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

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

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?

I like that I'm bringing truth into the conversation, which means either your previous statement was false or that you were unaware of the conceptual elements of the corruption system all together. It's obvious I view the change to be within the current system.

If you can share what exactly would be considered needed to "completely alter" the open world pvp I can respond to your phrase, as it's worded that is a very vague and biased question which I do not believe has any merit in a general sense.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I'm actually not sure how your response even correlates with what I said. I mean what perspective does everyone else have who chooses not to use it? My statement in theory encompasses everyone in the game as they would have the option, just as they do under the "fight back" encouragement that you've so proudly pointed out. How is it different? If a player could be encouraged to fight back why then could they not be encouraged to flag themselves if given the option to do so if both scenarios have the same result? The result of flagging for combatant is not creating a 3rd dimension that is going to alter the system.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Hmm out of curiosity what games would it work well in if not Ashes? It's interesting to me that you're conceding it would work well veiled by the generalization of other games (or rather "some" games).

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Does it not seem like you've been owned when you have to then conceded the same situation you've included as an example of proof can not be used?

The points you raise are weak and flawed at best and should the development team confirm no toggle I would still consider your points to be mute on the basis of presentation based on the current information presented. Throughout this thread you've raised your hand and said "yeah but" only to then ignore the response you received completely or take a fragment of the response and try to divert the discussion nearly at all times never addressing the counter point raised to your discussion.

As a prime immediate example, you've still yet to explain how the non-combatant who initiates the attack of a corrupt player is in fact no longer "incentivized" to do so with the toggle being an option in the game.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Can we agree that’s the progress of the discussion thus far?

Indeed we can, that is how the discussion has gone.

Each of the points you make absolutely are reasons why a player may be flagged green in the presence of a toggle. No doubt.

The problem is, if these are the reasons a player may be green, this is a further reason to not have the toggle.

Rather than a toggle being an indicator that a player is not wanting PvP at that point in time, it is now essentially an indicator that the player either doesn't want PvP, or is confused about the game.

So, you absolutely answered the question asked of you. That isn't the point I am making. The point I am making is that in answering the question, you kind of proved one aspect of the point as to why a toggle is a bad idea.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

I like that I'm bringing truth into the conversation

No you don't, you bring misidrection to the conversation. You attempt to divert the topic away from points that matter and where the toggle wouold make a difference, to specific points that don't matter because the toggle won't make a difference either way.

I am unsure if you are doing this on purpose, or if you truely are not comprheniding the over all discussion.

A prime example of this can be found further down in your post, right here

As a prime immediate example, you've still yet to explain how the non-combatant who initiates the attack of a corrupt player is in fact no longer "incentivized" to do so with the toggle being an option in the game.

This specific situation is not something that needs to be discussed in this thread, as the toggle has no specific impact on it.

Your insistence that I am attempting to avoid this point is an attempt at misdirection, as far as I am concerned, as this is not a point that needs to be discussed in this topic.

I'm actually not sure how your response even correlates with what I said. I mean what perspective does everyone else have who chooses not to use it? My statement in theory encompasses everyone in the game as they would have the option, just as they do under the "fight back" encouragement that you've so proudly pointed out.

It is not taking in to consideration the perspective of those that actualyl do not want PvP at that point in time.

These people would have to remain as non-combatants - obviously - and with a toggle like you suggest, non-combatants would be like a beacon to players wanting PvP for profit (as I have explained to you in the past - where again you attempted to misdirect the point in to the inane - and also attempted to claim that disproving an analogous example I gave to assist in explination would disprove the entire point).

The change to these players is that non-combat status has moved from being the default status that everyone not in combat with another player recently has, to being a status that only those specifically not wanting combat for a specific reason would have, making them obvious targets.

This is a fundamental change to the game.

Hmm out of curiosity what games would it work well in if not Ashes? It's interesting to me that you're conceding it would work well veiled by the generalization of other games (or rather "some" games).

Archeage is one game, mostly because it has a toggle (though it is short duration, rather than always on).

