Griefing the flagging system, and a solution.

Scenario:

Guild 1 and Guild 2 are having a big open world PvP fight. 80 Players in the same area with damage and healing going all over the place.

50% of Griefing Guild 3 joints the battle naked flagged as Green, while Guild 1 and 2 are flagged as Purple. Their mission is to not heal each other to get flagged Purple themselves, but to run into the fight to get people in Guild 1 and 2 flagged Red.

Once enough players are flagged Red, the rest of the Griefing Guild 3 joins the battle and strategically picks off those flagged Red players to get free loot without much penalty.

Solution:
We know the game have systems to track player movement and actions through the node system. A solution to this would be to also track damage to make a heat-map for the world. If a Green player enters an area that have a lot of damage going on between two guilds, they are flagged as Purple as entering the battle, and can not grief by purposely dying while not fighting back to flag people Red.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

Leiloni wrote: »

As Sathrago pointed out, it's important that we be able to attack other guilds outside of any objective PvP area/time slot.

From what I can gather, the point is - if it is not worth gaining corruption over, it is not worth fighting over.

If you and your guild have a real reason to want to fight someone else - whether in a guild or not - you will fight them. The corruption mchanic isn't a barrier to stop this, it is a mechanism by which your decision to attack is given some weight - and the decision to attack other players should always have some weight to it.

Noaani

oophus wrote: »

I found the "flag" button. More comments that are not touching the topic at hand will be reported.

@oophus I'm curious, how is this going for you?

The bulk of the thread is not talking about anything in your OP, because we all know that what you are talking about is not a situation that can arise in Ashes.

oophus

rikardp98 wrote: »

If we take your example, the guild 1 will start by using force attack (ctrl+F or something) on guild 2, guild 1 will be flagged purple and when guild 2 attack guild 1 both guilds will be flagged purple. Now they now longer need the force attack (hit ctrl+F). So no random green player will get attacked.

It takes 2 seconds to leave a Guild and join it again. If its this or risk loosing a battle, I know what I will do. Get the guild to have 20 people leave the guild, and they can position them selves without risk, and help kill the "problem-guild" at will at any time.

rikardp98

oophus wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

If we take your example, the guild 1 will start by using force attack (ctrl+F or something) on guild 2, guild 1 will be flagged purple and when guild 2 attack guild 1 both guilds will be flagged purple. Now they now longer need the force attack (hit ctrl+F). So no random green player will get attacked.

It takes 2 seconds to leave a Guild and join it again. If its this or risk loosing a battle, I know what I will do. Get the guild to have 20 people leave the guild, and they can position them selves without risk, and help kill the "problem-guild" at will at any time.

What? How does leaving the guild change anything when it comes to hitting green players?

oophus

LieutenantToast wrote: »

Hi there! Looks like some folks have already brought a up a few helpful points in this thread, namely:

1. In the situation described by OP, as both the original guilds are likely already purple (combatants), all of their attacks (whether or not they were AoE) would not hit green newcomers unless they intentionally were selecting to force attack (which might be unlikely, seeing as how they were currently fighting other combatants and that would be unnecessary). As noted here, any attacks that are not forced attacks will not hit green non-combatants: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

2. For a large guild vs. guild battle like this, folks might opt to utilize the guild war system, which would then operate outside the usual PvP flagging system entirely: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars

All that being said, the corruption system and its finer points will certainly be something we look for additional feedback on once folks are hands-on with testing it in-game, to let us know their thoughts on the balance between fun and fair!

Thanks for the answer! Now to next option that I'm curious about.

. If the entire guild is flagged at the same time, which fixes a few points, but open up a few others, what is to stop me from making a large portion of my guild disband just to abuse flagging rules in one battle? Assuming in GvsG players in Guild 1 and Guild 2 can only damage and heal eachother, but what if suddenly 20 players in Guild 1 joins Guild 1 while being positioned to backstab Guild 2?

Warth

oophus wrote: »

LieutenantToast wrote: »

Hi there! Looks like some folks have already brought a up a few helpful points in this thread, namely:

1. In the situation described by OP, as both the original guilds are likely already purple (combatants), all of their attacks (whether or not they were AoE) would not hit green newcomers unless they intentionally were selecting to force attack (which might be unlikely, seeing as how they were currently fighting other combatants and that would be unnecessary). As noted here, any attacks that are not forced attacks will not hit green non-combatants: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

2. For a large guild vs. guild battle like this, folks might opt to utilize the guild war system, which would then operate outside the usual PvP flagging system entirely: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars

All that being said, the corruption system and its finer points will certainly be something we look for additional feedback on once folks are hands-on with testing it in-game, to let us know their thoughts on the balance between fun and fair!

