PVP in Ashes Opt in System to the planned Flagging

Well we all know from the wiki that ashes will fully support open world pvp and we also know that the majority of all players are pve players in the mmo-rpg genres.

The current planned flagging system is at least something however i don't believe that it will lead to many players getting red flagged. Normal human behavior is upon being attacked you instinctively protect and fight back. This doesn't only apply to Real Life it also goes into Virtual World behavior. So the chance that someone gets killed without firstly trying to fight back or cc its attackers are slim to none existing and the system instantly flags the attacked player as combatant the moment he starts defending and fighting back or cc. And so a kill won't mark the attacker as a red or corrupt player.

What could be an additional system to optimize the planned one be?
what comes next problably will be hated by all Pvp lovers caues its an additional system that limits their fun even if it isn’t fun for PvE players to get fragged all day long.

Adding in a system that accumulates over time a flag or flag buff depending on their ingame activities. All player only doing pve content and does not participate in sieges or raids his flag as non combatant getting empowered over time (Time meaning here Real life days without pvp in any sort). this does affect his flag, should he be attacked by another player so his flag will stay non combatant for 1 seconds after the attacked did fight back or cc/heal, if he continues to attack after those 1 second (DOTs, HOTs or other skills that last longer does count only the initial attack) he will be flagged combatant. so to not participate in pvp only gives a timegab before being flagged. that 1 second get expanded by +1sec for every Real Life 24h without any pvp or pvp content participated. the max is reached after 5 days without pvp giveing a 5 sec buffer.

in addition could also opt in a system that gives a protection to lootable items in that process so that for every 24h -10% of the possible loot can be looted by other players that are looting the dead body. in both cases if the killed was still non combatant or combatant. this protection also stops at maximum 5 days which would result in a -50% lootability of the killed attacked player.

However if someone gets an attacked that has this buff and he gets flagged combatant this counts him as pvp and so as soon the status Combatant flags back to non combatant or he getting killed, the time before he gets again this additional protection is after 24 hours have passed.

If a player however is flagged corrupt (red) he cant get that buff, only non combatant can accumulate that buff.

This would not alter the planned flagging system but opts in a little extra safety and protection to those that will primarily play the game in pve and protects partly from the primarily instinctive biological reaction to protect against attacks. and not getting to feel the hard punishment if getting killed and so getting the feel of depression.

I personally am a pvx player doing both pvp and pve however I leave those not interested in pvp alone and stealing (griefing) did become a thing in games even though I believe it's bad to let it happen no matter the world it happens in.

Have a nice day
Asraiel

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

Depends on what is meant by "lose".
I don't enjoy random PvP combat. I don't necessarily mind losing a portion of resources. I would mind losing items. So, for Ashes, normal death penalties if I'm PKed is OK. Especially if it punishes my PKer with 4x death penalties. If Corruption deters PKing as Lineage II players expect, it's a win/win situation: PvP combat ended quickly, either because I die or because my attacker doesn't want Corruption.

If I care about dropping my resources, I can flag as a Combatant and only suffer half the death penalties, but...
That is more of a loss because I've had to participate in an activity I really didn't want to participate in. And my attacker wins, even if I kill them, because they got me to participate in an activity I really didn't want to participate in.

Asraiel

well in Alpha 1 you lost 50% of gathereble ressurces (crafted goods were protected even if only a midstep in crafting) but also money was ldroped that you carried with you

while ressources alone aint that much of a thing money shure is

Songcaller

Your fears are only prevalent in a Green on Green Scenario Asraiel, it won't matter when you fight a corrupted player as you can't turn purple against a red. The only time your requested change would apply would be a green on green fight. There is two negative points in that situation - first, there is the loss of health upon the instigators attack, secondly there is a delay to enter combat stance for the receiver. In both situations, only skill or heals will balance the scales.

If a player really wants you dead, a 2 to 3 second delay entering combatant stance will do nothing. It won't give you a shield from attacks for 2 to 3 seconds, it will only delay your damage towards the attacker for another 2 to 3 seconds. It makes the two points above even worse. I understand you think your reaction times are slower due to you being older, however, you will gain speed in ashes the same as when you were younger - through practice and repetition. There should be no buffers in PvP at all. You will have 30 seconds or 60 seconds to decide whether to fight back or not. There should be no one shot kills.

