Flagged for PVP - How long does it last?

Lets say I am out looking for things to mine. I am a miner. I mine things.

I see a player whacking on a rock i want to mine myself and go over and attack them.

They do not fight back. I decide I would rather not go red and leave the area. How long am I flagged as a combatant?

Do we know?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

LadyZel wrote: »

HumblePuffin wrote: »

I really don’t understand why we can’t just manually flag.

I feel like it’s fair to run around as a combatant to show that I’m down for some pvps, in exchange for reduced death penalties.

Greens can tell that maybe they should be more concerned about me, purples know that I’m down for a scuffle. Win win.

I would keep the force attack method too.

My guess is manual flagging would turn out like NW where most people don't bother flagging for pvp at all.

Apparently, everyone loves open world pvp, but when given a choice, the majority choose not to engage.

Yeah, it's funny how this is the case.

People love the idea of PvP, they love PvP when they want it (this is me), but most people primarily just want to get on doing the thing they want to be doing.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

My understanding is that you do still need to force attack.

This is because if it is not needed, someone could walk up to an AoE based class killing mobs and essentially force them to flag by walking in to an AoE.

L2 didn't require you to use force attack to hit a flagged person. But Ashes has the action part of the combat, so I'd assume they'll do what you said. AoEs are controlled by a checkmark in the settings, but unless action abilities are controlled by the same setting - you'll have to force your attacks any time you want to attack another player (though probably not against PKers).

Shabooey

Ah right ok, makes sense. I didn't take into account that actually some Greens don't want to always attack Purples so having it so any of their skills could flag them might be going against what AoC is trying to do.
It seemed like reading the Wiki that Corrupt players are free to be attacked by anyone.

Ludullu

Shabooey wrote: »

It seemed like reading the Wiki that Corrupt players are free to be attacked by anyone.

That they are, because they're effectively mobs. But corrupted are not flagged and flagged are not corrupted.

I definitely expect most greens to attack any and all PKers as soon as they see them, cause that's a juicy loot piñata.

LadyZel

Noaani wrote: »

LadyZel wrote: »

HumblePuffin wrote: »

I really don’t understand why we can’t just manually flag.

I feel like it’s fair to run around as a combatant to show that I’m down for some pvps, in exchange for reduced death penalties.

Greens can tell that maybe they should be more concerned about me, purples know that I’m down for a scuffle. Win win.

I would keep the force attack method too.

My guess is manual flagging would turn out like NW where most people don't bother flagging for pvp at all.

Apparently, everyone loves open world pvp, but when given a choice, the majority choose not to engage.

Yeah, it's funny how this is the case.

People love the idea of PvP, they love PvP when they want it (this is me), but most people primarily just want to get on doing the thing they want to be doing.

Yes, and there are people still begging for a pvp zone in NW. As I see it, a pvp zone in that game would be a dead zone after the initial buzz had died.

Pure pvpers love the idea of always-on pvp because that's their primary drive, but I feel most people prefer motive and purpose behind pvp, other than a blood thirsty desire to kill everything controlled by a real pulse.

In Ashes, I would hope, as a green player, pvpers would see that I'm not worth bothering with and go and seek bigger fish.

Basically, like the real world. I will be aware of the danger, but on the whole, feel safe most of the time, unless I also wish to engage in pvp.

Even in NW, in the throes of battle in OPR pvp, I've encountered players that will stop attacking or not attack at all when they see I'm not willing to engage, for whatever reason.

I've also had players chase me down like an animal across the map, knowing full well I was weaker, just for the kill.

Pvp with honour and self-control, especially if pvp is on by default, is a great feeling. Knowing someone could attack/kill you at any time, but chooses not to because the gains aren't worth it, is the height of maturity and earns my total respect.

If pvp in Ashes turns out to be like this, a mixture of strategy, tactic, and restraint where appropriate, it would definitely pull me in because I'd feel like I could enjoy the pve, but still be part of the rush of pvp, too.

HumblePuffin

LadyZel wrote: »

HumblePuffin wrote: »

I really don’t understand why we can’t just manually flag.

I feel like it’s fair to run around as a combatant to show that I’m down for some pvps, in exchange for reduced death penalties.

Greens can tell that maybe they should be more concerned about me, purples know that I’m down for a scuffle. Win win.

I would keep the force attack method too.

My guess is manual flagging would turn out like NW where most people don't bother flagging for pvp at all.

Apparently, everyone loves open world pvp, but when given a choice, the majority choose not to engage.

