mcstackerson wrote: » 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. This kind of feels like the pot calling the kettle black. You call him dense yet we have this ridiculously long thread about a small QoL change that allows players to flag without attacking. It allows players to press a button and signal to anyone around them that they can be killed without the attacker suffering a penalty. it gives no advantage to a pvper who is out to attack someone and is only a (debatably)minor benefit to someone who is on the receiving end of an attack.
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.
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: » 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?
Sorry if i'm miss understanding you but why does a person need to be able to cast a spell that is in range to be declared a combatant? Can melee classes have a leer/"look really mean at them" skill that has a long range and allows them to flag themselves as combatants?
Ok, lets take this from another angle. We have open world battlegrounds. You say players have to attack someone, do something active to become a combatant but open world battlegrounds are described as flagging someone as a combatant for just walking in the zone. In caravans, you flag yourself by signing up to attack or defend the caravan. Is that not a similar level of activity to pressing a button to flag yourself?
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.
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: » 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: » No, people generally wouldn’t attack other players at random just to flag purple. Because...?
Caeryl wrote: » No, people generally wouldn’t attack other players at random just to flag purple.
daveywavey wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » No, people generally wouldn’t attack other players at random just to flag purple. Because...? Caeryl - and you still haven't answered this one.....
Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » No, people generally wouldn’t attack other players at random just to flag purple. Because...? Caeryl - and you still haven't answered this one..... I didn't think this warranted an answer, to be honest. People wouldn't go around attacking other players just to flag purple because there is no real point to it as the flag only lasts a few minutes, and reputation in Ashes will actually mean something. If you become known as the guy that just goes around randomly attacking players and then running off, you'll have a real hard time.
daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » No, people generally wouldn’t attack other players at random just to flag purple. Because...? Caeryl - and you still haven't answered this one..... I didn't think this warranted an answer, to be honest. People wouldn't go around attacking other players just to flag purple because there is no real point to it as the flag only lasts a few minutes, and reputation in Ashes will actually mean something. If you become known as the guy that just goes around randomly attacking players and then running off, you'll have a real hard time. And, if loads of people are doing it, that "reputation" won't mean a thing. Once it starts to wear off, just do it again. Just as you can say "No-one will do that", I can do the exact same thing and say "People will do that".
Noaani wrote: » I'm not just saying "no one will do it" without qualification. No one will do it because the duration is insignificant. No one will do it because you will always be able to see PvP coming. No one will do it because it will piss off those around them that players rely on for many things. No one will do it because most people will fight back, so the notion of hitting someone and running just doesn't work. No one will do it because people you are grouped with will tell you to stop. No one will do it because it doesn't make sense to do it. What are your reasons for thinking it will be common again?
daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » I'm not just saying "no one will do it" without qualification. No one will do it because the duration is insignificant. No one will do it because you will always be able to see PvP coming. No one will do it because it will piss off those around them that players rely on for many things. No one will do it because most people will fight back, so the notion of hitting someone and running just doesn't work. No one will do it because people you are grouped with will tell you to stop. No one will do it because it doesn't make sense to do it. What are your reasons for thinking it will be common again? What is the duration, and what has been officially designated as "insignificant"? You won't always be able to see PvP coming. If you're focused on attacking a dungeon boss, and get hit from behind, you're not going to see it. Chances are, you'll have your own network of players where you can get the majority of your things. Pissing off random players around you isn't going to matter much in the long-term. Players who want to flag cos they like PvP aren't going to be sad if someone fights back. They'll stay for their fun. If the group you're with also wants to be purple, then they'll be doing it, too. It could even be a requirement for some particular groups. As we've discussed in the last 17 pages, it makes more sense than not doing it. So, you've no real points.
Noaani wrote: » I mean, I am more than happy to wait a few years when we are playing a game without a combatant toggle, where players are not doing this on any sort of scale to point it out to you - which since you refuse to accept logic, is about all that can be said.
