/forceATK toggle (not toggle PvP....). Mechanics needed.

In todays Dev Update, I was surprised to see Jeff Bard unaware of Stevens degisn regarding /forceATK.
However, these are the risks involved with transparency during development, some people might misunderstand or bad mouth the developers. And for that I congratulate Intrepid Studios for their courage and confidence.

The full action/tab/flagging/Corruption mechanics are still not in place obviously and that is why Jeff and Steven were not eye to eye on the combat toggle and what it means. It isn't necessary coding at this point in development. That's my guess.

Why is this toggle, as Steven wants it, important for Ashes of Creation. I wanna break down my views on attacking mechanics so bear with me for a few posts.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Tyrantor

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

If that is what you mean, that is correct. My impression is that that the problem of PKing and griefing is a serious problem that harms the longevity of the game and player population while the challenge for groups of consensual PvPers working around the corruption system is not as major of an issue. Essentially, the possible difficulties of working around the corruption system are greatly outweighed by the benefits of having the corruption system.

Guild wars, node sieges, and caravan raiding all exist outside of the corruption system and don't interact with open world PvP or corruption. I don't see how those systems are going to feed from open world PvP; or, even where you were going with that.

I'm too lazy this morning to respond to all of the points but since this what covers most of the general idea I'll come back to it.

Having a manual toggle to turn ourselves purple would allow the game to keep it's PK/Griefing mechanic in tact while allowing the "consentual PvPers" the ability to participate within the system without the system then creating "challenges" within the accepted gameplay model. Would you not agree? If not why do you believe the system needs to create a challenge for consensual pvp instead of allowing this to happen outside of corruption (if both sides were to have flaged themselves purple of course)?

While it's true all of those objective based pvp events will be outside of the corruption system what seems to be missed is that they are all going to require open world/hunting ground player movement to initiate for some, most or all participates in them. So you'll have large scale groups of players actively en route to pvp objective(s) or leaving pvp objectives. Once a Caravan is wiped for example then do all members of the defending side respawn 2+ nodes away after death instead of inside the local zone? If the Caravan ends because it is wiped would it then not be logical these group(s) may continue to fight outside of the objective?

After guild wars and sieges end it could be the exact same thing on much larger scales (hundreds/thousands of players). Would it not make sense to allow these players to toggle themselves purple and just fight it out and remove the corruption penalty from not only themselves but from each other during these consensual engagements? I'm sure there would be people unwilling to flag themselves in advance of fighting, but from my perspective I care very little about causing corruption on someone if i'm unable to retaliate in situations described here and more concerned about having to tip toe around corruption just because an "objective" ended.

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

If that is what you mean, that is correct. My impression is that that the problem of PKing and griefing is a serious problem that harms the longevity of the game and player population while the challenge for groups of consensual PvPers working around the corruption system is not as major of an issue. Essentially, the possible difficulties of working around the corruption system are greatly outweighed by the benefits of having the corruption system.

Guild wars, node sieges, and caravan raiding all exist outside of the corruption system and don't interact with open world PvP or corruption. I don't see how those systems are going to feed from open world PvP; or, even where you were going with that.

I'm too lazy this morning to respond to all of the points but since this what covers most of the general idea I'll come back to it.

Having a manual toggle to turn ourselves purple would allow the game to keep it's PK/Griefing mechanic in tact while allowing the "consentual PvPers" the ability to participate within the system without the system then creating "challenges" within the accepted gameplay model. Would you not agree?

No it doesn’t make a lick of sense to let players be “Combatants” without first engaging in combat.

Non-combatant is not a statement, it is an indicator that you have not recently engaged in PvP. Combatant is not a statement, it’s an indicator that you’ve recently chose to engage in PvP. Corruption is not a statement, it is an indicator that you’ve killed a player who do not fight back.

Flags are not there to profess you want to fight, they exist to show if you are fighting or have recently been fighting. The context is necessary in order for flags to have substantial meaning.

Edit: And to be clear, non-objective based PvP is not something IS is endorsing. They have outright said they want to discourage meaningless PvP. If you aren’t fighting over an objective or other some advantage, then your PvP is meaningless.

daveywavey

Caeryl wrote: »

If you aren’t fighting over an objective or other some advantage, then your PvP is meaningless.

It's not meaningless to the players that enjoy it.

Caeryl

daveywavey wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

If you aren’t fighting over an objective or other some advantage, then your PvP is meaningless.

It's not meaningless to the players that enjoy it.

It is meaningless in that it has no greater impact beyond that fight. In terms of basic game consequence, it has no purpose and no lasting impact.

Tyrantor

Of course it has more impact. It could result in a guild war, a siege, etc. What do you expect the guild wars and node sieges to be results of? Just objective based Caravan raid rage? lol

George_Black

No matter how many times you keep asking for it, you will be told no. You begin to annoy ppl.

Warth

There is always the option of simply hitting everybody you see once with an auto attack.

You'll be purple whenever somebody is around you and you'll probably stay within the combatant state for a bit once you do it. A basic attack shouldn't hit very hard either, so you will be neither threatening to kill someone by accident nor hurt the person you attack at all.

Tyrantor

I'm not asking for it. I'm good waiting to see how it plays out in the betas that's obviously the course we're on.

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

Of course it has more impact. It could result in a guild war, a siege, etc. What do you expect the guild wars and node sieges to be results of? Just objective based Caravan raid rage? lol

Well, going by the dev’s own words. The primary reason for a node siege is to open up progression paths that node is blocking. An Economic node will offer far different experience than a Religious node, and offer different services. Guild wars will most often begin because two guilds have been competing over resources so often one of them got fed up with it. Constant caravan raids will play into it I’m sure, see how happy you’d be when a rival guild snags a whole cart of taxes away from you.

But seriously, large scale events like that are going to happen because they’ll grant some tangible benefit, and it’s honestly odd you think they won’t. PvP in this game is based around resources and services that players are meant to fight over.

Dygz

Tyrantor wrote: »

Having a manual toggle to turn ourselves purple would allow the game to keep it's PK/Griefing mechanic in tact while allowing the "consentual PvPers" the ability to participate within the system without the system then creating "challenges" within the accepted gameplay model. Would you not agree? If not why do you believe the system needs to create a challenge for consensual pvp instead of allowing this to happen outside of corruption (if both sides were to have flagged themselves purple of course)?

That is fairly typical...but it is not what the Ashes Devs want.

Dygz

daveywavey wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

If you aren’t fighting over an objective or other some advantage, then your PvP is meaningless.

It's not meaningless to the players that enjoy it.

The Ashes devs basically define it as meaningless by defining objective-based PvP combat as meaningful.

Child Item