Since Archeage is the most recent game Steven has played, and a lot of the systems in Ashes are based around it, you can be sure that he considered the possiblity of a toggle, and has already rejected it.

Does it not seem like you've been owned when you have to then conceded the same situation you've included as an example of proof can not be used?

I didn't come up with that situation, @Sathrago did. I simply agree that it is potentially (note - potentially) the one and only valid reason to want a toggle - though there are also other ways to deal with that situation that wouldn't require a toggle.

If you were actually following the conversation rather than trying to find little bits where you can attempt to trip me up, you would have known that.

This is why you claiming to be "bringing truth to the conversation" is so amusing to me. You aren't even following the conversation, let alone bringing truth to it.

Tyrantor

Ok maybe I should break this down like @CROW3 is doing to make this easier for you to respond to. See below.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

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 is what you said in a response to @daveywavey and while the general concept has been raised by @Sathrago - it wasn't him who suggested that the incentive "goes out the window".

I've been asking you to clarify this for 2 pages now remember where I said "am I missing something"? Did you find that to be some form of misdirection?

How then does the incentive to attack (not just fight back) "go out the window" when a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player? Did you misspeak here? It's OK if you did but please own up to it rather than just claiming I'm using your response as some form of misdirection - how absurd.

I'll get to the rest of your response after you clarify as not to misdirect you further.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

I've been asking you to clarify this for 2 pages now remember where I said "am I missing something"? Did you find that to be some form of misdirection?

Yes, you were missing something.

That text you pulled is talking about two incentives from two scenarios, not one. Again, something you should have picked up if you were actually following the conversation - the context for it all was right there.

The incentive as the game is now when a non-combatant sees a corrupt player is to attack.

The corrupt player has stat loss, and should they attack you anyway you are in no position to flag as a combatant and so will suffer full death penalties. Fighting back against a corrupt player is the best bet you have to hold on to as much of your materials as you can. You may lose, but on balance it is your best option.

Should a toggle exist, toggling is likely the best bet you have for holding on to as much of your materials as you can, and there is no specific incentive to fight back. Since the scenario in question was a player that is most likely going to kill you, the best thing a non-combatant could do in this situation is flag up and wait to be killed.

It is also worth pointing out that a corrupt player attacking a combatant doesn't gain additional corruption, and a big part of the detraction to gaining corruption is how easily it can snowball. A part of the reason it can snowball is because non-combatants can attack you without becoming combatants, and thus killing them will require you to take on even more corruption.

Change things so that a non-combatant can simply flag up as a combatant in order to suffer half penalties and all of a sudden the sting of being corrupt is a lot less painful.

I'm really not sure how people could see this as anything other than a fundamental change to the core of teh open world PvP system in Ashes - one that would require multiple other alterations in order to make work.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Change things so that a non-combatant can simply flag up as a combatant in order to suffer half penalties and all of a sudden the sting of being corrupt is a lot less painful.

I'm really not sure how people could see this as anything other than a fundamental change to the core of teh open world PvP system in Ashes - one that would require multiple other alterations in order to make work.

Since the first 4 paragraphs of your post was you simply repeating yourself i'll reply to this.

I'm even more confused now, "the sting of being corrupt is a lot less painful" does it not seem like it would be worse for the corrupted players? All of the non-combatants could attack them with less risk no? Seems more likely to me that non combatants would be more incentivized to attack corrupt players if they could mitigate their losses at will.

If the corruption system is in place to discourage going corrupt it should be about that and not about snowballing further corruption or penalizing non-combatants by forcing a non combatant state on them in the ironic fashion of "saving them" from the combatant state to avoid baiting for other people to kill them.

Do you agree or not?

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Since the first 4 paragraphs of your post was you simply repeating yourself i'll reply to this.

I'm even more confused now, "the sting of being corrupt is a lot less painful" does it not seem like it would be worse for the corrupted players? All of the non-combatants could attack them with less risk no?

They could flag up and attack, if they decided to do that.

The thing is, the sting to corruption is in how it can snowball. A small amount of corruption isn't an issue - a lot of corruption is a big issue. The reason a small amount of corruption should be avoided is not because of the penalties of a small amount of corruption, it is because of how easily that small amount of corruption could turn in to a large amount of corruption.

