I think Steven and the team will likely do what they are already planning to do despite any of our comments in this thread, so going back and forth will likely do nothing in the grand scheme of things.
I will always be flagged because I like open world pvp. So I am not a pve cry-baby or anything.
I just know that if they punish PVEers more than PVPers, this game will have a much smaller (niche) population. If they are happy with that, then hey more power to them. I will likely still play. I am just thinking of overall success of the game.
0
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Can't be perma flagged. If no PvP fo 60 seconds you will revert back to green.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
"So the chance that someone gets killed without firstly trying to fight back or cc its attackers are slim to none existing"
I disagree with this.
Since that's the basis of the perception, I also then disagree with the idea as a whole.
I also disagree with it because the system already literally does this. If you fight back, you already have a '-50% lootability'. The thing it is 'adding' is a lot of complexity around this which allows one to 'continue fighting without getting flagged. Which I think is a problem in healer-fighter duos, for example.
If you are implying that a healer can heal someone who is flagged without getting flagged themselves, i'd really doubt that'll be the case.
I don't think most of us want to see a corrupt player with 40 healers going around and decimating small villages(okay, maybe once... but that's it lol). If it's not a thing on Alpha 2 launch, my guess is it will be shortly after.
The suggestion might have led to something like this, where the healer can heal either themselves or others more easily without being flagged, particularly with specific spells and situations.
There are certain 'ground area healing' abilities that we also don't know 'how they will work relative to flagging', but those may be changed, as they were only a part of Alpha-1 and Intrepid has confirmed that anything we saw before, ability wise, might also be changed.
There are certain 'ground area healing' abilities that we also don't know 'how they will work relative to flagging', but those may be changed, as they were only a part of Alpha-1 and Intrepid has confirmed that anything we saw before, ability wise, might also be changed.
There are certain 'ground area healing' abilities that we also don't know 'how they will work relative to flagging', but those may be changed, as they were only a part of Alpha-1 and Intrepid has confirmed that anything we saw before, ability wise, might also be changed.
Thank you. Though technically I referred to 'what happens if Hallowed Ground is started on a nonflagged player and you have the switch off and then that player flags?'
The implication IS definitely that 'because the switch was on, them flagging up and being healed by standing in it will flag you, the healer'.
I'm just not willing to assume it because of various scenarios I can think of. It's probably not relevant to this discussion anyway.
Thank you. Though technically I referred to 'what happens if Hallowed Ground is started on a nonflagged player and you have the switch off and then that player flags?'
The implication IS definitely that 'because the switch was on, them flagging up and being healed by standing in it will flag you, the healer'.
The explicit statement of "completion of skill" makes me think that they could have a fail state imbedded in the coding, where if the first flag check didn't match up with the final one - the skill effect would be flipped.
Thank you. Though technically I referred to 'what happens if Hallowed Ground is started on a nonflagged player and you have the switch off and then that player flags?'
The implication IS definitely that 'because the switch was on, them flagging up and being healed by standing in it will flag you, the healer'.
The explicit statement of "completion of skill" makes me think that they could have a fail state imbedded in the coding, where if the first flag check didn't match up with the final one - the skill effect would be flipped.
Retroactively?
Anyways, like I said, it doesn't matter. If Hallowed Ground is the same, I have multiple tests to run myself on its flagging and corruption effects in Alpha-2. Until then, consider it irrelevant. I'm sure if somehow my plans for use of it are correct, it will be intentional design anyway.
This is a very big assumption on my part and will obviously has to be tested, but if they go down the "animation based cd", then it'd seem logical to have a check of validity of effect at the end of the animation. And the mention of "completion of skill" makes me think that this is the case. So if you started a cast and it had a valid check (be it for flag or maybe for visibility), but then at the end the check was invalid - you got yourself a "failed" effect.
L2 worked like this. You couldn't cast abilities if your didn't have a visual on someone, but if you had the visual and then during the cast you lost it - the ability effect would not go through.
Anyways, like I said, it doesn't matter. If Hallowed Ground is the same, I have multiple tests to run myself on its flagging and corruption effects in Alpha-2. Until then, consider it irrelevant. I'm sure if somehow my plans for use of it are correct, it will be intentional design anyway.