Thanks for the answer! Now to next option that I'm curious about.

. If the entire guild is flagged at the same time, which fixes a few points, but open up a few others, what is to stop me from making a large portion of my guild disband just to abuse flagging rules in one battle? Assuming in GvsG players in Guild 1 and Guild 2 can only damage and heal eachother, but what if suddenly 20 players in Guild 1 joins Guild 1 while being positioned to backstab Guild 2?

There is cooldowns in leaving/joining both nodes and families. Considering that nodes are in the middle of these 2, I'd think it safe to assume, that similar restrictions will be placed upon guilds.

Guild changes might also be restricted during wars, but we have no confirmation on either as of yet.

FuryBladeborne

Sathrago wrote: »

LieutenantToast wrote: »

Hi there! Looks like some folks have already brought a up a few helpful points in this thread, namely:

1. In the situation described by OP, as both the original guilds are likely already purple (combatants), all of their attacks (whether or not they were AoE) would not hit green newcomers unless they intentionally were selecting to force attack (which might be unlikely, seeing as how they were currently fighting other combatants and that would be unnecessary). As noted here, any attacks that are not forced attacks will not hit green non-combatants: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

2. For a large guild vs. guild battle like this, folks might opt to utilize the guild war system, which would then operate outside the usual PvP flagging system entirely: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars

All that being said, the corruption system and its finer points will certainly be something we look for additional feedback on once folks are hands-on with testing it in-game, to let us know their thoughts on the balance between fun and fair!

Yeah but what about outside of objective-based pvp? It would be kinda lame if you can only attack each other during prime-time.

You can attack any player almost anywhere and at any time. Given the way the corruption system is designed, corruption will have little or no effect on fights between players that are around the same level. The same is probably true even in large fights, though if anything can go wrong with this then large fights will probably make the problem worse.

oophus

Warth wrote: »

oophus wrote: »

LieutenantToast wrote: »

Hi there! Looks like some folks have already brought a up a few helpful points in this thread, namely:

1. In the situation described by OP, as both the original guilds are likely already purple (combatants), all of their attacks (whether or not they were AoE) would not hit green newcomers unless they intentionally were selecting to force attack (which might be unlikely, seeing as how they were currently fighting other combatants and that would be unnecessary). As noted here, any attacks that are not forced attacks will not hit green non-combatants: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

2. For a large guild vs. guild battle like this, folks might opt to utilize the guild war system, which would then operate outside the usual PvP flagging system entirely: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars

All that being said, the corruption system and its finer points will certainly be something we look for additional feedback on once folks are hands-on with testing it in-game, to let us know their thoughts on the balance between fun and fair!

Thanks for the answer! Now to next option that I'm curious about.

. If the entire guild is flagged at the same time, which fixes a few points, but open up a few others, what is to stop me from making a large portion of my guild disband just to abuse flagging rules in one battle? Assuming in GvsG players in Guild 1 and Guild 2 can only damage and heal eachother, but what if suddenly 20 players in Guild 1 joins Guild 1 while being positioned to backstab Guild 2?

There is cooldowns in leaving/joining both nodes and families. Considering that nodes are in the middle of these 2, I'd think it safe to assume, that similar restrictions will be placed upon guilds.

Guild changes might also be restricted during wars, but we have no confirmation on either as of yet.

A cooldown would work. But I don't think it should be restricted during wars. Wars may last weeks, months and even years in my experience for open world PvP games. But having a timer while Guild Wars is active could fix the problem I'm talking about. But maybe also something that is more visual for Guild 2 if Guild 1 tried this? I don't expect the timer to last hours or days for this, as that would be cumbersome outside of the actual PvP while guilds are still in a war against eachother.

Sathrago

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

LieutenantToast wrote: »

Hi there! Looks like some folks have already brought a up a few helpful points in this thread, namely:

1. In the situation described by OP, as both the original guilds are likely already purple (combatants), all of their attacks (whether or not they were AoE) would not hit green newcomers unless they intentionally were selecting to force attack (which might be unlikely, seeing as how they were currently fighting other combatants and that would be unnecessary). As noted here, any attacks that are not forced attacks will not hit green non-combatants: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

2. For a large guild vs. guild battle like this, folks might opt to utilize the guild war system, which would then operate outside the usual PvP flagging system entirely: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars

All that being said, the corruption system and its finer points will certainly be something we look for additional feedback on once folks are hands-on with testing it in-game, to let us know their thoughts on the balance between fun and fair!