Make it so players can flag up as a combatant to take on a corrupt player, and you kill that snowball effect, taking the sting out of corruption.

As I said several pages ago, the reason we can not assume that Intrepid would want players to be able to flag up against corrupt players is because it is essentially a part of the design that corruption snowballs. Allowing players to flag up removes that snowballing, and as such is a fundamental change to the system.

Now, it may well be that Intrepid want to give players a way to lower their penalty against corrupt players. However, if they did decide to allow players to do that, they would need to do it in a way where the snowballing effect of corruption were kept in place, which means the toggle system as proposed absolutely would not be the method they would look at.

Again, this is the point I conceded where a toggle could potentially make things easier for one group of players in one situation, but as I also said at the time, it seems as if Intrepid are focusing more on the corrupt players in that regard, not the non-combatants. Additionally, as I also said, if it did turn out that Intrepid wanted to do something for these players, there are things that they could do other than a toggle, or they could even do a toggle that only workd on corrupt players, so as an arguement as to why a toggle should exist, this particular point (even though I concede is a singular case where a toggle could be useful) is not really pointing to said toggle being the best answer.

If the corruption system is in place to discourage going corrupt it should be about that and not about snowballing further corruption or penalizing non-combatants by forcing a non combatant state on them in the ironic fashion of "saving them" from the combatant state to avoid baiting for other people to kill them.

Do you agree or not?

I'm not sure what the part you want me to agree to here is - because I disagree with the "if" part of what you are asking here.

The corruption system is not designed to discourage players going corrupt, it is designed to stop players being murder hobos.

The way it stops this happening is by being a penalty that snowballs.

The penalty for killing one or two non-combatants is essnetially trivial. The penalty for killing 10 or 20 is crippling. This is by design.

Tyrantor

This seems comical to me. Are you Bill Clinton? What is the definition of "is"? lol.

Look you clearly missed the entire concept of the corruption system as spelled out currently. The corruption is 100% in place to discourage someone from killing a non combatant first and foremost. This in part is designed to punish a player that removes player agency from another. However the ironic side of the whole corrupt player attacking a non-combatant is then the corruption system removes player agency from non combatants who get attacked (or initiate the attack) by forcing a flagging state on them.

I'll spell this out for you.

Non-combatant Tyrantor kills non-combatant Noaani - Tyrantor removed player agency from Noaani.
Tyrantor becomes corrupt.
Tyrantor attacks non-combatant CROW3 - Corruption system removes player agency from CROW3 if he attacks back or not by forcing non combatant flagging on him.

Do you see the flaw in the system design here when player agency is removed? No probably not?

This means that once I'm corrupt anyone I attack (or that attacks me) the game then is forcing death penalties on the player base regardless of their actions all because I'm corrupt. Once I go corrupt the game actually punishes the player base the same way the game is trying to "protect" the player base.

I'll agree that the punishment for continuing to kill non-combatants is that the corruption get's worse for the corrupt player by no means however should this be the basis for the game removing player agency in the same way that killing a player does.

The toggle does not remove a snowball effect it just gives the attacked or attacking non-combatant the option to then force further corruption on the corrupt player (a.k.a) player agency - which you know is the primary reason for causing corruption in the first place.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Do you see the flaw in the system design here when player agency is removed? No probably not?

As I have said several times now, very clearly and by using very small words, yes, I do.

I see this as the one and only time there could be a valid reason for a toggle - however, there are other options that would only apply to this singular situation that Intrepid could look to use in order to fix this singular situation - if they deem it to not be as they intend it to be.

Is that clear enough for you?

They do not need to add in a fundamental change to the PvP system in order to solve this one potential situation - which is what your argument now seems to be focused on them doing.

Tyrantor

The focus above was just to finally agree on a point related to the toggle as one aspect that could be fixed, it will lead to more solutions as it relates to the corruption system interfering with player agency.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

The focus above was just to finally agree on a point related to the toggle as one aspect that could be fixed, it will lead to more solutions as it relates to the corruption system interfering with player agency.