I do think this matters, cause the same thing could be applied to aoe attack insteractions with the same switch and to even flagging itself. What if I do a forced attack on someone, but they move behind a tree during the cast? Do I get flagged because of my intention or do I not get flagged because the ability didn't attack (that is if the system I described is implemented).
But yes, it's all gonna be in the testing. I'll personally be rooting and giving feedback for the system to be like I'm used to, just because I see merit in it from my own experience and because I hate gcd with an absolute passion and it seems to me that animation-based cd allows you to not have a gcd cause it servers the same function.
This is a very big assumption on my part and will obviously has to be tested, but if they go down the "animation based cd", then it'd seem logical to have a check of validity of effect at the end of the animation. And the mention of "completion of skill" makes me think that this is the case. So if you started a cast and it had a valid check (be it for flag or maybe for visibility), but then at the end the check was invalid - you got yourself a "failed" effect.
L2 worked like this. You couldn't cast abilities if your didn't have a visual on someone, but if you had the visual and then during the cast you lost it - the ability effect would not go through.
Anyways, like I said, it doesn't matter. If Hallowed Ground is the same, I have multiple tests to run myself on its flagging and corruption effects in Alpha-2. Until then, consider it irrelevant. I'm sure if somehow my plans for use of it are correct, it will be intentional design anyway.
I do think this matters, cause the same thing could be applied to aoe attack insteractions with the same switch and to even flagging itself. What if I do a forced attack on someone, but they move behind a tree during the cast? Do I get flagged because of my intention or do I not get flagged because the ability didn't attack (that is if the system I described is implemented).
But yes, it's all gonna be in the testing. I'll personally be rooting and giving feedback for the system to be like I'm used to, just because I see merit in it from my own experience and because I hate gcd with an absolute passion and it seems to me that animation-based cd allows you to not have a gcd cause it servers the same function.
For clarity, (last response because I really don't want to go into the weeds on this one), Hallowed Ground is a ground template that Heals allies over time and Damages enemies over time.
It must 'tick' to decide which of those things it will do based on both position of player and 'intent of caster'.
If I cast Hallowed Ground on a Green player and my Green party member and my Green party member then flags up by attacking the other green Player while they are both standing in my Hallowed Ground, the question is 'what happens then?'
The extension of that, relative to the actual topic, is 'at what point, if any, do I get flagged while this is going on?'
It must 'tick' to decide which of those things it will do based on both position of player and 'intent of caster'.
If I cast Hallowed Ground on a Green player and my Green party member and my Green party member then flags up by attacking the other green Player while they are both standing in my Hallowed Ground, the question is 'what happens then?'
The extension of that, relative to the actual topic, is 'at what point, if any, do I get flagged while this is going on?'
I would assume, each tick is the "completion of cast". So the skill would do a check comparison against your switch option. If you disabled aoe flagging - you won't flag if any player in your h/dot aoe changes state.
That seems logical to me and I see no gameplay issue with that. If your mate flagged in a healing aoe, while knowing that you have your aoe flagging disabled - that's on him (that is, if you or PL explicitly said not to flag). I've seen quite a few raids fail because some dumbass flagged up when he shouldn't have. This system would prevent that (that is, he'll just die while no one else gets involved).
Same for pvp flagging, I've seen a ton of "aoe flag baiting" in L2 and it was often very frustrating. This kind of check system would prevent that.
If you see a flaw in this kind of system, definitely point it out, cause I might be missing smth due to my bias.
This is a very big assumption on my part and will obviously has to be tested, but if they go down the "animation based cd", then it'd seem logical to have a check of validity of effect at the end of the animation. And the mention of "completion of skill" makes me think that this is the case. So if you started a cast and it had a valid check (be it for flag or maybe for visibility), but then at the end the check was invalid - you got yourself a "failed" effect.
L2 worked like this. You couldn't cast abilities if your didn't have a visual on someone, but if you had the visual and then during the cast you lost it - the ability effect would not go through.
Anyways, like I said, it doesn't matter. If Hallowed Ground is the same, I have multiple tests to run myself on its flagging and corruption effects in Alpha-2. Until then, consider it irrelevant. I'm sure if somehow my plans for use of it are correct, it will be intentional design anyway.
