what the interaction is going to be, then roll the dice and find out. It seems like you really want to logically be able to generalize behavior and intent, as opposed to individual behavior. But in a fight, all that matters is individual behavior - generalizations will only get in the way.

Also, keep in mind you won't be able to differentiate who has flagged themselves, and who was green and just got into a fight. If anything it adds more unpredictability and risk into the equation that not having it. The same way that it does, when I say "I'm going rock" before a R-P-S game.

Caeryl wrote: »

It skews the whole PvP environment in a bad way.

Objectively how so?

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

The system IS have put in place to incentivise fighting back is the lesser death penalty for being purple, which we don't appear to be able to do as a green against a red.

That is the incentive for fighting back against a combatant.

In terms of corrupt players, Intrepid placed the incentive on attacking them, not just fighting back. That incentive is that you don't lose non-combatant status, and the corrupt player is at a disadvantage due to stat loss. Different things come in to play in different situations, and what applies to a non-combatant when attacked by a combatant does not necessarily apply to a non-combatant attacked by a corrupt player.

Additionally, if this toggle were introduced, that incentive would be out the window as all a player would need to do is toggle as a combatant - there is no need to fight back. This kind of either kills your argument here, or offers you a very good reason as to why this toggle shouldn't happen - your call as to which one.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Taking a green flag as 'I don't want to fight' is one possible inference

Detail one other thing that could be inferred here.

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

Detail one other thing that could be inferred here.

- I’m baiting you into corruption
- I forgot to turn the toggle on
- I didn’t know there was a toggle
- I thought the toggle was account wide and didn’t realize this toon wasn’t toggled
- I’m testing to see how many players in a node would attack a green v. purple player

Shall I go on?

Caeryl

CROW3 wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

If purple means “I want to fight, I will fight” then you have created an environment in which green means “I don’t want to fight, I don’t intend to fight” ... these things do not depend on the reality of player behavior, it only depends on perception. It skews the whole PvP environment in a bad way

Taking a green flag as 'I don't want to fight' is one possible inference - and if that's how you perceive what the interaction is going to be, then roll the dice and find out. It seems like you really want to logically be able to generalize behavior and intent, as opposed to individual behavior. But in a fight, all that matters is individual behavior - generalizations will only get in the way.

Also, keep in mind you won't be able to differentiate who has flagged themselves, and who was green and just got into a fight. If anything it adds more unpredictability and risk into the equation that not having it. The same way that it does, when I say "I'm going rock" before a R-P-S game.

Caeryl wrote: »

It skews the whole PvP environment in a bad way.

Objectively how so?

There are literally no other logical inferences to be made. Anything else would require a huge of leap in logic, especially when, again, you yourself said you want to flag purple to show you want and welcome PvP.

It creates the atmosphere in which purple can safely be assumed to be inviting PvP. This is basic, elementary school logic, and an assertion you have already said you want. Then, obviously, green is by default perceived as less willing to fight back by the overall population. Players will generally see greens as easier targets, and your rare fringe cases of double bluffing or triple bluffing or whatever it is you want to throw out next, do not have any bearing at all on what the general perception is of greens and purples.

The community as a whole will not see greens as potential PvP experts luring them in (that’s the only reason those fringe cases would exist in the first place, to catch people off guard due to going against expectation), they see someone who didn’t want to flag up, so they probably don’t want, and aren’t ready for PvP. These are basic logical statements.

By all means try to provide some actual objective reason a toggle is a good idea. So far you’ve just repeated “I want people to know I want PvP” and that’s neither a good reason for reasons stated above, nor is a toggle remotely needed to let people know you want to PvP.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

That is the incentive for fighting back against a combatant.

In terms of corrupt players, Intrepid placed the incentive on attacking them, not just fighting back. That incentive is that you don't lose non-combatant status, and the corrupt player is at a disadvantage due to stat loss. Different things come in to play in different situations, and what applies to a non-combatant when attacked by a combatant does not necessarily apply to a non-combatant attacked by a corrupt player.

Additionally, if this toggle were introduced, that incentive would be out the window as all a player would need to do is toggle as a combatant - there is no need to fight back. This kind of either kills your argument here, or offers you a very good reason as to why this toggle shouldn't happen - your call as to which one.

Am I missing something?

If the incentive per your description here is to offer the non-combatant the option to "attack" what then changes that with a toggle if the non-combatant attacks and a toggle exists?

Tyrantor

Caeryl wrote: »

By all means try to provide some actual objective reason a toggle is a good idea. So far you’ve just repeated “I want people to know I want PvP” and that’s neither a good reason for reasons stated above, nor is a toggle remotely needed to let people know you want to PvP.

I'm not sure anyone needs to continue to try and appease you're unreasonable opinionated view on the reasons we would want it. It's very clear you do not want it while others of us do. If the Devs pick up the question you're welcome to ask them in the event they confirm one.

CROW3

Caeryl wrote: »

There are literally no other logical inferences to be made. Anything else would require a huge of leap in logic, especially when, again, you yourself said you want to flag purple to show you want and welcome PvP.

It creates the atmosphere in which purple can safely be assumed to be inviting PvP. This is basic, elementary school logic, and an assertion you have already said you want. Then, obviously, green is by default perceived as less willing to fight back by the overall population. Players will generally see greens as easier targets, and your rare fringe cases of double bluffing or triple bluffing or whatever it is you want to throw out next, do not have any bearing at all on what the general perception is of greens and purples.

The community as a whole will not see greens as potential PvP experts luring them in (that’s the only reason those fringe cases would exist in the first place, to catch people off guard due to going against expectation), they see someone who didn’t want to flag up, so they probably don’t want, and aren’t ready for PvP. These are basic logical statements.