No, the "focus" was to get you up to speed on what was discussed several pages back.

As I said back then as well, *IF* Intrepid see this as an issue (they may, they may not), the a toggle isn't the immediate remedy for it, as a toggle as suggested is a large sweeping change to the game, when all that is needed is a small alteration to address one potential scenario that could be handled better.

Sathrago

I believe we should talk more specifics with the 'toggle" so that this argument can grow a bit and maybe come to an understanding.

Rather than a toggle per say, how about a button that flags your character as a combatant for an amount of time equal to if you hit another player but with an equivalent cooldown. In addition, if you are a green player and deal damage to a red player this goes on cooldown, meaning you can choose to stay as a green or immediately turn purple.

I believe this would retain the players consent for pvp, choice to punish a corrupted player if they kill them, and make sure they can't exploit such a button to reduce loot drop when they start to lose a fight.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

I believe we should talk more specifics with the 'toggle" so that this argument can grow a bit and maybe come to an understanding.

Rather than a toggle per say, how about a button that flags your character as a combatant for an amount of time equal to if you hit another player but with an equivalent cooldown. In addition, if you are a green player and deal damage to a red player this goes on cooldown, meaning you can choose to stay as a green or immediately turn purple.

I believe this would retain the players consent for pvp, choice to punish a corrupted player if they kill them, and make sure they can't exploit such a button to reduce loot drop when they start to lose a fight.

In terms of a toggle, this is not necessarily a bad suggestion (I would want a longer cooldown on it than this though).

However, I still question the need for it. It is needing to address too many issues that it is creating itself, and is also trying to address an issue that should be addressed elsewhere.

I personally think the remedy to the corrupt player fighting the non-combatant needs to be something that keeps the non-combatant status on that player - unless the corruption system is altered so that a corrupt player attacking a combatant still gains corruption (which would have other consequences that I wouldn't want to go in to right now - and so wouldn't suggest).

To me, this is the biggest change the toggle would have - and I don't think the implications of it can be overstated.

This is why my suggestion several pages ago of altering the death penalty (at least in terms of resource drops) for a non-combatant that is killed by a corrupt player seems to still make the most sense to me.

It surely isn't the only remedy, I don't for a second doubt that. However, it is the only remedy suggested here that retains the snowballing effect of corruption that is designed in to the game at present - and as such that we have to assume is intended. The toggle being asked for here does not in any way need to be the remedy to this specific situation.

What I could see, as a means of providing what was actually asked for in the OP, is the ability to place an icon above your characters head signifying that you are open to any and all PvP. No mechanic or system implications, just a signifier that the player is up for a fight. Since this is what the OP actually wanted - a means of letting others know they are up for PvP - I see no real reason to make a system that does any more than letting others know they are up for PvP.

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

What I could see, as a means of providing what was actually asked for in the OP, is the ability to place an icon above your characters head signifying that you are open to any and all PvP. No mechanic or system implications, just a signifier that the player is up for a fight. Since this is what the OP actually wanted - a means of letting others know they are up for PvP - I see no real reason to make a system that does any more than letting others know they are up for PvP.

Surely that would have the same effect as what you've been worried about. Players with it would be seen as the harder target, and players without it would be seen as the easier target.

Sathrago

Lets not forget that this is all assuming that there are no guilds/alliances at war with each other. Ultimately even if there is no toggle players can just at war other guilds to permanently be flagged against them. That will become the alternative if there is no toggle.

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

What I could see, as a means of providing what was actually asked for in the OP, is the ability to place an icon above your characters head signifying that you are open to any and all PvP. No mechanic or system implications, just a signifier that the player is up for a fight. Since this is what the OP actually wanted - a means of letting others know they are up for PvP - I see no real reason to make a system that does any more than letting others know they are up for PvP.

Surely that would have the same effect as what you've been worried about. Players with it would be seen as the harder target, and players without it would be seen as the easier target.

It would, but the effects of it would be much more slight, because significantly fewer people would use it.