The best approach would be to group up before you gather, or before you venture into the unknown. Its true you could still be attacked in a group but the group can respond and protect members easier than a 2 to 3 second delay ever will.

Dolyem

Convoluted system idea. From what I gathered, OP is suggesting to make exclusively PVE players buffed over players who choose to PVP. Nah man, everyone is a PVX player in this game whether they want to be or not. Level playing field all around. Test the current system, on paper its already strict enough for pvp.

Asraiel

Dolyem wrote: »

Convoluted system idea. From what I gathered, OP is suggesting to make exclusively PVE players buffed over players who choose to PVP. Nah man, everyone is a PVX player in this game whether they want to be or not. Level playing field all around. Test the current system, on paper its already strict enough for pvp.

pvp is fun when all participants want it. everthing else cant be called pvp
its not buffing the poor pve players. its rather not punish them who wanna be pve player

game will be open to pvp but there not as many mmo-rpg pvp player than those that want pvp belive. and filling a server with 10000 player that only wanna do pvp who does grind and craft their gear besideds filling the 10000 slots. if it has 1-2k players that focus more pvp over pve that would be very high number and nice to have but dont force the other 8k that may be more into pve content into pvp. i wish that ashes will become a game that even after 20 years didnt loose its touch and is interesting to play. pvp focused mmo-rpg hadve that they didnt last that well or that long as the past has shown.

Dolyem

Asraiel wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Convoluted system idea. From what I gathered, OP is suggesting to make exclusively PVE players buffed over players who choose to PVP. Nah man, everyone is a PVX player in this game whether they want to be or not. Level playing field all around. Test the current system, on paper its already strict enough for pvp.

pvp is fun when all participants want it. everthing else cant be called pvp
its not buffing the poor pve players. its rather not punish them who wanna be pve player

How are they being punished? Also it has been explained that this game is PVX, which requires both PVE and PVP. You have to participate in both to progress in the game. If that doesn't sound appealing, then the games design is not ideal for your playstyle.

Asraiel

Dolyem wrote: »

How are they being punished? Also it has been explained that this game is PVX, which requires both PVE and PVP. You have to participate in both to progress in the game.

befor a player gets attacked he is flagged as non combatant if he fights back he becomes combatant and will if he dies and get lootet he may only loose 50% of gahereble as well as money he carrys atm. if he stays non combatant he doesnt get that protection however the killer get flagged as corrupt.

there is a wiki if your interested in the matter as it is planed for ashes

Dolyem wrote: »

If that doesn't sound appealing, then the games design is not ideal for your playstyle.

i myself are a pvx player but all the other games in the mmo-rpg genres i played were mostly pvx games and in every single one the majority of the players were focused on pve rather than pvp. pvp was more refered to raids and sieges or arena evendo most of the map was pvx it rarely happend. shure it had like 100 peopled who didnt care that would jump on everyone if the see a chance of killing them, same as it gives those duds joining in a ts server only to play loud noises to anoy peoples. even do i may not can avoid those peoples it isnt needed to create a new place for them to forfill their pleshure. asylums alredy exists.

Dolyem

Asraiel wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

How are they being punished? Also it has been explained that this game is PVX, which requires both PVE and PVP. You have to participate in both to progress in the game. If that doesn't sound appealing, then the games design is not ideal for your playstyle.

befor a player gets attacked he is flagged as non combatant if he fights back he becomes combatant and will if he dies and get lootet he may only loose 50% of gahereble as well as money he carrys atm. if he stays non combatant he doesnt get that protection however the killer get flagged as corrupt.

I believe you don't lose money on death by a player. At least that's what it said in the corrupted wiki.

And yes, those features tie into the whole risk vs reward design. You can risk fighting back to win and keep all of your materials or lose and halve the loss of your materials. Or you can choose not to fight back, losing more materials but possibly punishing your attacker even more, or they can successfully get rid of their corruption, that's risk vs reward on their part. If you stay green you benefit by limiting how many times an individual can gank you.