I do think this matters, cause the same thing could be applied to aoe attack insteractions with the same switch and to even flagging itself. What if I do a forced attack on someone, but they move behind a tree during the cast? Do I get flagged because of my intention or do I not get flagged because the ability didn't attack (that is if the system I described is implemented).
But yes, it's all gonna be in the testing. I'll personally be rooting and giving feedback for the system to be like I'm used to, just because I see merit in it from my own experience and because I hate gcd with an absolute passion and it seems to me that animation-based cd allows you to not have a gcd cause it servers the same function.
For clarity, (last response because I really don't want to go into the weeds on this one), Hallowed Ground is a ground template that Heals allies over time and Damages enemies over time.
It must 'tick' to decide which of those things it will do based on both position of player and 'intent of caster'.
If I cast Hallowed Ground on a Green player and my Green party member and my Green party member then flags up by attacking the other green Player while they are both standing in my Hallowed Ground, the question is 'what happens then?'
The extension of that, relative to the actual topic, is 'at what point, if any, do I get flagged while this is going on?'
I image you would have to force cast on a green not in your party. So, you would turn purple the moment you initiate the skill. It only makes sense for the ability to heal those in your group/party.
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.
If I'm understanding the system correctly, couldn't one way to maximize loot drop be to jump the victim with enough firepower so they wouldn't have a chance to counterattack?
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.
If I'm understanding the system correctly, couldn't one way to maximize loot drop be to jump the victim with enough firepower so they wouldn't have a chance to counterattack?
The time to kill is supposed to be ~ 60 seconds long, so unless you do bring half a raid full of rogues and rangers, this does seem like a very unlikely, scenario to happen.
Not sure what to tell you If you don't realize 6 flagged mages casting fireballs, 4 warriors, 6 summoner pets and 3 tanks charging toward you. No reason to be a surprised pikachu then, learn to pay attention
Thats wy i opend up this topic in the first place. if flagging for combatant does reward the player not only to protect a amount of gathered and money to be looteble also reward the chance of beating the oponent.
non combatant are then theoreticly punished for not flagging and also punished cuase the chance to kill their oponent doenst exist. then the only reward there is that the attacker gets a deathpenalty by killing you.
so in other words the current system does give 2 rewards to those that fight back (flagging combatant) and applys 2 penaltys and 1 reward to those that dont fight back (non combatant) where however the reward is that the attacker gets a death penalty upon killing you.
not to fight back should not recive that penalty cause you giveing away the option to kill your attacker and get to loot him for that you flagg yourself combanant and sign the attacker that he doesnt get punished if he kill you.
the current is for a non combatant a: loss loss win situation
for a combatant a: win win situation
by changeing the droppenalty for non combatant this changes to a: win loss win situation
it should be enouth reward to flagg combatant only to get the chance not to be killed and to have the chance of looting your attacker.
Your suggestions have no merit. The system works well. You are making a HUGE deal out of a tiny detail. It is also obvious that in your mind, the non-combatant and the aggressor are the only two people in the whole game.
If you think about it a bit harder you will see that people TRULLY have the option to fight back or let the aggressor go red.
It's an mmo.
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.
If I'm understanding the system correctly, couldn't one way to maximize loot drop be to jump the victim with enough firepower so they wouldn't have a chance to counterattack?
The time to kill is supposed to be ~ 60 seconds long, so unless you do bring half a raid full of rogues and rangers, this does seem like a very unlikely, scenario to happen.
Not sure what to tell you If you don't realize 6 flagged mages casting fireballs, 4 warriors, 6 summoner pets and 3 tanks charging toward you. No reason to be a surprised pikachu then, learn to pay attention
to be fair, I think certain classes will be able to kill some classes quicker than others, and some will take much more time to kill. I fully expect glass cannon builds and survivability builds from all sorts. To say every fight will last an average of a minute is kind of unrealistic to me, BUT I digress, we shall find out during testing how close we are to the statement.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
non combatant are then theoreticly punished for not flagging and also punished cuase the chance to kill their oponent doenst exist. then the only reward there is that the attacker gets a deathpenalty by killing you.
That is absolutely false:
Combatants are rewarded for PvP combat with half normal death penalties.
Non-Combatants have NORMAL death penalties. So that is neutral.
