Sathrago wrote: » 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 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.
Tyrantor wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. Frankly I'm open to either option as I think they both at a minimum provide additional player agency. The concern I have about the timer situation is more to do with the unknown duration(s). For example if the duration is only 1-2 minutes it seems likely that you could be running around the open world in a group, see another group in the area move to engage them push the timed button - then they flee to avoid you while they heal/buff etc only to have them turn and engage you after your timer burns and if you got stun locked and killed while non combatant because your timer burned out while you were trying to catch them meh... lol
CROW3 wrote: » Yesterday was a shitty day, so my more thoughtful response is still in the works. In the meantime, this went through my brain and I thought it was funny and fitting...
Tyrantor wrote: » 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.
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.
Noaani wrote: » I'm having a really hard time picturing the use of a toggle as you are suggesting it right now. You suggest that it is for use during off peak times when guild wars and such aren't available, yet also suggest that it is to prevent unwanted non-combanat kills - a feat which would require a good many players attacking you at once. .
Tyrantor wrote: » Here is a great example of what I'm getting at
Tyrantor wrote: » Did you really just respond to that as if I was concerned people couldn't flag up for a caravan pvp event? The point was to illustrate how fast a target could die in open world pvp it had nothing to do with the caravan specifically. Furthermore your ratios are WAY off if you look at the video there were 2 maybe 3 people attacking Steven in total look at all the other players not even engaged in combat, one was running away 3 were too far away from the fight to even do anything lol. Yes its pre-alpha combat in addition to low level combat which is what we just saw no doubt about it however there will be no balance for 10 people focus fired on 1 person in a group combat situation. This is why a toggle needs to exist for open world pvp plain and simple.
Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Did you really just respond to that as if I was concerned people couldn't flag up for a caravan pvp event? The point was to illustrate how fast a target could die in open world pvp it had nothing to do with the caravan specifically. Furthermore your ratios are WAY off if you look at the video there were 2 maybe 3 people attacking Steven in total look at all the other players not even engaged in combat, one was running away 3 were too far away from the fight to even do anything lol. Yes its pre-alpha combat in addition to low level combat which is what we just saw no doubt about it however there will be no balance for 10 people focus fired on 1 person in a group combat situation. This is why a toggle needs to exist for open world pvp plain and simple. Yeah see, I don’t consider a successful focus fire to be an issue that needs preventing. I think it is perfectly fine that a coordinated attack in which someone will gain corruption, will also reap double the rewards as they would from a combatant. This is by design and isn’t a problem. It certainly isn’t a problem that warrants upturning the flagging system.
mcstackerson wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Did you really just respond to that as if I was concerned people couldn't flag up for a caravan pvp event? The point was to illustrate how fast a target could die in open world pvp it had nothing to do with the caravan specifically. Furthermore your ratios are WAY off if you look at the video there were 2 maybe 3 people attacking Steven in total look at all the other players not even engaged in combat, one was running away 3 were too far away from the fight to even do anything lol. Yes its pre-alpha combat in addition to low level combat which is what we just saw no doubt about it however there will be no balance for 10 people focus fired on 1 person in a group combat situation. This is why a toggle needs to exist for open world pvp plain and simple. Yeah see, I don’t consider a successful focus fire to be an issue that needs preventing. I think it is perfectly fine that a coordinated attack in which someone will gain corruption, will also reap double the rewards as they would from a combatant. This is by design and isn’t a problem. It certainly isn’t a problem that warrants upturning the flagging system. If someone wants to be considered a combatant, i don't see why they shouldn't be able to declare themselves as one without attacking.