None of that is a punishment. You are expected to deal with pvp, as it is the games design, just because you don't want that doesn't make it a punishment, it simply means the game does not match your own playstyle.

Asraiel

Dolyem wrote: »

And yes, those features tie into the whole risk vs reward design.

there will be matereial rich zones and zones with less gatherebles but saver, less mobs or easyer mobs compairded to zones where you problably need a groupe to gather stuff that is allredy risk and reward, due to may choose the rich zone the chance of beeing attacked by a player also increases the risk.

shure you have to expect it. and nope i primarly make posts not for my benefit, i do it for the game benefit and those that love these games as well but aint in the forum active or may starting with the game on release. we all here in the forum can be called hardcore players due to care even befor the lunch. but hadcores will not fill up the server. if only hardcores would play the game it would be dead right from the start. a big junk of the playerbase of every mmo is more casualy with maybe investing 1-2h a day and maybe 6-12 on the weekend.

i dont care much if i loose 1 or 2 hours of grinding before i go off i got even more grinded than that tiny amount but not everyone has this luxus to have so much free time. that doesnt mean their bad players of should not play the game itself. i am greatfull for every soul that plays and keeps the game alive but that also means careing for mor than only one groupe of players.

pvp sadly differs extream depending on the geografical area of the world the player life in in some parts pvp is super fun and the community does acct nice with pvp and non pvp players, in my zone they are a pain some other reagions maybe even worse or better than here. cant say that didnt play around the world only korea, japan servers, eu and na servers. the culture of the players does show in the gamebehavior.

so giving those that love mmo-rpg that care and keep a world like ashes lively but do not be much into pvp may need some care to not risk faceing a empty server after 5 years when the next mmo rpg lunches. careing for those that chose ashes for the long term and not only for a quicky.

thats the reason behind my topics in general it may only effect me by lets guess 5% the rest is purely for those that doesnt have the time or doesnt yet know of this game beeing developed that may fill the lands of verra and bring it to life.

Songcaller

The trend in games is not positive at the moment. All games have lost 90 to 95% of players in less than a year in recent years - even Elden Ring and Minecraft. Thus, Ashes has an uphill battle already. We can't change the corruption system substantially because there are too many factions that all want different changes - therefore, no changes can occur because all other changes would have to be side-lined or implemented too and that means a total overhaul of the corruption system.

The idea to put in a buffer is the same argument some people used to have of making Streamers immune. It simply is not fair for anyone except those who directly benefit. Thus, it won't or can't be implemented. I still believe the death penalties should be reviewed but then PvE players would be even less inclined to fight back.

Asraiel

even if this topic may not bring the answer it should be known the planed system has to much potential to scare off potential players.

Songcaller

There are many facets that will drive potential players away. Just the same as some of those facets will bring more players in. We will see how big the drop off rates will be at the different markers for the play time added to each package - the 9 months marker being the highest end. Not sure how many lifetime subs were sold. Such is the bane of open development and such is the bane of changes made to concepts. One can never tell if the effects will be positive or negative. At least the combat updates have generally been positive so far - if not the substance of the combat.

Taleof2Cities

Asraiel wrote: »

even if this topic may not bring the answer it should be known the planed system has to much potential to scare off potential players.

And that's totally OK.

Steven has already made it clear that a PvX game is not going to be for everyone.

If players want to farm resources in peace without risk of PvP ... Ashes isn't going to quench that thirst.

If players want to farm other players in peace without risk of consequences ... Ashes isn't going to quench that thirst either.

Kardin

Neurath wrote: »

The trend in games is not positive at the moment. All games have lost 90 to 95% of players in less than a year in recent years - even Elden Ring and Minecraft. Thus, Ashes has an uphill battle already. We can't change the corruption system substantially because there are too many factions that all want different changes - therefore, no changes can occur because all other changes would have to be side-lined or implemented too and that means a total overhaul of the corruption system.

The idea to put in a buffer is the same argument some people used to have of making Streamers immune. It simply is not fair for anyone except those who directly benefit. Thus, it won't or can't be implemented.