Corrupted are PUNISHED with 4x normal death penalties.
Non-Combatants don’t need to kill their opponents. Either their opponents choose not to kill the Non-Combatants in order to avoid Corruption. Or the attacker kills the Non-Combatant and is PUNISHED with 4x the death penalties along with some other gnarly consequences.
If the Non-Combatant dies, it’s the same death penalties as dying from a mob.
so in other words the current system does give 2 rewards to those that fight back (flagging combatant) and applys 2 penaltys and 1 reward to those that dont fight back (non combatant) where however the reward is that the attacker gets a death penalty upon killing you.
The current system rewards Combatants with half the death penalties if the Combatant dies. That’s one - what is the other reward?
The current system does not apply any penalties for not fighting back. If you die as a Non-Combatant it’s the normal death penalties. Same as if you die from a mob.
Punishing Corrupted with 4x the death penalties is not a tangible reward…it’s a consolation, perhaps.
not to fight back should not recive that penalty cause you giveing away the option to kill your attacker and get to loot him for that you flagg yourself combanant and sign the attacker that he doesnt get punished if he kill you.
Anytime you die as a Non-Combatant you get NORMAL death penalties. If you want half normal death penalties, flag as Combatant.
You aren’t “giving away the option to kill your attacker”. You are taking the option to not attack back. You have a free choice.
the current is for a non combatant a: loss loss win situation
for a combatant a: win win situation
That’s a matter of perspective.
For me:
Getting PKed as a Non-Combatant is, at worst, a win/win/lose situation.
Win: PvP ended as quickly as possible
Win: PKer is punished with 4x Corruption
Lose: Normal death penalties
For PKer:
Lose: No challenging PvP fight
Lose: 4x death penalty
Lose: Increased Corruption Score
Lose: Flagged for Bounty Hunters
Lose: Ability to trade is toggled off
Lose: Family Summons is toggled off
Win: Looted some resources
For Combatant:
Win: Fair fight
Win: Half normal death penalties
Win: Looted half normal dropped resources
by changeing the droppenalty for non combatant this changes to a: win loss win situation
it should be enouth reward to flagg combatant only to get the chance not to be killed and to have the chance of looting your attacker.
The current system is already Win/Win/Lose for Non-Combatant.
If you remain Non-Combatant, you still have a good chance to not be killed because Corruption is a significant risk.
If I’m not in the mood for PvP combat, killing and looting my attacker is not going to appease my annoyance being pushed into flagging as Combatant. Not dying also won’t appease my annoyance at being pushed to flag as Combatant.
Loot is only half normal death penalty drops, so, it’s really not much of a win if I’m not in the mood for PvP combat.
Better just to stay Non-Combatant and punish with Corruption if I’m killed. That minimizes the frequency that I will be PKed when I’m not in the mood for random PvP combat.
The current system is fine - if Corruption is truly harsh enough to deter PKing to the degree Steven envisions.
one thing that is missing in the discussion is that the dead drops a portion of its gathereble and money on the ground. he can retreve it but for that he has to go to its death location.
dont remind if this dropped bag was directly visible to others or had a timer on it before it was revealed. but ican say during A1 i was grinding mobs for the drops to sell to npc in order to rais money to by a house. and so was a easy target for others due to permanently useing my skills to kill mobs. was then also grinding once the pvp was activated and i made a quick buck for several players that passed by and charched on me even do i did fight back winning was out of the question due to the high diffrence of me not haveing all skills rdy and not have full mana and in some cases had a mob attacking me as well in the process.
shure looting gear wasnt enabled luckly or i might have ended up naked.
but i only can agree to that what a preposter mentioned that we have to wait and see when it is in alpha 2 to finetune the system. everyones opinion is needed in the end and mine is clear that the system discribed in the wiki and what i expirienced during alpha 1 needs some poslishing specialy for the non combatanbts. and on the point of changeing to cmbatant.
@Dolyem the 60 secs is refreshed with every attack that hits a player and only turns of or reflaggs back to noncombatant if no attack happend on other players for 60 secs.
dont know anymore if attacking a corrupt player as non combatant does flagg you as combatant.
You complain about PvP being not opt in, and just now you said "if I am killed and drop part of my raw materials and hunting certificates (gold), there is no guarantee that I will get then in time" and be naked."
