Combatant attacks non-combatant

Hello. I am a veteran Ultima Online player and I thought they had an excellent flagging system. I was looking over the proposed flagging system of AoC and found a point of confusion. If a combatant attacks a non-combatant, the non-combatant can’t even defend themselves lest they become a combatant? This seems like an oversight.

If you’re innocent and someone attacks you, I think you should be able to defend yourself without the possibility of being ganked by a third party.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bleebz

@Noaani i conceded pages back that I’m not going to win a systems argument (development). Accept your lagged laurels. If you’re going to argue in abstraction, again, it’s pointless. Your intent to possess abstract experience is doomed to fail, permanently and forever.

daveywavey

Bleebz

That’s terrifying

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

If you’re going to argue in abstraction, again, it’s pointless.

Bleebz wrote: »

I was focusing on an abstract concept while you were focusing on systems.

Which was it, are you thinking you were arguing the abstract, or I was?

I'll give you a clue, I don't argue abstract. I attempt to help try to connect an abstract concept some people may have to the systems in the game, and possibly point out where some of the abstract notion they have may need to be shifted (literally everyone that comes to this game looks at the systems, compares them to a game they have played in the past, and gets some element of that wrong - you are not unique in this).

What I am trying to do is help you see the game for how we know it to be now, as those aspects of it are not going to change - at least not unless major issues with it are identified during beta. I am trying to do this so that you have a better understanding of what the game is, so you can make an informed decision as to whether you like it or not - as this game is not for everyone.

You had some notions of what you think this game is, or what you think it should be, that were just not what it is, nor what it wants to be. Some of them have been corrected, some have not.

It would have been a whole lot easier if you had have just dropped the whole innocence thing the first time I fucking said it didn't mean anything in this game.

Because it doesn't.

Bleebz

I agree that you’re super helpful. Thanks. I read it

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

I agree that you’re super helpful. Thanks. I read it

Right, which is why you carried on with a nonsensical argument.

Bleebz

Which part? That wasn’t nonsensical. You seem pretty fired up.

Bleebz

Noaani wrote: »

Bleebz wrote: »

I agree that you’re super helpful. Thanks. I read it

Right, which is why you carried on with a nonsensical argument.

You think the abstract concept of innocence in a MMORPG is without value? Sometimes players just want to gather resources.

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Bleebz wrote: »

I agree that you’re super helpful. Thanks. I read it

Right, which is why you carried on with a nonsensical argument.

You think the abstract concept of innocence in a MMORPG is without value? Sometimes players just want to gather resources.

It has no place in Ashes.

You can want to gather resources all you want, you are still a perfectly valid PvP target for anyone that comes along.

If you don't want to be a potential target, play a different game - Ashes does not provide you with that sanctuary, not even in the middle of a city.

This is what I have been telling you all along - the notion of innocence has no meaning in this game. It may in others, but not here.

Ramirez

Bleebz wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Bleebz wrote: »

I agree that you’re super helpful. Thanks. I read it

Right, which is why you carried on with a nonsensical argument.

You think the abstract concept of innocence in a MMORPG is without value? Sometimes players just want to gather resources.

People still can farm, but need to have more caution, chose abilitys to run and mount, you will have options

Atleast devs dont need to worry with bots gathering and selling gold muahahahaha

bigepeen

I mainly worry about the UO system of letting a player attack an opponent without flagging.

This would lead to the following situation (using green for innocent, and red for murderer, for simplicity):

you kill a green player a single time
green player marks you red
green player respawns and returns
green starts attacking you without flagging
this leaves you with no other option than to kill that green player again
you get even more penalties since your murder count went up
green player respawns and returns
cycle continues ad nauseam

The scenario I described seems very exploitable, as it basically allows a green player to infinitely karma bomb grief you just for killing them one time. AoC's system avoids this problem by requiring the green player to flag purple before attacking the red player. This allows the red player to fight back without consequences.

Noanii brought up a detail that I had forgotten in the AoC system, you are still incentivized to PvP and defend yourself because you lose 50% less loot as a purple than a green when you die.

I also agree that people wanting to gather resources and PvE shouldn't expect to play without risk. Just because you are "innocent", doesn't mean that criminals should be less likely to target you.

Overall, UO's system doesn't sound too bad, but I think AoC's current system sounds like an improvement. The latter sounds less exploitable, and it still incentivizes defending yourself.

Bleebz

@bigepeen In the ancient UO system I was describing, a green player attacking a purple or red player would be flagged only to the purple or red player. By initiating the attack, the green player can be killed by the purple or red, fully looted, and no corruption gained. The difference in UO is that attacking a purple would not turn a green to purple (not becoming vulnerable to a free gank), thus the main purpose of this thread.

Bleebz

If you don't want to be a potential target, play a different game - Ashes does not provide you with that sanctuary, not even in the middle of a city.

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point.

Blandmarrow

Bleebz wrote: »

If you don't want to be a potential target, play a different game - Ashes does not provide you with that sanctuary, not even in the middle of a city.