Since the game will not launch soon (probably 2+ y before launch) is not too difficould to modify system inside the game like the corruption one, and onestly this system is going on from 2000, so with the new tecnology is possible to do much more. They just need to think how can improve it instead of copy paste L2 or other similar games (quite similar to that and i dont see anything new in this system).

Neurath wrote:

PvE players would be even less inclined to fight back.

PvE players simply find PvP (usually world PvP) annoing and DONT want to do it no matter what. Even if you say that after a PvP kills you will gather 100% more resource the vast majority of PvE players will still try to avoid PvP XD

Edit:

"Taleof2Cities wrote:

If you want to farm players in peace without risk of consequences ... Ashes isn't going to quench that thirst either.

Well, the only penalty that you cant avoid is the loss of exp and if you cant go back in levels (for now we dont know) is something that doenst matter, all the other "penalty" can be avoided in many "non intended (I hope they are not inteded) ways"

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

They have to die at some point.

@Dygz - hehe, I plan on quoting this ironically and out of context liberally.

@Asraiel - I think your suggestion is in line with a few others over the past years to 'soften' (may not be the right word) the PvE experience in a PvX world. My concern is with this suggestion (as with the others) is that I don't want to add ways to differentiate PvE activity from PvP activity. I really want Ashes to just have PvX activity, and being attacked randomly is part of that PvX reality.

BaSkA_9x2

Asraiel wrote: »

So the chance that someone gets killed without firstly trying to fight back or cc its attackers are slim to none existing and the system instantly flags the attacked player as combatant the moment he starts defending and fighting back or cc. And so a kill won't mark the attacker as a red or corrupt player.

Sorry but your premise is non-existent and based purely on your opinion, therefore the "problem" and "solutions" you're discussing are also fictional.

There's enough motivation to both fight back and not fight back:

Fight back: if you die, you'll only lose half of the mats you would otherwise (25% of the total).
Not fight back: you'll lose half of the mats you have (50% of the total), but the aggressor will become red, so you can come back, kill them and get a chance of dropping their gear.

To me it feels like you're creating a situation which is false and using it to hide the real reason why you want opt-in PvP and/or other weird (and bad) ideas:

Asraiel wrote: »

This would not alter the planned flagging system but opts in a little extra safety and protection to those that will primarily play the game in pve and protects partly from the primarily instinctive biological reaction to protect against attacks. and not getting to feel the hard punishment if getting killed and so getting the feel of depression.

I chuckled with the "this would not alter the planned flagging system", it's like lying to yourself.

You want safety for some players in a game that, from the very start, is not safe and will, hopefully, never be safe. More recently New World showed why anything with "opt-in" in its name is a bad idea, but it wasn't the first game to do it (and fail at it).

I honestly laughed with the "punishment if (of) getting killed and getting the feel of depression". It's like playing a PvP game like CSGO and crying when you get killed by someone. If you feel depressed because you died in an online game and lost stuff, you should either not play a PvP game with loot on death or look for professional help.

Sometimes I get the feeling that people who literally never played a game where dying isn't safe now want to play a game where there is loot on death, but instead of facing it or not playing the game, they want the game to change for them. Ludicrous.

TL;DR: Stop trying to create excuses and blaming imaginary reasons for your dislike of not being safe anywhere from being killed and dropping some loot. You might think you are a "PvX" player, but unfortunately you are not. You only want to PvP when you want to PvP, which by definition, is a PvE player. In Ashes, there's no such thing as consensual PvP, and there never will be.

Cheers

Warth

A:
Its always quite amusing when people speak out against the currently planned corruption system with the argument, that an overwhelming majority of players are only interested in PvE.

Mate, if an overwhelming majority of players is only interested in PvE on your server, then you wont get ganked a lot either and the problem you are describing is literally solved before it even became one.

B:

The current planned flagging system is at least something however i don't believe that it will lead to many players getting red flagged. Normal human behavior is upon being attacked you instinctively protect and fight back. This doesn't only apply to Real Life it also goes into Virtual World behavior. So the chance that someone gets killed without firstly trying to fight back or cc its attackers are slim to none existing and the system instantly flags the attacked player as combatant the moment he starts defending and fighting back or cc. And so a kill won't mark the attacker as a red or corrupt player.