Do you know what dead players drop if they die while corrupted? Whole items. Whole weapons/armors/jewels and raw mats/certificates.
Do you see now that, first, most people wont go red, secondly people will choose not to fight back in order to get their killer in trouble?
Please if you are just bored or if you dont understand the system just admit it. There is no point for you ro keep pushing it. And no, we dont really have to wait and test. The system is good.
And you dont know that attacking a red player doesnt turn you combatant?
Dont you think that you know very very little before you go and build a case for change?
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.
If I'm understanding the system correctly, couldn't one way to maximize loot drop be to jump the victim with enough firepower so they wouldn't have a chance to counterattack?
The time to kill is supposed to be ~ 60 seconds long, so unless you do bring half a raid full of rogues and rangers, this does seem like a very unlikely, scenario to happen.
Not sure what to tell you If you don't realize 6 flagged mages casting fireballs, 4 warriors, 6 summoner pets and 3 tanks charging toward you. No reason to be a surprised pikachu then, learn to pay attention
to be fair, I think certain classes will be able to kill some classes quicker than others, and some will take much more time to kill. I fully expect glass cannon builds and survivability builds from all sorts. To say every fight will last an average of a minute is kind of unrealistic to me, BUT I digress, we shall find out during testing how close we are to the statement.
@Dolyem
to say every fight will last an average of a minute is non unrealistic at all, if thats how Intrepid is planning the TTK for balanced builds to be.
If people decide to go full glass cannon thats obviously a decision they make, that shouldn't detract from the average though as healer and tank involvement will ultimately have the opposite effect.
Outlier arent an issue here.
Though technically I referred to 'what happens if Hallowed Ground is started on a nonflagged player and you have the switch off and then that player flags?'
The implication IS definitely that 'because the switch was on, them flagging up and being healed by standing in it will flag you, the healer'.
I don't think there is going to be that much pvp between a player going red and such in AoC. A lot more pvp will happen between nodes and guilds.
Depending on how dense the zones are if you see players often going red is going to be very tough, you most likely will die every time to other players to have to go deeper red.
Though technically I referred to 'what happens if Hallowed Ground is started on a nonflagged player and you have the switch off and then that player flags?'
The implication IS definitely that 'because the switch was on, them flagging up and being healed by standing in it will flag you, the healer'.
Be careful who you play with.
I don't understand the implication here, so just in case.
I'm not worried about being flagged, I'm thinking about 'how to use Hallowed Ground most effectively against unsuspecting gatherers through teamwork with my Fighters'.
My wish is that I DO get flagged immediately because it will cause the Hallowed Ground to immediately start doing damage to the target instead of healing them or simply not affecting them.
I was just also trying to point out to OP that the interactions that could happen there based on their suggestion might be worse if the effect applies the other way. Should I 'be allowed to stay noncombatant for a few seconds when my Fighter partner gets attacked even though I heal them?'
Would dropping Hallowed Ground and then nothing else, in the system proposed, result in my Fighter being healed while I remained unflagged? If not, then would the 'exception' be applied to 'healing that works some ways' and not 'healing that works other ways'?
You complain about PvP being not opt in, and just now you said "if I am killed and drop part of my raw materials and hunting certificates (gold), there is no guarantee that I will get then in time" and be naked."
Do you know what dead players drop if they die while corrupted? Whole items. Whole weapons/armors/jewels and raw mats/certificates.
Do you see now that, first, most people wont go red, secondly people will choose not to fight back in order to get their killer in trouble?
Please if you are just bored or if you dont understand the system just admit it. There is no point for you ro keep pushing it. And no, we dont really have to wait and test. The system is good.
pls read the correctly i never mentioned that you loose all gear on death only that parts of it may be lootet by the attackes also that the gear gets dmg on each death.
drop on death is apart from looting the dead this are 2 diffrent things while the drop on death happens all ways looting does not since for looting the body had to be lootet. and not everything is looteble at death.
yes someone that never tested the game and the system can tell if its good or not. i dont think so.
i was testing it live in the alpha 1 i saw it in action and can tell it missing the polish its to raw.
and for the question it came back in my mind what happend to non combatant if they attack a red player, sadly you only used it to flame and didnt deliver a answer to that question.
answer: non combatant turn combatant but doesnt get death penaltys if killing the corrupt even if the corrupt doesnt fight back.
