Caeryl wrote: » No, people generally wouldn’t attack other players at random just to flag purple.
Caeryl wrote: » 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? No, people generally wouldn’t attack other players at random just to flag purple. And you’re failing to understand what it means to have a flag system that reflects player behavior. Logging every action a player ever takes and trying to consolidate that into what is by definition a non-permanent state is absolutely not feasible. When I say it reflects player behavior, I say this with the understanding that player behavior changes. It is feasible to reflect semi-recent behavior such as their participation in combat, or their lack thereof. That’s what Ashes’ flagging system is designed to do. The primary demographic who’d find this toggle useful would be passive players who now have an easy, permanent way to cut their death penalties in half with no action needed on their part. They would never have to suffer the penalties of a non-combatant in any PvP scenario. They would also be seen as less viable targets because they would never drop a full death penalty to their killer even if their attacker is successful in 100-0’ing the player who doesn’t fight back. It would never be a “come fight me” toggle, it would be a “you’ll never get full value from me” toggle.
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?
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: » 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: » 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.
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: » 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.
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.
Noaani wrote: » If it is the latter, then the clip you posted is a perfect illustration of why that won't be an issue. If that were an open world attack as opposed to a caravan attack, there would have been at least 5 seconds before that clip started in which it was obvious that PvP was about to happen - plently of time to flag up . On top of those several seconds, there was another 4 seconds in that clip in which Steven could have flagged up. If you completely discount the 6 seconds Steven was under attack, that is still at least 9 seconds from when PvP would have been obvious until it actually started.
Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani wrote: » If it is the latter, then the clip you posted is a perfect illustration of why that won't be an issue. If that were an open world attack as opposed to a caravan attack, there would have been at least 5 seconds before that clip started in which it was obvious that PvP was about to happen - plently of time to flag up . On top of those several seconds, there was another 4 seconds in that clip in which Steven could have flagged up. If you completely discount the 6 seconds Steven was under attack, that is still at least 9 seconds from when PvP would have been obvious until it actually started. Wtf are you smoking? How exactly would anyone flag up without a toggle BEFORE PvP started?
Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Wtf are you smoking? How exactly would anyone flag up without a toggle BEFORE PvP started? How exactly do you think PvP starts? You hit another player or another player hits you. You don’t have to be flagged to do that, in fact you become flagged because you do that.
Tyrantor wrote: » Wtf are you smoking? How exactly would anyone flag up without a toggle BEFORE PvP started?
daveywavey wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Wtf are you smoking? How exactly would anyone flag up without a toggle BEFORE PvP started? How exactly do you think PvP starts? You hit another player or another player hits you. You don’t have to be flagged to do that, in fact you become flagged because you do that. Errr, I think that's his point.
Caeryl wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Wtf are you smoking? How exactly would anyone flag up without a toggle BEFORE PvP started? How exactly do you think PvP starts? You hit another player or another player hits you. You don’t have to be flagged to do that, in fact you become flagged because you do that. Errr, I think that's his point. His point that you have to actively engage in combat to... become a combatant? Yeah that’s by design and fully intended.
Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani wrote: » If it is the latter, then the clip you posted is a perfect illustration of why that won't be an issue. If that were an open world attack as opposed to a caravan attack, there would have been at least 5 seconds before that clip started in which it was obvious that PvP was about to happen - plently of time to flag up . On top of those several seconds, there was another 4 seconds in that clip in which Steven could have flagged up. If you completely discount the 6 seconds Steven was under attack, that is still at least 9 seconds from when PvP would have been obvious until it actually started. Wtf are you smoking? How exactly would anyone flag up without a toggle BEFORE PvP started? How exactly do you think PvP starts? You hit another player or another player hits you. You don’t have to be flagged to do that, in fact you become flagged because you do that.
Sathrago wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Wtf are you smoking? How exactly would anyone flag up without a toggle BEFORE PvP started? How exactly do you think PvP starts? You hit another player or another player hits you. You don’t have to be flagged to do that, in fact you become flagged because you do that. Errr, I think that's his point. His point that you have to actively engage in combat to... become a combatant? Yeah that’s by design and fully intended. 5 rogues attack your dumb ass pickin up rocks and you die before you get out of whatever cc or burst damage they can pull off. Go ahead. Flag bro.
Caeryl wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Wtf are you smoking? How exactly would anyone flag up without a toggle BEFORE PvP started? How exactly do you think PvP starts? You hit another player or another player hits you. You don’t have to be flagged to do that, in fact you become flagged because you do that. Errr, I think that's his point. His point that you have to actively engage in combat to... become a combatant? Yeah that’s by design and fully intended. 5 rogues attack your dumb ass pickin up rocks and you die before you get out of whatever cc or burst damage they can pull off. Go ahead. Flag bro. That is also by design and intended. A team that can successfully chain cc you and burst you down before you can flag deserves to get the full reward off of you. Their cost for doing so is corruption that can snowball if they are reckless.