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point.

We're probably missing the point because we don't understand what you're going for.

The concept of innocent and guilty will only exist in the game in the same form it does in real life, regulated by players.

You want the what we describe as innocent people to not be penalized for defending themselves, but that would go against what the artificial corruption system aims to achieve.

Bleebz

I was offering a bit of nuance for discussion, as an alternative, from a previous game. It would not change the corruption system.

Blandmarrow

Bleebz wrote: »

I was offering a bit of nuance for discussion, as an alternative, from a previous game. It would not change the corruption system.

But it does change the corruption system.

If greens can attack a attacker without flagging, then no one will attack because they will get corruption regardless if you retaliate or not, which is a lose scenario for them in both cases.

This would mean defenders ALWAYS have the advantage, which leads to discouragement of PvP which is not what the system should do, considering the core design philosophy of what Intrepid wants Ashes to be.

Nagash

Nice to see somethings never change no matter how long I stay away

bigepeen

Bleebz wrote: »

In the ancient UO system I was describing, a green player attacking a purple or red player would be flagged only to the purple or red player. By initiating the attack, the green player can be killed by the purple or red, fully looted, and no corruption gained. The difference in UO is that attacking a purple would not turn a green to purple (not becoming vulnerable to a free gank), thus the main purpose of this thread.

Ok, I was confused because you said this a while ago:

Bleebz wrote: »

In UO if you attacked a criminal, you don’t flag. You remain what you were previous to the attack. Same with attacking a murderer.

So, basically, everyone's flagging status is from the perspective of the player, not an absolute flag state that is consistent among everyone on the server.

It's hard to say whether or not a flagging system from a player's perspective is better than a world perspective.

The difference in what you described: a green player attacking a purple or red player would not turn them purple is UO, is only true from the perspective of other players.

But does this actually matter? Say that you are solo, and a group of 3 people roll up, and one starts attacking you. If you're all on equal level (and skill), the outcome in AoC and UO will be the same. Sure, you won't get flagged immediately by defending yourself in UO, but if you start winning against the attacker, his friends will help him out and start attacking you. In both systems, the attacker's friends might attack you sooner without waiting to see if their friend starts losing. Thus, the subjective flagging system doesn't really affect the outcome, or the decision on whether you should fight or flee. As someone who is outnumbered, you shouldn't really be wasting time fighting unless you've already made the determination that you can 1v3 them.

kykamo

@Bleebz It seems to me your wondering two things: How to RP with RL "innocence" concept in mind and the issue of AoC flagging mechanics screwing over the green player who intends to just farm.

Given my understanding of RL and how I will RP in AoC, I offer the following perspective:

All players are newcomers to the world of Vera so no one owns any of it and yet all need its resources. So when I go out into the wild to gather fire wood, hunt, building materials, etc. I have every right to do so because I need those resources for survival or bettering my community. However, so does every other player. So if I come across another player taking the wood I need. I may have to fight him for it or let my community suffer. Perhaps we can share, or let bygones be bygones. Perhaps not. Vera is a dirty and harsh place. No one is necessarily innocent or greedy. Perhaps a player can gather resources and not hurt anyone, or perhaps Im gathering limited resources that everyone would need and Im selfishly taking because other players needs are greater. I cant be sure and therefore must be on guard when I go gather. And if I stumble upon someone taking what I need, I know they know, ima kill em for it. Lest they run away and let me farm instead. Hunting down a non combatant would only show my inner corruption.

(also how game mechanics will play into farming, in my reading it seems like resources will wander around and not be so stagnant. Mobs will travel around a continent, veins and trees may not readily spawn in the same places which lends to the scarcity and need of all players to have the resources when they find them)

When it comes to the flagging mechanics I also dont fully understand and have some questions. I assume probably because the game is still in alpha and hasnt been tested.

First to address Bleebz concern, how I understand it, yes, if you are attacked in Vera for "no reason at all" there are penalties to you. If someone kills you and you clearly did not want to fight, there are worse penalties for the killer. AoC creators however, want to encourage pvp (praise God), so if you participate, your death penalties are halved, or if you win, you get all the reward. And maybe I will find the harsh corruption penalty worth it in certain circumstances. Perhaps the loot the victim drops is worth it, or I'll have the mobs cleared and will be gone before the victim comes back with friends for revenge, or... someone just needs a slap.

I hope my RP perspective above can help abstractly justify/reason why the creators go in this direction.

I do have concerns of this system not working as intended though. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can answer them. I understand that your not flagged until the player Im attacking is dead? So I could poke a green a few times so they get the point and leave with no one dying? That's cool.

But what if I see someone fleeing another player, I dont know how it started or if the runner hasnt previously engaged, I help kill the runner. Do I risk being corrupted? Is that intended? Flagging after someone is dead is a foreign concept to me.

Hope this helps somehow.

maouw

Nagash wrote: »

Nice to see somethings never change no matter how long I stay away

It's comforting to see the cat petting gif on the forums again

wb Nagash

Child Item