Yeah but what about outside of objective-based pvp? It would be kinda lame if you can only attack each other during prime-time.

You can attack any player almost anywhere and at any time. Given the way the corruption system is designed, corruption will have little or no effect on fights between players that are around the same level. The same is probably true even in large fights, though if anything can go wrong with this then large fights will probably make the problem worse.

That is completely different from what I was asking about though. Brick top explained it well enough, we want to be able to go to war with a guild in the truest sense, active until someone surrenders. If we cant do this outside of primetime objective fights then the game will be worse off for it in my opinion.

Corruption has no place in consensual
conflict between two guilds.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Corruption has no place in consensual
conflict between two guilds.

While I agree with what you are saying in general, I don't think it matters.

If my guild is at war with you and your guild, we aren't going to go out looking for a group from your guild that is running a dungeon, or that is harvesting resources. Honestly, that isn't worth the time or effort. If we happened across a group doing that, we likely wouldn't even bother attacking (though would fight back if attacked).

When you are against a guild, rather than just against a player, killing characters in that manner just doesn't mean anything.

If me and my guild are up against you and your guild, that fight will take place around sieges and around caravans. The only other thing that would be worth fighting over from a guild vs guild perspective would be top end encounters - and the guild war as it stands now (or as we understand it now) should be sufficient for that.

So, when two guilds consider themselves each others rivals, I don't see many valid points of conflict that would result in corruption.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

While I agree with what you are saying in general, I don't think it matters.

Seems a bit odd that points of interest in the hunting grounds won't be worth fighting over outside of "top end encounters" man those first few months are sure going to be a snooze fest if we're all just going to be waving as we pass by or sharing quest/exp/farm spots.

Guess we can only hope Caravan attacks escalate into guild wars and sieges quickly for the sake of pvp lol.

Sathrago

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

While I agree with what you are saying in general, I don't think it matters.

Seems a bit odd that points of interest in the hunting grounds won't be worth fighting over outside of "top end encounters" man those first few months are sure going to be a snooze fest if we're all just going to be waving as we pass by or sharing quest/exp/farm spots.

Guess we can only hope Caravan attacks escalate into guild wars and sieges quickly for the sake of pvp lol.

Well if the carebears had it their way we would only have npcs attack caravans like an escort quest. Wouldn't want to be... attacked by another player. *gasp*

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

While I agree with what you are saying in general, I don't think it matters.

Seems a bit odd that points of interest in the hunting grounds won't be worth fighting over outside of "top end encounters" man those first few months are sure going to be a snooze fest if we're all just going to be waving as we pass by or sharing quest/exp/farm spots.

Guess we can only hope Caravan attacks escalate into guild wars and sieges quickly for the sake of pvp lol.

I really don't expect to see much in the way of large scale consensual guild wars until a good while after the bulk of the players involved have a few characters at the level cap.

This is, honestly, where 99% of the game is going to be played.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Leiloni wrote: »

As Sathrago pointed out, it's important that we be able to attack other guilds outside of any objective PvP area/time slot.

From what I can gather, the point is - if it is not worth gaining corruption over, it is not worth fighting over.

If you and your guild have a real reason to want to fight someone else - whether in a guild or not - you will fight them. The corruption mchanic isn't a barrier to stop this, it is a mechanism by which your decision to attack is given some weight - and the decision to attack other players should always have some weight to it.

You're looking at it all wrong IMO... If it's worth leaving the safety of your node for, then its worth fighting over.

The flagging system (corruption) should never discourage PvP, consensual or not, in the open world. It should only be in place to protect low levels from higher levels and players who are already low health from fighting mobs (and possibly AFK players). It should encourage players to fight over resources, giving those resources more value, and encourage people to fight back to protect their resources.

If you are out gathering and are attacked by another player, it should be more punishing to you to die as a green then to die flagged. So far that is the idea that intrepid is going with so that is good. The only question is if their current ideas are enough to discourage people from dying as a green. Hopefully they adjust accordingly after some testing.

Edit to add: Corruption needs to be balanced with dying as a green. Dying as a green should be just as punishing as gaining corruption versus both parties fighting and dying as purple.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

The flagging system (corruption) should never discourage PvP, consensual or not, in the open world.

Yes it should.

The corruption system is not there *just* to protect lower level players, though that is one of several functions it does perform.

The system is also there to add some weight to the decision to attack other players, regardless of their level.

Since it is there to add weight to this decision, it goes without saying that there will be some cases where players decide to not attack someone else purely because of that weight.

This is absolutely by design.

