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

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

There is a substantial difference between the game checking for the flagging status at the start of a heal spell that then heals versus intent to attack that fails to attack. I'm sure you can agree with this.

Yes, I do, and you'll not I said several times that it is an assumption.

However, I am sure you will agree that it makes sense that after specifically turning on force attack on a player, the act of attempting to then attack that player should be enough to toggle combatant status, even if the hit doesn't actually land.

By that point, the intent of the player has been made clear.

Since this is a system that needs to be designed anyway for healers, there is no real need to develop a parallel system for other classes.

That said, if you go back, this isn't the point. The point is - in the situations where you think this toggle will be used, almost without exception, players have more than enough time to flag up.

Nagash

So have you made any progress yet or is this thread still going in circles?

maouw

Nagash wrote: »

So have you made any progress yet or is this thread still going in circles?

don't you necromancers have some method of reading fate?
Tossing bones or something?
What do they say?

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

That said, if you go back, this isn't the point. The point is - in the situations where you think this toggle will be used, almost without exception, players have more than enough time to flag up.

You keep saying flag up... which you're not doing by enable force attack per your own admission.

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.

If this "enable force attack" doesn't work how you expect it to, then do you at least see the reason why flagging up as combatant before a fight is going to be important? It seems like you agree from the stand point of "players will have more than enough time to flag up" ?

Sangramoire

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

It is basically a switch that gets turned on with the game and the players determine the amount of focus it actually gets during play.

Yes, this is all basically what I am saying.

What this means though, is that because of all of this, there is no need for a toggle for the combatant status in order to aid players in finding others to PvP with without any other meaning to it - which if you go back to the OP of this thread, is what was asked for.

The focus of PvP is the caravan, siege and war systems, and open world PvP (aka, corruption based PvP) is there as well, as a secondary system, that doesn't need additional encouragement to be used because players will use it when it is needed.

Players are already determining how often that system gets used - as it is purely a system that is there to be used when needed. There is no need to encourage open world PvP further than that, because the active encouragement of PvP in Ashes is in the caravan, siege and war systems. The corruption system is there to fill in the gaps, not to be any sort of focus.

This kind of thing is what happens when you argue an individual post, rather than arguing a full point of view.

You suggesting that the open world pvp is a secondary system is confusing to me. Considering the open world pvp (or rather ability to pvp) is actually the primary system in the game and all of the objective based pvp systems are in fact secondary systems designed to feed off of the open world pvp (conflicts).

The reason to allow players to flag is not to "find pvp" but rather to aid players in finding other players who accept the threat of pvp. You keep getting things twisted because you're looking at it from a perspective of someone who doesn't want to be in combat.

You're still here arguing that the toggle doesn't exist or won't exist based on contradictory proof that it currently does and will.

Im pretty sure he did not mean that open world pvp is a secondary system but that the corruption system is the secondary system, which it is. It's a system in place to help prevent griefing but they also try to incorporate it into the game naturally by also having the bounty hunter system. Flagging itself is not what the open world pvp is about. Open world pvp like Noaani has said is meant to have meaning behind it.

The caravan system is one of those ways Intrepid is introducing meaningful open world pvp into the game. There's a goal and a reward for those that attack and those that defend. There's meaning in that. Randomly attacking players is not meaningful which is why Intrepid has put a corruption system in AOC. That's the whole point of the system. You can still attack players in the open world randomly, it doesn't matter what color they are, all that matters is if it's worth it for YOU to attack them. You get more loot from players that you attack if they remain green, but then you gain corruption. You get less loot from those that flag but then you don't gain corruption. It's supposed to make you think twice before attacking someone and only encourage to attack someone if it's really worth it. Having a toggle to change your flag state undermines this system and the dangers that come with attacking someone.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

That said, if you go back, this isn't the point. The point is - in the situations where you think this toggle will be used, almost without exception, players have more than enough time to flag up.

You keep saying flag up... which you're not doing by enable force attack per your own admission.

This is semantics.

"Flag up" is the colloquial term used in every MMO ever to denote the action you need to undertake in order to engage in PvP.

In Ashes, that action is enabling force attack. Even if that doesn't change your combatant status, it is still the action that needs to be performed.

Ergo, in Ashes, flagging up is synonymous with enabling force attack.

If this "enable force attack" doesn't work how you expect it to, then do you at least see the reason why flagging up as combatant before a fight is going to be important?

If the system is drastically different from what I have attempted to explain to you is what we should be assuming it will be (based on what we have been told), then I would agree that something may well need to be changed.

That thing that may need to change does not necessarily need to bea toggle though.

The only thing necessary to make a toggle absolutely redundant is for there to be enough time for players to flag up from when PvP becomes obvious. There are many, many ways this could be achieved, and the way the system works as far as we know is only one such way. If it isn't working, Intrepid could just attempt a different method of giving players that required time.

Noaani

Nagash wrote: »

So have you made any progress yet or is this thread still going in circles?

@Nagash a bit of progress. I think we are almost there, to be honest - but I do hope someone asks about this in a Q&A.

Nagash

Noaani wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

So have you made any progress yet or is this thread still going in circles?

@Nagash a bit of progress. I think we are almost there, to be honest - but I do hope someone asks about this in a Q&A.

I'm happy to hear that

George_Black

18 pages for things that were explained on the 2nd

Tyrantor

I think Jeff was just as confused as I am with Steven's response but hey I'm sure we can resolve the issue in Alpha's/Betas when we get to test some group PvP and see how much corruption it causes before people can "force attack" lol.

George_Black

Tyrantor wrote: »

I think Jeff was just as confused as I am with Steven's response but hey I'm sure we can resolve the issue in Alpha's/Betas when we get to test some group PvP and see how much corruption it causes before people can "force attack" lol.

I am confused Jeff is confused. Perhaps it wasnt necessary coding at this stage of the production, but the flagging system and the /force attack either in the form of:
1) Holding down a key(L2 2003)
2) /force Fireball forceskill choice hotbar(L2 improvement)
3) Or 2 toggle redisigns from Intrepid to allow your action combat abilities to only apply to purple targets or any targets(if you aim to PK)
still maintains the system.

Your original proposal of /flagOn toggle, without landind a strike, dilutes many aspects of AoC open world PvP.

We can go for another 20 pages if you like, or you can pause and think about the information given to you and see the big picture of a PvP world you have not experienced before (not PvE friendly, not unrestricted PvP).

Tyrantor

No reason to go for another 20 pages the problem will be evident soon enough hence the reason for the thread and likely Jeff's confusion.

Child Item