Caeryl wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Did you really just respond to that as if I was concerned people couldn't flag up for a caravan pvp event? The point was to illustrate how fast a target could die in open world pvp it had nothing to do with the caravan specifically. Furthermore your ratios are WAY off if you look at the video there were 2 maybe 3 people attacking Steven in total look at all the other players not even engaged in combat, one was running away 3 were too far away from the fight to even do anything lol. Yes its pre-alpha combat in addition to low level combat which is what we just saw no doubt about it however there will be no balance for 10 people focus fired on 1 person in a group combat situation. This is why a toggle needs to exist for open world pvp plain and simple. Yeah see, I don’t consider a successful focus fire to be an issue that needs preventing. I think it is perfectly fine that a coordinated attack in which someone will gain corruption, will also reap double the rewards as they would from a combatant. This is by design and isn’t a problem. It certainly isn’t a problem that warrants upturning the flagging system. If someone wants to be considered a combatant, i don't see why they shouldn't be able to declare themselves as one without attacking. Because a want is not an action, which seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding behind this whole thread. The flagging system is there to reflect player behavior. It’s not there to safeguard your stuff when you’re successfully 100-0’d in a gank. It’s not there to show off your desire to PvP. It’s simply here to show the recent PvP behavior of a player, and treat them with appropriate buffs or penalties based on that behavior.
Tyrantor wrote: » The point was to illustrate how fast a target could die in open world pvp it had nothing to do with the caravan specifically.
mcstackerson wrote: » I don't see how allowing someone to flag up outside of attacking someone contradicts this goal.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I don't see how allowing someone to flag up outside of attacking someone contradicts this goal. You can argue what the greater effect of this would be if you like, but one thing is for sure, it would alter the paradigm of PvP in Ashes. Since it is so altering, there needs to be a specific need to add it that only a toggle can accomplish, which no one has yet provided.
mcstackerson wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Did you really just respond to that as if I was concerned people couldn't flag up for a caravan pvp event? The point was to illustrate how fast a target could die in open world pvp it had nothing to do with the caravan specifically. Furthermore your ratios are WAY off if you look at the video there were 2 maybe 3 people attacking Steven in total look at all the other players not even engaged in combat, one was running away 3 were too far away from the fight to even do anything lol. Yes its pre-alpha combat in addition to low level combat which is what we just saw no doubt about it however there will be no balance for 10 people focus fired on 1 person in a group combat situation. This is why a toggle needs to exist for open world pvp plain and simple. Yeah see, I don’t consider a successful focus fire to be an issue that needs preventing. I think it is perfectly fine that a coordinated attack in which someone will gain corruption, will also reap double the rewards as they would from a combatant. This is by design and isn’t a problem. It certainly isn’t a problem that warrants upturning the flagging system. If someone wants to be considered a combatant, i don't see why they shouldn't be able to declare themselves as one without attacking. Because a want is not an action, which seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding behind this whole thread. The flagging system is there to reflect player behavior. It’s not there to safeguard your stuff when you’re successfully 100-0’d in a gank. It’s not there to show off your desire to PvP. It’s simply here to show the recent PvP behavior of a player, and treat them with appropriate buffs or penalties based on that behavior. I disagree that the purpose of the system is to reflect the actions a player has taken. It is not a karma system. If that was the case, it would be a more permanent flagging system where people stay red/purple for longer. Instead, we have a temporary flagging system where you become a combatant after attacking someone or entering a battlefield zone and it will drop off after a period of time. The purpose of the system is to deter greifing by attaching a penalty to killing someone who doesn't fight back. I don't see how allowing someone to flag up outside of attacking someone contradicts this goal.