I would agree that it should never stop you attacking one or two players if you have a reason to want to attack them, but it absolutely should stop you from attacking a player you have no specific reason to attack.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

The flagging system (corruption) should never discourage PvP, consensual or not, in the open world.

Yes it should.

The corruption system is not there *just* to protect lower level players, though that is one of several functions it does perform.

The system is also there to add some weight to the decision to attack other players, regardless of their level.

Since it is there to add weight to this decision, it goes without saying that there will be some cases where players decide to not attack someone else purely because of that weight.

This is absolutely by design.

I would agree that it should never stop you attacking one or two players if you have a reason to want to attack them, but it absolutely should stop you from attacking a player you have no specific reason to attack.

What I am saying is that initial "weight" should be minimal. If I see a player I want to attack I should be able to assume with a high level of certainty that that player will fight back because there is also a "weight" to the decision of not fighting back. Because I should be able to assume that the other person will fight back, that initial "weight" of choosing to attack, is all but void. Thus corruption should not discourage pvp between 2 similar leveled players.

And what we know so far, that is what is being designed.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

And what we know so far, that is what is being designed.

This is very much a perception thing.

The corruption system absolutely won't stop two people that want to PvP from doing so. If you want PvP, and so this is the angle you are looking at it from, then to you it is perfectly valid to say corruption won't stop PvP from happening.

If someone doesn't want to PvP though (and remember, this is a PvX game, not a PvP game - not wanting to PvP on occasion is 100% valid), then the corruption system is the only tool they have to attempt to prevent others from forcing them in to PvP.

It also won't stop someone that really wants to attack someone that really doesn't want to be attacked - it just means they need to have an actual good reason to attack that player.

So, there absolutely will be times when the corruption system stops PvP from happening, but that is only when one of the parties doesn't want PvP, and the other has no specific need to attack said player.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

And what we know so far, that is what is being designed.

This is very much a perception thing.

The corruption system absolutely won't stop two people that want to PvP from doing so. If you want PvP, and so this is the angle you are looking at it from, then to you it is perfectly valid to say corruption won't stop PvP from happening.

If someone doesn't want to PvP though (and remember, this is a PvX game, not a PvP game - not wanting to PvP on occasion is 100% valid), then the corruption system is the only tool they have to attempt to prevent others from forcing them in to PvP.

It also won't stop someone that really wants to attack someone that really doesn't want to be attacked - it just means they need to have an actual good reason to attack that player.

So, there absolutely will be times when the corruption system stops PvP from happening, but that is only when one of the parties doesn't want PvP, and the other has no specific need to attack said player.

I think you are forgetting a major design in the flagging system... and that is a player will receive twice the death penalties for dying as a non-combatant vs. dying as a combatant. The real decision/weight falls on the person who is attacked. Anybody who chooses not to PvP will be punished more then those who fight back. I don't see how anyone would rely on the corruption system as a tool to avoid pvp when they could make an effort to pvp and not be punished as much if they end up dying.

Sure the attacker gets corruption, but corruption has zero negative effects on someone until they die. We all know that corruption can be worked off by gaining xp so you can literally kill a non-combatant and suffer no penalties for it.

Really the only times I see corruption truly stops someone from pvping is if a person has several corruption kills already and they are getting close to a substantial chance to drop gear.

The real point I am trying to make though is that the flagging/corruption system should encourage non-combatants to fight back when attacked. Very few people should be dying as a non-combatant, likewise very few people should be gaining corruption... all while still having tons of open world pvp. If the system is designed correctly that is.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

The real decision/weight falls on the person who is attacked.

This is true to a degree.

However, due since most players are likely to spend most of their time in the same general area as only a few thousand players, it wont take long at all before people will know if you are likely to flag or not.

In a world where you are always attacking a new and unique player, then the decision will almost always be on the player that is attacked.

That isn't going to be Ashes though.

Before long, you will be able to judge with at least a decent amount of accuracy whether a given player is likely to fight back or not. This could be based on previous interaction with the player, their guild, whether they are heading to or from a resource spawn that they are likely to want, or any number of other reasons.

Also...

corruption has zero negative effects on someone until they die.

this isn't true.

If you have any corruption, your stats are reduced against all non-bounty hunter players. Also, guards will attack you on sight, including the guards in your node.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

The real decision/weight falls on the person who is attacked.

Also...

corruption has zero negative effects on someone until they die.

this isn't true.

If you have any corruption, your stats are reduced against all non-bounty hunter players. Also, guards will attack you on sight, including the guards in your node.

You are right. Wasn't clear in the section I was looking but is in the general corruption section of wiki. That is something I would like to see changed... after some testing of course.

Child Item