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Greens attacking red do not turn purple.
Reds are treated as monsters here. This is a down side to going corrupted. If you get corrupted you are fair game for everyone and if you kill more greens you get to go deeper.
The corruption system was not in alpha 1. We saw remnants of what is to come but nothing close to a complete system.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
due to the recent update (august 2022 dev stream) this idea became obsolete.
due to an map enlargments encounters in pvp allredy becomes rare in it self, so that an addition to the corrupotion system only would reduce those allredy rare encounters to a point that should not be achived in ashes.
Pfff.... you are not going to enforce your reality on anybody. Nobody agreed with you.
Good luck building a whole sheep, finding capable members to man it and stay focused. It will take a lot of work. PvP and PK will not be isolated in the seas just because you want it to reinforce your argument. Give it a rest... you dont know what you are talking about yet you continue to share your "wisdom".
Comments
I will always be flagged because I like open world pvp. So I am not a pve cry-baby or anything.
I just know that if they punish PVEers more than PVPers, this game will have a much smaller (niche) population. If they are happy with that, then hey more power to them. I will likely still play. I am just thinking of overall success of the game.
The suggestion might have led to something like this, where the healer can heal either themselves or others more easily without being flagged, particularly with specific spells and situations.
There are certain 'ground area healing' abilities that we also don't know 'how they will work relative to flagging', but those may be changed, as they were only a part of Alpha-1 and Intrepid has confirmed that anything we saw before, ability wise, might also be changed.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging
Thank you. Though technically I referred to 'what happens if Hallowed Ground is started on a nonflagged player and you have the switch off and then that player flags?'
The implication IS definitely that 'because the switch was on, them flagging up and being healed by standing in it will flag you, the healer'.
I'm just not willing to assume it because of various scenarios I can think of. It's probably not relevant to this discussion anyway.
Retroactively?
Anyways, like I said, it doesn't matter. If Hallowed Ground is the same, I have multiple tests to run myself on its flagging and corruption effects in Alpha-2. Until then, consider it irrelevant. I'm sure if somehow my plans for use of it are correct, it will be intentional design anyway.
L2 worked like this. You couldn't cast abilities if your didn't have a visual on someone, but if you had the visual and then during the cast you lost it - the ability effect would not go through. I do think this matters, cause the same thing could be applied to aoe attack insteractions with the same switch and to even flagging itself. What if I do a forced attack on someone, but they move behind a tree during the cast? Do I get flagged because of my intention or do I not get flagged because the ability didn't attack (that is if the system I described is implemented).
But yes, it's all gonna be in the testing. I'll personally be rooting and giving feedback for the system to be like I'm used to, just because I see merit in it from my own experience and because I hate gcd with an absolute passion and it seems to me that animation-based cd allows you to not have a gcd cause it servers the same function.
For clarity, (last response because I really don't want to go into the weeds on this one), Hallowed Ground is a ground template that Heals allies over time and Damages enemies over time.
It must 'tick' to decide which of those things it will do based on both position of player and 'intent of caster'.
If I cast Hallowed Ground on a Green player and my Green party member and my Green party member then flags up by attacking the other green Player while they are both standing in my Hallowed Ground, the question is 'what happens then?'
The extension of that, relative to the actual topic, is 'at what point, if any, do I get flagged while this is going on?'
That seems logical to me and I see no gameplay issue with that. If your mate flagged in a healing aoe, while knowing that you have your aoe flagging disabled - that's on him (that is, if you or PL explicitly said not to flag). I've seen quite a few raids fail because some dumbass flagged up when he shouldn't have. This system would prevent that (that is, he'll just die while no one else gets involved).
Same for pvp flagging, I've seen a ton of "aoe flag baiting" in L2 and it was often very frustrating. This kind of check system would prevent that.
If you see a flaw in this kind of system, definitely point it out, cause I might be missing smth due to my bias.
I image you would have to force cast on a green not in your party. So, you would turn purple the moment you initiate the skill. It only makes sense for the ability to heal those in your group/party.