Thats pretty much were your entire argument falls apart for me.
There is nothing "instinctual" about defending yourself in AoC.
You have to press a key combination to even be able to hit back. Thats a conscious decision, not an instinctual response. If people want to fight back, they may. If people dont want to, they dont have to. Its their choice. Also, the reduced death penalty is designed to be an incentive towards fighting back, nothing else. If people indeed fight back constantly, then it did exactly what it was meant to do.

C:
The only time you should ever be caught off guard when ganked, is when its perpetrated by someone with stealth. If you dont see a Mage casting a fire ball at you or a purple warrior running towards you, then thats on you for not paying attention.

BasKa13 wrote:

I chuckled with the "this would not alter the planned flagging system", it's like lying to yourself.

You want safety for some players in a game that, from the very start, is not safe and will, hopefully, never be safe. More recently New World showed why anything with "opt-in" in its name is a bad idea, but it wasn't the first game to do it (and fail at it).

I honestly laughed with the "punishment if (of) getting killed and getting the feel of depression". It's like playing a PvP game like CSGO and crying when you get killed by someone. If you feel depressed because you died in an online game and lost stuff, you should either not play a PvP game with loot on death or look for professional help.

Sometimes I get the feeling that people who literally never played a game where dying isn't safe now want to play a game where there is loot on death, but instead of facing it or not playing the game, they want the game to change for them. Ludicrous.TL;DR: Stop trying to create excuses and blaming imaginary reasons for your dislike of not being safe anywhere from being killed and dropping some loot. You might think you are a "PvX" player, but unfortunately you are not. You only want to PvP when you want to PvP, which by definition, is a PvE player. In Ashes, there's no such thing as consensual PvP, and there never will be.

Cheers, couldnt have said it better. Actually, the moment you started the game you consented to the possibility of being ganked. So id say its indeed consensual.

Asraiel

This topic this idea has its focus alone on a system that automates things in the game without the need of interaction from the support. all the infos about what the game and its systems could be are yet mostly written in the wiki and leaked thru offical statements or dev stream. until alpha 2 a lot is still clouded in mist.

one major thing that is yet nowere to be seen is the Rules and the Terms of use opon which player need to agree in order to create an account. many things that to this point in development isnt zemented in the game may chage or will have in addion some written rules to it instead of selfmaintaining systems. so that certain cases of pvp or non pvp interaction may get punisheble by the support if reported in.

as mentioned many times i see the open development progress and the nature of the project where the fanbase is asked frequently about their thoughts as oportunity to share ideas i have about the game. with the primarly objection to reach those in charge to may give a imput that may or may not lead to something simular or even something new. i and as well ever fan if supporter or not has the same power to actualy change how the game will be in numbers that power is 0.

the moment the topic is read by officals the topic has forfilled its purpose. if we as fans of the project think its good or bad doesnt matter.

Steven and John are the heads of the project if they are happy with the game as it is, we may join in and play the game developed for them and their team.

i will keep on posting whenever a idea comes to my mind to share it with the team (usualy more than 7 day prozess befor opening a topic)

i myself as a pvx hardcore player with enouth freetime to play 12h a day will definetly be there to burry your corpses. i simply have a heart for those that wanna enjoy more the lore and the pve content of the game.

see you killed by my meteor storm xD
PS: Let me know in advance which type of tombstone you prefer.

Dolyem

I was going to make a rebuttal but it looks like everything I was going to pretty much say was covered by others. Cheers

tautau

Do your resource gathering on your lower-level alt (2nd account alt, if you do that) and have your higher level main camped hidden in the area. If some dude who thinks he is tough attacks your gathering alt, let the alt die and the attacker go red. Then swoop down with your main and kill the fool and pick up his weapon if he drops it. You might even want the alt naked, so he goes down in one shot.

There is an old thread on 'Alt Bait Tactic' that goes into some detail on this.

Child Item