By all means try to provide some actual objective reason a toggle is a good idea. So far you’ve just repeated “I want people to know I want PvP” and that’s neither a good reason for reasons stated above, nor is a toggle remotely needed to let people know you want to PvP.

Sathrago

Without a toggle you have no idea whether a green player wants to fight back or not.

With a toggle you have at least some idea that they do not want to fight back, but this is only a percentage of them. This is not the whole of green players.

Some green players will at the stage of being attacked still get to choose whether to fight or not. They can also make threat assessments much faster if a group of purples enter the area. Choosing to leave, stay as a green, or even flag up pre-imptively to both warn the new group and make sure they do not die while getting attacked during a mob pull (as a green) before retaliating.

So rather than saying that "green players are easy targets that dont wanna fight back", I would say green players want to reduce pvp interactions so that they can focus on pve but some of these players will defend themselves depending on who is attacking, when they are attacking, how many are attacking, and how much they stand to lose from dying as a green.

Caeryl wrote: »

By all means try to provide some actual objective reason a toggle is a good idea. So far you’ve just repeated “I want people to know I want PvP” and that’s neither a good reason for reasons stated above, nor is a toggle remotely needed to let people know you want to PvP.

Scroll back up and read my response to you. I feel it's pretty important on it's own even if you do not agree to my statements in this post.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Detail one other thing that could be inferred here.

- I’m baiting you into corruption
- I forgot to turn the toggle on
- I didn’t know there was a toggle
- I thought the toggle was account wide and didn’t realize this toon wasn’t toggled
- I’m testing to see how many players in a node would attack a green v. purple player

Shall I go on?

So, of those 5 reasons, the middle 3 of them can be considered as only player confusion, the last one is the use of the feature in order to gauge the use if the feature, and the first one is something that will happen without the feature.

These aren't exactly good arguments to add it. When I asked you to name ways that not flagging up would be taken to mean by other players, I was assuming you had actual reasons that it could be used - rather than a list of reasons as to why it shouldn't be added.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

That is the incentive for fighting back against a combatant.

In terms of corrupt players, Intrepid placed the incentive on attacking them, not just fighting back. That incentive is that you don't lose non-combatant status, and the corrupt player is at a disadvantage due to stat loss. Different things come in to play in different situations, and what applies to a non-combatant when attacked by a combatant does not necessarily apply to a non-combatant attacked by a corrupt player.

Additionally, if this toggle were introduced, that incentive would be out the window as all a player would need to do is toggle as a combatant - there is no need to fight back. This kind of either kills your argument here, or offers you a very good reason as to why this toggle shouldn't happen - your call as to which one.

Am I missing something?

If the incentive per your description here is to offer the non-combatant the option to "attack" what then changes that with a toggle if the non-combatant attacks and a toggle exists?

Without a toggle, if you are attacked by a player you know will kill you, but don't want to suffer non-combatant penalties, you need to actually attack the player. With the toggle, you just need to toggle combatant on and are under no obligation at all to fight back.

This is a clear lack of incentive in fighting back when you know you will lose, which is defeating the point of having lesser death penalties for combatants.

Remember, the point of the lesser death penalties is to encourage people to fight back, not to encourage people to flag as a combatant. As such, actual fighting back is what needs to trigger the lesser penalties,not simply flagging. This is currently accomplished by making these two things one and the same - the act of fighting back flags you as a combatant which lowers death penalties.

Break that chain by allowing players to flag without fighting back, and the lower death penalties need to be removed from flag state and somehow added to whether or not the player fought back - since that is the intention of those lesser penalties.

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

These aren't exactly good arguments to add it. When I asked you to name ways that not flagging up would be taken to mean by other players, I was assuming you had actual reasons that it could be used - rather than a list of reasons as to why it shouldn't be added.

I wasn't providing you an argument, but providing other possibilities as to why a player would be flagged green if a toggle were available. i.e.:

Noaani wrote: »

Detail one other thing that could be inferred here.

I agree that some portion of those players that are green won't want to pvp (which is what @Sathrago just stated). You seem to be attempting to argue it's the only logical reason, which it isn't, it just may be the reason you want. Again - opinion v. logic.

Feel free to keep going, I'm totally amused by this little dance.

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

Without a toggle, if you are attacked by a player you know will kill you, but don't want to suffer non-combatant penalties, you need to actually attack the player. With the toggle, you just need to toggle combatant on and are under no obligation at all to fight back.

So, a Red attacks a Green, and the Green is in the situation you described: they know the Red is going to kill them.

Their current options are to do nothing and die and take the full death penalty hit, or to fight back and die and take the full death penalty hit.

Either way, they're going to die and take the full death penalty hit.

However, if there's a toggle, they're given the choice either to flag combatant to save the additional death penalty, or to stay green and inflict a higher Corruption hit on their attacker.

The toggle introduces choice on the part of the victim.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Remember, the point of the lesser death penalties is to encourage people to fight back, not to encourage people to flag as a combatant. As such, actual fighting back is what needs to trigger the lesser penalties,not simply flagging. This is currently accomplished by making these two things one and the same - the act of fighting back flags you as a combatant which lowers death penalties.

You do understand they only have to "encourage" people to fight back because of a corruption system in the first place right?

If someone is willing to open themselves to combat before or during a fight then they should get the corresponding death penalty since they are negating the corruption penalty for anyone attacking them which in turn eliminates the need for a non-combatant death penalty.

Noaani wrote: »

In terms of corrupt players, Intrepid placed the incentive on attacking them, not just fighting back.

@Noaani This is what I was referencing above which you conveniently neglected to ignore in your response, @daveywavey just owned you, much like everyone has been doing here.

Child Item