If I'm understanding the system correctly, couldn't one way to maximize loot drop be to jump the victim with enough firepower so they wouldn't have a chance to counterattack?
The time to kill is supposed to be ~ 60 seconds long, so unless you do bring half a raid full of rogues and rangers, this does seem like a very unlikely, scenario to happen.
Not sure what to tell you If you don't realize 6 flagged mages casting fireballs, 4 warriors, 6 summoner pets and 3 tanks charging toward you. No reason to be a surprised pikachu then, learn to pay attention
Thats wy i opend up this topic in the first place. if flagging for combatant does reward the player not only to protect a amount of gathered and money to be looteble also reward the chance of beating the oponent.
non combatant are then theoreticly punished for not flagging and also punished cuase the chance to kill their oponent doenst exist. then the only reward there is that the attacker gets a deathpenalty by killing you.
so in other words the current system does give 2 rewards to those that fight back (flagging combatant) and applys 2 penaltys and 1 reward to those that dont fight back (non combatant) where however the reward is that the attacker gets a death penalty upon killing you.
not to fight back should not recive that penalty cause you giveing away the option to kill your attacker and get to loot him for that you flagg yourself combanant and sign the attacker that he doesnt get punished if he kill you.
the current is for a non combatant a: loss loss win situation
for a combatant a: win win situation
by changeing the droppenalty for non combatant this changes to a: win loss win situation
it should be enouth reward to flagg combatant only to get the chance not to be killed and to have the chance of looting your attacker.
If you think about it a bit harder you will see that people TRULLY have the option to fight back or let the aggressor go red.
It's an mmo.
to be fair, I think certain classes will be able to kill some classes quicker than others, and some will take much more time to kill. I fully expect glass cannon builds and survivability builds from all sorts. To say every fight will last an average of a minute is kind of unrealistic to me, BUT I digress, we shall find out during testing how close we are to the statement.
Combatants are rewarded for PvP combat with half normal death penalties.
Non-Combatants have NORMAL death penalties. So that is neutral.
Corrupted are PUNISHED with 4x normal death penalties.
Non-Combatants don’t need to kill their opponents. Either their opponents choose not to kill the Non-Combatants in order to avoid Corruption. Or the attacker kills the Non-Combatant and is PUNISHED with 4x the death penalties along with some other gnarly consequences.
If the Non-Combatant dies, it’s the same death penalties as dying from a mob.
The current system rewards Combatants with half the death penalties if the Combatant dies. That’s one - what is the other reward?
The current system does not apply any penalties for not fighting back. If you die as a Non-Combatant it’s the normal death penalties. Same as if you die from a mob.
Punishing Corrupted with 4x the death penalties is not a tangible reward…it’s a consolation, perhaps.
Anytime you die as a Non-Combatant you get NORMAL death penalties. If you want half normal death penalties, flag as Combatant.
You aren’t “giving away the option to kill your attacker”. You are taking the option to not attack back. You have a free choice.
That’s a matter of perspective.
For me:
Getting PKed as a Non-Combatant is, at worst, a win/win/lose situation.
Win: PvP ended as quickly as possible
Win: PKer is punished with 4x Corruption
Lose: Normal death penalties
For PKer:
Lose: No challenging PvP fight
Lose: 4x death penalty
Lose: Increased Corruption Score
Lose: Flagged for Bounty Hunters
Lose: Ability to trade is toggled off
Lose: Family Summons is toggled off
Win: Looted some resources
For Combatant:
Win: Fair fight
Win: Half normal death penalties
Win: Looted half normal dropped resources
The current system is already Win/Win/Lose for Non-Combatant.
If you remain Non-Combatant, you still have a good chance to not be killed because Corruption is a significant risk.
If I’m not in the mood for PvP combat, killing and looting my attacker is not going to appease my annoyance being pushed into flagging as Combatant. Not dying also won’t appease my annoyance at being pushed to flag as Combatant.
Loot is only half normal death penalty drops, so, it’s really not much of a win if I’m not in the mood for PvP combat.
Better just to stay Non-Combatant and punish with Corruption if I’m killed. That minimizes the frequency that I will be PKed when I’m not in the mood for random PvP combat.