The issue with the toggle is that using it would technically be "the best" thing for most players to do most of the time, even if they are not specifically wanting PvP at the time.

An icon that says a player is open to PvP would only be used by those open to PvP, as there is no reason to use it other than that.

Percimes

Sathrago wrote: »

Lets not forget that this is all assuming that there are no guilds/alliances at war with each other. Ultimately even if there is no toggle players can just at war other guilds to permanently be flagged against them. That will become the alternative if there is no toggle.

Yeah, it's crazy how the simplest ways to find pvp is not seeking random people in the world but actually participate in pvp oriented activities that flag you, and your opponents, as combatants. Who would have thought hehe.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

This is why my suggestion several pages ago of altering the death penalty (at least in terms of resource drops) for a non-combatant that is killed by a corrupt player seems to still make the most sense to me.

It surely isn't the only remedy, I don't for a second doubt that. However, it is the only remedy suggested here that retains the snowballing effect of corruption that is designed in to the game at present - and as such that we have to assume is intended. The toggle being asked for here does not in any way need to be the remedy to this specific situation.

What I could see, as a means of providing what was actually asked for in the OP, is the ability to place an icon above your characters head signifying that you are open to any and all PvP. No mechanic or system implications, just a signifier that the player is up for a fight. Since this is what the OP actually wanted - a means of letting others know they are up for PvP - I see no real reason to make a system that does any more than letting others know they are up for PvP.

You can't reduce the death penalty for the non-combatant dying at the hands of a corrupt player as then the consequences for killing a non combatant should be reduced as well. In addition that seems like an odd suggestion considering one of your arguments related to the toggle was then the player would just toggle and not fight back.

My OP while it mentions the need to let others know you're open to combat, the primary purpose of the post was to avoid unintended non-combatant death and corruption on groups of players who were consensual to combat. A icon would not require any risk, while the flagging toggle would. For example if you remain a noncombatant while having an icon placed above your characters head if you were attacked by someone or someone's whom you knew in advance was going to crush you there would be the opportunity for the non combatant to never flag up which causes the corruption.

The system needs to be a firm combatant flagging period. In terms of the button to flag for the same duration as current combatant lasts for with a equal or longer cool down, I can't really say until we're given more information on that. Personally I like the idea of opening myself for combat until I choose not to be instead of having to juggle a timer. Since the timer could burn off and have the same negative consequences the current non-combatant state would have in relation to group combat, focus fire and stuns.

Sathrago

Tyrantor wrote: »

The system needs to be a firm combatant flagging period. In terms of the button to flag for the same duration as current combatant lasts for with a equal or longer cool down, I can't really say until we're given more information on that. Personally I like the idea of opening myself for combat until I choose not to be instead of having to juggle a timer. Since the timer could burn off and have the same negative consequences the current non-combatant state would have in relation to group combat, focus fire and stuns.

The fix for this would be to have the duration either reset or not run out while in combat with an enemy player.

The reason I suggested a button that you need to juggle is basically to have it cut out the middle man issue of "attacking another player to flag". The idea is to give you the freedom to turn on combatant at any time but prevent you from exploiting the system for mechanical bonuses outside of their intended use.

Tyrantor

Percimes wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Lets not forget that this is all assuming that there are no guilds/alliances at war with each other. Ultimately even if there is no toggle players can just at war other guilds to permanently be flagged against them. That will become the alternative if there is no toggle.

Yeah, it's crazy how the simplest ways to find pvp is not seeking random people in the world but actually participate in pvp oriented activities that flag you, and your opponents, as combatants. Who would have thought hehe.

This is the most updated information regarding guild wars per LT Toast response after the Q&A last month: Guild wars will likely be within that primetime window based on victory/surrender conditions, but this will almost certainly be subject to further testing.

As it stands this would mean that if you're logged in the game during a non-prime time window there may be no guild war or guild war flagging system available. Furthermore we have no current understanding of how many guilds can declare a guild war on - there are too many unknowns related to that at present. Furthermore I believe that open world pvp with consenting groups should not be subjected to a corruption system regardless if you can guild war everyone on the server or not.

Child Item