Combatant Opt-In

So the toggle not only is used to enable players to aimlessly run around the world looking for other combat flagged people

it is also used for the players to "choose to avoid maximum death penalties" from a charging red player, effectivelly bypassing the games design for concequenses of actions

in order for the victim to feel like they have a choice on how to... victim, you know because fighting a red player as a green player and losing will totally give you the full death penalty experience, even though you were just fighting, but the devs dont know that.

Great stuff, keep em coming.

14 pages filled mostly by 4 names, for for the sake of the coding of an additional button which does what hitting a player (turning purple) does, fightout having to hit anybody.

CROW3 wrote: »

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.

Yeah, I just assumed they would be reasons that add to the value of a toggle, not reasons that directly detract from it.

I mean, my bad for making an assumption, but I would have thought that if you were going to argue that there were more assumptions that could be made for remaining a non-combatant, you would at least list assumptions that made the toggle worth adding as opposed to providing more reasons as to why it shouldn't be added.

Noaani wrote: »

I mean, my bad for making an assumption, but I would have thought that if you were going to argue that there were more assumptions that could be made for remaining a non-combatant, you would at least list assumptions that made the toggle worth adding as opposed to providing more reasons as to why it shouldn't be added.

Lol. You asked a question. I answered it. Any additional assumptions you had are on you. 😂

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I mean, my bad for making an assumption, but I would have thought that if you were going to argue that there were more assumptions that could be made for remaining a non-combatant, you would at least list assumptions that made the toggle worth adding as opposed to providing more reasons as to why it shouldn't be added.

Lol. You asked a question. I answered it. Any additional assumptions you had are on you. 😂

I did literally say it was my bad for making that assumption.

I do, however, finding intriguing that a list of reasons to not have toggle would be in anyway used as an argument for it to be added.

Noaani wrote: »

I did literally say it was my bad for making that assumption.

My bad, brother. I misread your tone. 🙂

I’ll reply to your second point later when I’m not multitasking.

Caeryl

George Black wrote: »

So the toggle not only is used to enable players to aimlessly run around the world looking for other combat flagged people

it is also used for the players to "choose to avoid maximum death penalties" from a charging red player, effectivelly bypassing the games design for concequenses of actions

in order for the victim to feel like they have a choice on how to... victim, you know because fighting a red player as a green player and losing will totally give you the full death penalty experience, even though you were just fighting, but the devs dont know that.

Great stuff, keep em coming.

14 pages filled mostly by 4 names, for for the sake of the coding of an additional button which does what hitting a player (turning purple) does, fightout having to hit anybody.

Because you do not become a combatant by pressing a button, you become a combatant by entering combat. Literally, hitting another player is entering combat. Clicking a button is not combat. Why in the world should it be framed as combat? Why can’t you find combat like everyone else can? Why do you feel like a toggle is a benefit to the game?

Caeryl wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

So the toggle not only is used to enable players to aimlessly run around the world looking for other combat flagged people

it is also used for the players to "choose to avoid maximum death penalties" from a charging red player, effectivelly bypassing the games design for concequenses of actions

in order for the victim to feel like they have a choice on how to... victim, you know because fighting a red player as a green player and losing will totally give you the full death penalty experience, even though you were just fighting, but the devs dont know that.

Great stuff, keep em coming.

14 pages filled mostly by 4 names, for for the sake of the coding of an additional button which does what hitting a player (turning purple) does, fightout having to hit anybody.

Because you do not become a combatant by pressing a button, you become a combatant by entering combat. Literally, hitting another player is entering combat. Clicking a button is not combat. Why in the world should it be framed as combat? Why can’t you find combat like everyone else can? Why do you feel like a toggle is a benefit to the game?

Omg.......
Imagine failing that hard.

Read my last sentence from the post you quoted. Slowly.

Tyrantor

@Noaani I take it you don't like my rebuttal you went mute on me my friend.

Tyrantor

Caeryl wrote: »

Because you do not become a combatant by pressing a button, you become a combatant by entering combat. Literally, hitting another player is entering combat. Clicking a button is not combat.

Does this mean you'll be communicating with your in game character through some digital form of telekinesis - not sure the rest of us can compete with you sir. I mean.. a button to attack or a button to flag sort of both buttons.

daveywavey wrote: »

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.

As I have said, I can see a singular argument in the one specific case of a corrupt player attacking a non-combatant - but this is very dependent on Intrepids intention here.

We know that their intention is that if you are a non-combatant and are attacked by a non-corrupt player, the system is set up to incentivise you to fight back. If you fight back, at the very least you will suffer half the death penalties. We all know this, no one is debating it - yet the toggle suggestion breaks this and no one asking for the toggle wants to address that fact.

Now, even though we know this is the intention of the system in this circumstance, your above statement would ONLY hold true if that was also the intention when a player is corrupt and is attacking a non-combatant. We don't know for sure that this is the case - it may well be that there are other things that Intrepid have placed a higher importance on in this situation.

Again, we do not know, and so this one situation can not really be used as literally the only situation in which people wanting this toggle point to as a reason to add it to the game.

The other thing to point out here is that if it is NOT Intrepids intention to put players in this situation, a toggle is not the only means to avoid this situation, and even if a toggle was teh desired option, they could simply make it a toggle that only applies if you force attack a corrupt player - which would then prevent the entire notion of the flagging system being broken by this toggle as I mentioned above.

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani I take it you don't like my rebuttal you went mute on me my friend.