Tyrantor wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani wrote: » If it is the latter, then the clip you posted is a perfect illustration of why that won't be an issue. If that were an open world attack as opposed to a caravan attack, there would have been at least 5 seconds before that clip started in which it was obvious that PvP was about to happen - plently of time to flag up . On top of those several seconds, there was another 4 seconds in that clip in which Steven could have flagged up. If you completely discount the 6 seconds Steven was under attack, that is still at least 9 seconds from when PvP would have been obvious until it actually started. Wtf are you smoking? How exactly would anyone flag up without a toggle BEFORE PvP started? How exactly do you think PvP starts? You hit another player or another player hits you. You don’t have to be flagged to do that, in fact you become flagged because you do that. I would appreciate if you let @/Noaani answer for himself. I think it's conveniently presumptuous to expect every class/build to be in a position to flag via combat at will without putting themselves in a situation to get themselves killed before or while they can do it.
mcstackerson wrote: » The rest of your argument is an assumption of player behavior.
Caeryl wrote: » Simply flagging combatant upon hostile casts on another player instead of requiring a damaging hit solves most of that issue.
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. 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?
Noaani wrote: » If you know PvP is about to start, you enable force attacking on a player. If you are someone wanting PvP and you don't have an ability that you can get off early, or indeed a range of CC breaks, you are playing a fairly poor build for what you are doing. I mean, if you can see PvP is coming, and are still killed before you can flag, you have no one to blame but yourself - whether your skill or your build.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The rest of your argument is an assumption of player behavior. To be fair, both sides have a fair amount of assumptions going on. The situation where a toggle has been deemed usefuk by some is as follows: Off peak time, A player specifically wanting PvP, A player not wanting arena or caravan PvP, A player that is by themselves, A player surprised by at least 3 other player, A player that would have still flagged up against such uneven odds, AND The players that surprise attacked our player being able to CC lock said player long enough to kill him. If anyone of the above are not true, the toggle was not needed. Even if all of the above are true, the desire for a toggle is assuming the following; Players are able to be CC'd for long enough to be killed, Players are not able to flag as a combatant while CC'd AND It is not the intention by Intrepid that if a group of players are able to kill a player before they are able to react, that group of players should get the rewards from that player being killed while a non combatant. Again, if any one of those assumptions turn out to not be true, a toggle is pointless. Hopefully, after all of that, you can see why I don't personally consider a toggle to be worth the disruption it will cause to other players. --- I should say, it is my personal opinion that if my guild and I kill an instanced raid boss and then need to run back home with the rewards of that on hand, if a player like you comes along and manages to kill me before I can react and flag up, you have every right to a higher drop rate from me - which means a higher chance to drop the material from the raid. I should not have the automatic ability to toggle a switch and halve your chances at getting that drop.
Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani wrote: » If you know PvP is about to start, you enable force attacking on a player. If you are someone wanting PvP and you don't have an ability that you can get off early, or indeed a range of CC breaks, you are playing a fairly poor build for what you are doing. I mean, if you can see PvP is coming, and are still killed before you can flag, you have no one to blame but yourself - whether your skill or your build. What is this "enable" force attack?
Tyrantor wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Simply flagging combatant upon hostile casts on another player instead of requiring a damaging hit solves most of that issue. Are you suggesting that players should be allowed to cast spells out of range to flag for combatant? You're now suggesting people just need to hit a button to become combatant? Wait no that can be what you're saying right? I mean you just said this....... 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. 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? Make up your mind... do we need to hit another player or just "cast" hit a button on another player? lol.
Caeryl wrote: » Tyrantor wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Simply flagging combatant upon hostile casts on another player instead of requiring a damaging hit solves most of that issue. Are you suggesting that players should be allowed to cast spells out of range to flag for combatant? You're now suggesting people just need to hit a button to become combatant? Wait no that can be what you're saying right? I mean you just said this....... 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. 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? Make up your mind... do we need to hit another player or just "cast" hit a button on another player? lol. You're being intentionally dense again. Removing the requirement for the ability you cast to do damage before flagging you is exactly that, moving the flag condition from ability hit to ability cast. Please explain where from that you think all range requirements and cast conditions are suddenly null and void. I could not possibly make this any simpler.
mcstackerson wrote: » You call him dense yet we have this ridiculously long thread about a small QoL change that allows players to flag without attacking.