The current system is fine - if Corruption is truly harsh enough to deter PKing to the degree Steven envisions.
dont remind if this dropped bag was directly visible to others or had a timer on it before it was revealed. but ican say during A1 i was grinding mobs for the drops to sell to npc in order to rais money to by a house. and so was a easy target for others due to permanently useing my skills to kill mobs. was then also grinding once the pvp was activated and i made a quick buck for several players that passed by and charched on me even do i did fight back winning was out of the question due to the high diffrence of me not haveing all skills rdy and not have full mana and in some cases had a mob attacking me as well in the process.
shure looting gear wasnt enabled luckly or i might have ended up naked.
but i only can agree to that what a preposter mentioned that we have to wait and see when it is in alpha 2 to finetune the system. everyones opinion is needed in the end and mine is clear that the system discribed in the wiki and what i expirienced during alpha 1 needs some poslishing specialy for the non combatanbts. and on the point of changeing to cmbatant.
@Dolyem the 60 secs is refreshed with every attack that hits a player and only turns of or reflaggs back to noncombatant if no attack happend on other players for 60 secs.
dont know anymore if attacking a corrupt player as non combatant does flagg you as combatant.
Do you know what dead players drop if they die while corrupted? Whole items. Whole weapons/armors/jewels and raw mats/certificates.
Do you see now that, first, most people wont go red, secondly people will choose not to fight back in order to get their killer in trouble?
Please if you are just bored or if you dont understand the system just admit it. There is no point for you ro keep pushing it. And no, we dont really have to wait and test. The system is good.
Dont you think that you know very very little before you go and build a case for change?
@Dolyem
to say every fight will last an average of a minute is non unrealistic at all, if thats how Intrepid is planning the TTK for balanced builds to be.
If people decide to go full glass cannon thats obviously a decision they make, that shouldn't detract from the average though as healer and tank involvement will ultimately have the opposite effect.
Outlier arent an issue here.
Be careful who you play with.
Depending on how dense the zones are if you see players often going red is going to be very tough, you most likely will die every time to other players to have to go deeper red.
I don't understand the implication here, so just in case.
I'm not worried about being flagged, I'm thinking about 'how to use Hallowed Ground most effectively against unsuspecting gatherers through teamwork with my Fighters'.
My wish is that I DO get flagged immediately because it will cause the Hallowed Ground to immediately start doing damage to the target instead of healing them or simply not affecting them.
I was just also trying to point out to OP that the interactions that could happen there based on their suggestion might be worse if the effect applies the other way. Should I 'be allowed to stay noncombatant for a few seconds when my Fighter partner gets attacked even though I heal them?'
Would dropping Hallowed Ground and then nothing else, in the system proposed, result in my Fighter being healed while I remained unflagged? If not, then would the 'exception' be applied to 'healing that works some ways' and not 'healing that works other ways'?
pls read the correctly i never mentioned that you loose all gear on death only that parts of it may be lootet by the attackes also that the gear gets dmg on each death.
drop on death is apart from looting the dead this are 2 diffrent things while the drop on death happens all ways looting does not since for looting the body had to be lootet. and not everything is looteble at death.
yes someone that never tested the game and the system can tell if its good or not. i dont think so.
i was testing it live in the alpha 1 i saw it in action and can tell it missing the polish its to raw.
and for the question it came back in my mind what happend to non combatant if they attack a red player, sadly you only used it to flame and didnt deliver a answer to that question.
answer: non combatant turn combatant but doesnt get death penaltys if killing the corrupt even if the corrupt doesnt fight back.
but here the wiki for you to reread it:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption#Player_corruption
Reds are treated as monsters here. This is a down side to going corrupted. If you get corrupted you are fair game for everyone and if you kill more greens you get to go deeper.
The corruption system was not in alpha 1. We saw remnants of what is to come but nothing close to a complete system.
due to the recent update (august 2022 dev stream) this idea became obsolete.
due to an map enlargments encounters in pvp allredy becomes rare in it self, so that an addition to the corrupotion system only would reduce those allredy rare encounters to a point that should not be achived in ashes.
Good luck building a whole sheep, finding capable members to man it and stay focused. It will take a lot of work. PvP and PK will not be isolated in the seas just because you want it to reinforce your argument. Give it a rest... you dont know what you are talking about yet you continue to share your "wisdom".