Not at all - my time has been in high demand ever since the world got turned upseide down earlier this year - I'm sorry if I don't reply to posts on a game forum in the order you would prefer.

Tyrantor wrote: »

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?

While this is true, by bringing this in to the conversation, you are essentially pointing out that in order to add in this toggle, Intrepid would need to completely alter their open world PvP system - as this change fundamentally changes how it would function.

So, are you saying that Intrepid should completely alter their open world PvP system in order to accomodate this toggle, or will you go back to the point I was making and attempt to refute it within the context of the system we have now?

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.

Once again, you are only looking at it from the perspective of people using it, not from the perspective of what that means for everyone else.

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.

It's interesting that this is how you view this thread.

The way I see this thread is a few people talking about a system that would work well in some games, but not in Ashes.

I'm wondering if you still consider all the posts you made in relation to how you thought it was Intrepids current intention to have a toggle as you "owning" me, and also how you view the posts I made in relation to how that isn't a current part of the plan.

I mean, at the time I know you thought you were "owning" me, but that is a fairly hard stance to maintain right now.

When you do get around to asking this question in a Q&A and the answer that comes back as a no - will you still think all of the posts you have made on this topic in reply to me are you "owning" me? Because that is the answer you will get, a toggle alters too many incentives that Intrepid have set in to the system, and so won't be implemented.

Caeryl

George Black wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

So the toggle not only is used to enable players to aimlessly run around the world looking for other combat flagged people

it is also used for the players to "choose to avoid maximum death penalties" from a charging red player, effectivelly bypassing the games design for concequenses of actions

in order for the victim to feel like they have a choice on how to... victim, you know because fighting a red player as a green player and losing will totally give you the full death penalty experience, even though you were just fighting, but the devs dont know that.

Great stuff, keep em coming.

14 pages filled mostly by 4 names, for for the sake of the coding of an additional button which does what hitting a player (turning purple) does, fightout having to hit anybody.

Because you do not become a combatant by pressing a button, you become a combatant by entering combat. Literally, hitting another player is entering combat. Clicking a button is not combat. Why in the world should it be framed as combat? Why can’t you find combat like everyone else can? Why do you feel like a toggle is a benefit to the game?

Omg.......
Imagine failing that hard.

Read my last sentence from the post you quoted. Slowly.

Failing to what? People literally think that occasionally attacking a player is so unreasonable that they think toggling on what should be an active and temporary state is somehow necessary. The generalized “you” isn’t some new thing, and the people insisting a toggle would be useful still haven’t answered the questions I posed.

Tyrantor wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Because you do not become a combatant by pressing a button, you become a combatant by entering combat. Literally, hitting another player is entering combat. Clicking a button is not combat.

Does this mean you'll be communicating with your in game character through some digital form of telekinesis - not sure the rest of us can compete with you sir. I mean.. a button to attack or a button to flag sort of both buttons.

Are you really going to pretend that engaging another player is the same as opening your menu to use a toggle? Your UI isn’t a player.

@caeryl i am against the toggle. Your reading abilities are terrible.

Caeryl

George Black wrote: »

@/caeryl i am against the toggle. Your reading abilities are terrible.

Ah I see you don't understand what "generalized 'you'" means.

edit: Here's a definition for you

In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic, impersonal, or indefinite you is the use of the pronoun you to refer to an unspecified person, as opposed to its standard use as the second-person pronoun. Generic you can often be used in the place of one, the third-person singular impersonal pronoun, in colloquial speech.

Caeryl wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

@/caeryl i am against the toggle. Your reading abilities are terrible.

Ah I see you don't understand what "generalized 'you'" means.

edit: Here's a definition for you

In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic, impersonal, or indefinite you is the use of the pronoun you to refer to an unspecified person, as opposed to its standard use as the second-person pronoun. Generic you can often be used in the place of one, the third-person singular impersonal pronoun, in colloquial speech.

Hahahha spare me the effort to appear knowledgeable mate.
You jumped the gun there and now you play spin doctors.

Anyway. Im out again. Keep argueing with the other three and try to reach 20 pages by friday on this topic.

Noaani wrote: »

I do, however, finding intriguing that a list of reasons to not have toggle would be in anyway used as an argument for it to be added.

Which reasons for not adding it?

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I do, however, finding intriguing that a list of reasons to not have toggle would be in anyway used as an argument for it to be added.

Which reasons for not adding it?

You have been told many times.
You just dont get it.

@Noaani seemed to be referencing something specific above.

I get your points fine, @George Black I just don't agree with them.

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I do, however, finding intriguing that a list of reasons to not have toggle would be in anyway used as an argument for it to be added.

Which reasons for not adding it?

Specifically the ones you listed - when asked to give examples of what a player remaining as a non-combatant should a toggle like this exist, you gave 5 examples. Of those 5, one was something that is not needed (baiting others in to PvP), three were outright player confusion, and one was using the feature to see what the point of the feature is.

Now, while you were listing ways that the toggle could mean something other than that non-combatant status would indicate that a player doesn't want PvP at that point in time, what you really did was list two neutral things and three negatives in regards to the idea of having a toggle over all.

I mean, if three of the five things you are able to think about in regards to what it would mean to be a non-combatant with this toggle can be described as player confusion, that is not a good argument as to why it should be added to the game.

As such, of the five things you listed, three of them are direct reasons as to why the toggle should not be added to the game, and the other two are totally neutral in this regard.