Caeryl wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » 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. This kind of feels like the pot calling the kettle black. You call him dense yet we have this ridiculously long thread about a small QoL change that allows players to flag without attacking. It allows players to press a button and signal to anyone around them that they can be killed without the attacker suffering a penalty. it gives no advantage to a pvper who is out to attack someone and is only a (debatably)minor benefit to someone who is on the receiving end of an attack. A “small QoL change” that doesn’t actually improve quality of life for the general population is not a QoL change. Instant fast travel is a QoL change but I think you can see how that affects every player of the game even, and especially, if they choose to play the game as intended and not use fast travel. Same for this. The benefits of literally halving any attackers potential gains off you have a big detrimental impact on how open world PvP is supposed to function. You claim it’s good that you can protect yourself with no further input than going into your UI. It isn’t. It goes directly against the design of the game where you have to actually fight back in some way in order to get that buffer. It is by design that someone who doesn’t (or cannot) fight back, loses more than someone who can and does fight back. There is nothing wrong a successful ganker eating some corruption to get the full death penalty drops off you. This is not a problem that needs solving. This change pressures all players to go purple from the start, because there is always more to lose as a green, and you wouldn’t even have to do any PvP at all and still get to protect half your stuff at all times. Can you really, truly not understand why it would be primarily non-PvPers using this toggle? You gave them a free out they’ll never have to lift a finger for. Sorry if i'm miss understanding you but why does a person need to be able to cast a spell that is in range to be declared a combatant? Can melee classes have a leer/"look really mean at them" skill that has a long range and allows them to flag themselves as combatants? Melee classes should have to get into range to use their actual abilities in order to flag. Debuffs count as abilities. If someone has that much more skill, that much better pacing, and can kite that well, then it sucks, but they earned their full payout. I highly doubt a class would lack any ranged damage ability, any gap closer, and any mobility tool. The close range rogue will have soft invis and mobility tools. Fighters have gap closers. Clerics have ranged abilities. Tanks have damage soak tools and debuff skills. What class in particular do you think will be completely unable to flag up when faced with a ranged class in a mostly even fight? Ok, lets take this from another angle. We have open world battlegrounds. You say players have to attack someone, do something active to become a combatant but open world battlegrounds are described as flagging someone as a combatant for just walking in the zone. In caravans, you flag yourself by signing up to attack or defend the caravan. Is that not a similar level of activity to pressing a button to flag yourself? Battleground discussions have no place in this topic because all of you are insisting this is necessary for random group encounters where flagging exists. But I’ll humor you. No, picking sides in a caravan fight is not equivalent of opening your UI to “enter combat” with nobody. It’s the equivalent of walking into an active shootout and loudly announcing you’re joining a side.
Noaani wrote: » 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. To be fair, two thirds of this thread was trying to explain to a small number of people that this toggle wasn't actually the plan, and the toggle seen in Alpha was mentioned years ago as a means to test PvP as a whole before the corruption system is added in phase 2 (not clear if phase 2 is alpha 2 or beta). This thread would likely be 6 or 7 pages if people actually listened. As to it being a QoL feature, as stated earlier in this thread so was LFG when Blizzard added it. They had no reason to think it would be the singular worst addition to the MMO genre ever, but that is what that small QoL addition became. With any alteration to a system like this, you need to look at the effect it will have on all players, not just those using it. If there is a combatant toggle, there will be more combatants. If there are more combatants, those few that are not become the target for people wanting to PvP for profit or griefing. This is one societal change that a toggle absolutely will have, and there will be others - not to mention mechanics and systems changes that this may bring along. That one societal change above more than outweighs any and all suggested uses for a toggle like this - and even if you and I disagree on exactly when it would be used, we both agree that its use would be rare (keeping in mind that the idea for large scale PvP is that it is more caravans, wars and sieges where this is encouraged to happen, not open world PvP). Again, on balance, it is not a good suggestion.
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.
Noaani wrote: » We have been given several examples of what players need to do in order to be able to attack another player. One example is to use an attack directly on a player, and thus you are now able to attack this player. Another thing we have been told is that you can manually select players and enable attacks to land on them via a key combo (ctrl+f, for example).
Caeryl wrote: » No it really isn’t presumptuous to assume that every class will have some method of becoming a combatant when engaged in active combat. It would be a rather large failure on Intrepid’s part if their final state of balance left it possible for one class to completely evade another for the entire duration of a mostly even fight. If such a situation begins occurring in alpha, I have full faith they will address it, and not with a toggle that would warp the PvP landscape for the worse. Simply flagging combatant upon hostile casts on another player instead of requiring a damaging hit solves most of that issue.
Caeryl wrote: » 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.
Tyrantor wrote: » This doesn't even make sense. If you can simply just "attack" another player why would anyone need to primitively "enable" attacks on another player?
Noaani wrote: » If you are unaware that "flag up" in terms of an action would be the same as enabling force attack in Ashes, I am not sure what more to say. Again, this is either total ignorance on your part, or another attempt to divert the conversation away in to the mundane.
Noaani wrote: » 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 enable force attack . On top of those several seconds, there was another 4 seconds in that clip in which Steven could have flagged up enable force attack. 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.
Noaani wrote: » This doesn't flag you as a combatant, it simply means your attacks are now able to land on the player in question.
Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani wrote: » If you are unaware that "flag up" in terms of an action would be the same as enabling force attack in Ashes, I am not sure what more to say. Again, this is either total ignorance on your part, or another attempt to divert the conversation away in to the mundane. Wait so I'm supposed to understand that when you say flag up it means the same thing as some obscure reference to "enable force attack" while neither relate to the other for the purpose of this thread in general? right.... Lets do this since you're claiming enabling force attack would be the same thing. Here is your paragraph but let's use the right words instead of "flag up" since that is clearly not what you mean right? Noaani wrote: » 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 enable force attack . On top of those several seconds, there was another 4 seconds in that clip in which Steven could have flagged up enable force attack. 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. Noaani wrote: » This doesn't flag you as a combatant, it simply means your attacks are now able to land on the player in question. So what exactly is solved by this that you felt it was relevant to bring to our attention?
Noaani wrote: » The check for this - we have reason to assume - happens on activation, not on actual casting of the ability, so we have no reason to assume that a failed activation won't also flag you (failed due, perhaps, to being CC'd).
Tyrantor wrote: » This seems like a reach if there ever was one