Caeryl wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Did you really just respond to that as if I was concerned people couldn't flag up for a caravan pvp event? The point was to illustrate how fast a target could die in open world pvp it had nothing to do with the caravan specifically. Furthermore your ratios are WAY off if you look at the video there were 2 maybe 3 people attacking Steven in total look at all the other players not even engaged in combat, one was running away 3 were too far away from the fight to even do anything lol. Yes its pre-alpha combat in addition to low level combat which is what we just saw no doubt about it however there will be no balance for 10 people focus fired on 1 person in a group combat situation. This is why a toggle needs to exist for open world pvp plain and simple. Yeah see, I don’t consider a successful focus fire to be an issue that needs preventing. I think it is perfectly fine that a coordinated attack in which someone will gain corruption, will also reap double the rewards as they would from a combatant. This is by design and isn’t a problem. It certainly isn’t a problem that warrants upturning the flagging system. If someone wants to be considered a combatant, i don't see why they shouldn't be able to declare themselves as one without attacking. Because a want is not an action, which seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding behind this whole thread. The flagging system is there to reflect player behavior. It’s not there to safeguard your stuff when you’re successfully 100-0’d in a gank. It’s not there to show off your desire to PvP. It’s simply here to show the recent PvP behavior of a player, and treat them with appropriate buffs or penalties based on that behavior. I disagree that the purpose of the system is to reflect the actions a player has taken. It is not a karma system. If that was the case, it would be a more permanent flagging system where people stay red/purple for longer. Instead, we have a temporary flagging system where you become a combatant after attacking someone or entering a battlefield zone and it will drop off after a period of time. The purpose of the system is to deter greifing by attaching a penalty to killing someone who doesn't fight back. I don't see how allowing someone to flag up outside of attacking someone contradicts this goal. And here you lay out exactly why this system is reflective of player behavior. Non-combatant is the default because you have not engaged in combat with another player (passive behavior). You remain a combatant when engaged in combat with another player (active behavior), and for a short time afterwards before the system deems you no longer in combat. You become a corrupted player upon killing a non-combatant (hostile behavior). You are trying to make the active status be available even while behavior remains passive. If you want PvP to be wide spread and healthy, you shouldn’t be suggesting changes that will encourage passive behavior.
mcstackerson wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Did you really just respond to that as if I was concerned people couldn't flag up for a caravan pvp event? The point was to illustrate how fast a target could die in open world pvp it had nothing to do with the caravan specifically. Furthermore your ratios are WAY off if you look at the video there were 2 maybe 3 people attacking Steven in total look at all the other players not even engaged in combat, one was running away 3 were too far away from the fight to even do anything lol. Yes its pre-alpha combat in addition to low level combat which is what we just saw no doubt about it however there will be no balance for 10 people focus fired on 1 person in a group combat situation. This is why a toggle needs to exist for open world pvp plain and simple. Yeah see, I don’t consider a successful focus fire to be an issue that needs preventing. I think it is perfectly fine that a coordinated attack in which someone will gain corruption, will also reap double the rewards as they would from a combatant. This is by design and isn’t a problem. It certainly isn’t a problem that warrants upturning the flagging system. If someone wants to be considered a combatant, i don't see why they shouldn't be able to declare themselves as one without attacking. Because a want is not an action, which seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding behind this whole thread. The flagging system is there to reflect player behavior. It’s not there to safeguard your stuff when you’re successfully 100-0’d in a gank. It’s not there to show off your desire to PvP. It’s simply here to show the recent PvP behavior of a player, and treat them with appropriate buffs or penalties based on that behavior. I disagree that the purpose of the system is to reflect the actions a player has taken. It is not a karma system. If that was the case, it would be a more permanent flagging system where people stay red/purple for longer. Instead, we have a temporary flagging system where you become a combatant after attacking someone or entering a battlefield zone and it will drop off after a period of time. The purpose of the system is to deter greifing by attaching a penalty to killing someone who doesn't fight back. I don't see how allowing someone to flag up outside of attacking someone contradicts this goal. And here you lay out exactly why this system is reflective of player behavior. Non-combatant is the default because you have not engaged in combat with another player (passive behavior). You remain a combatant when engaged in combat with another player (active behavior), and for a short time afterwards before the system deems you no longer in combat. You become a corrupted player upon killing a non-combatant (hostile behavior). You are trying to make the active status be available even while behavior remains passive. If you want PvP to be wide spread and healthy, you shouldn’t be suggesting changes that will encourage passive behavior. The current system doesn't show off player behavior because you don't stay in the state long. You won't be able to tell which player pvp more, they are going to be green like everyone else. Even red players are encouraged to remove their corruption as soon as they can. If the goal of the system is to show off player behavior, then i'd think players would stay in these states for longer so more than the people see them. Currently, you will probably only be seen by the person you fight and maybe the few others in the area before it the status drops off. How is it supposed to show off behavior if no one sees it? I'm don't follow your active/passive status argument and how this would decrease pvp. With the current system, do you think people will attack each other just to get combatant status?