Yeah “don’t understand” was a bit of an exaggeration. I’ve spiraled down this curiosity before. I really mean “I personally believe that being able to manually flag, while also allowing you to still attack unflagged players will promote more consensual pvp, while potentially further limiting the amount of non consensual pvp”.

As in previous times this discussion has come up, Noaani is correct though that it would most likely create a mentality that would further limit how often people do go corrupted, and/or artificially segment the player base

I didn’t play much NW but if I’m remembering correctly its flagging system works like WoW does now where you can only engaged with other flagged people correct?

At the time WoW was moving away from PvP servers and switching all servers to the flagged version, I brought up many points about how this exact thing would happen. I was of course told things like “no way there’s like this minor benefit to flagging, people will totally still do it”

WoWs owpvp was already pretty meaningless, and when you tack on the minuscule benefits of flagging up, with a player base that already leaned towards owpvp adverse due to straight up trauma the faction style no consequence pvp could cause, with the negative of putting a target on your back, very few were gonna flag up.

Flagged consensual only PvP builds bad owpvp habits when you’re surrounded by people that don’t want to be put at a disadvantage. People will then tend to only flag up when they feel like they have an advantage more often than not, and you don’t want to flag up so you’re not at a disadvantage, and then no one flags up.

Depraved

superhero6785 wrote: »

Honestly, I feel like you should gain corruption for even attacking a green player. Albeit a small amount. I can see people who don't mind playing as combatants just attacking greens because they think it's funny, or to annoy them & to bait them into fighting back.

what if i know you will attack me first because you have been griefing me for a while and maybe killed me a couple of times, then I attack you first to see if i can win the fight this time. now, I gain corruption, now im red and you can cc me but i cant cc you. you hit back stun me and kill me. I drop all my gear because of the tiny bit of corruption that you are suggesting.

do you think this is fair? great idea genius.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

superhero6785 wrote: »

Honestly, I feel like you should gain corruption for even attacking a green player. Albeit a small amount. I can see people who don't mind playing as combatants just attacking greens because they think it's funny, or to annoy them & to bait them into fighting back.

what if i know you will attack me first because you have been griefing me for a while and maybe killed me a couple of times, then I attack you first to see if i can win the fight this time. now, I gain corruption, now im red and you can cc me but i cant cc you. you hit back stun me and kill me. I drop all my gear because of the tiny bit of corruption that you are suggesting.

do you think this is fair? great idea genius.

First of all, yeah, corruption on attack shouldn't be a thing.

That said, if you are going to give a scenario, think it through better.

If someone had attacked you a couple of times in this scenario, they would have corruption. If you think that you gaining corruption would result in you being killed and dropping all your gear, wouldn't that have happened to that other player first?

Again, not saying it's a good idea, but your scenario here doesn't work.

Percimes

90 seconds is both long and short. I wonder... Could it be one of the factor that lead to the open sea the become an always combatant zone?

I can easily imagine a chain of adjustments where it became the chosen option. Internal testing of naval combat showed that to be interesting, a bigger ocean was required for ships to manoeuvre. With more space players would de-flag too easily or too frequently in naval battle and it was messing something with CC immunity or naval skills. To keep the de-flag timer consistent, it was decided instead to make the open sea a "purple zone". Upping the risks lead to upping the rewards.

I repeat, just one way I imagine the reasoning. Everything completely pulled out of my a... well, you know how the saying goes.

Raven016

How long the corruption lasts?

Dygz

Depends on how much Corruption you have.

Mag7spy

Raven016 wrote: »

How long the corruption lasts?

Forever until you work it off or die enough times.

Raven016

Mag7spy wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

How long the corruption lasts?

Forever until you work it off or die enough times.

How do you work it off?

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

superhero6785 wrote: »

Honestly, I feel like you should gain corruption for even attacking a green player. Albeit a small amount. I can see people who don't mind playing as combatants just attacking greens because they think it's funny, or to annoy them & to bait them into fighting back.

what if i know you will attack me first because you have been griefing me for a while and maybe killed me a couple of times, then I attack you first to see if i can win the fight this time. now, I gain corruption, now im red and you can cc me but i cant cc you. you hit back stun me and kill me. I drop all my gear because of the tiny bit of corruption that you are suggesting.

do you think this is fair? great idea genius.

First of all, yeah, corruption on attack shouldn't be a thing.

That said, if you are going to give a scenario, think it through better.

If someone had attacked you a couple of times in this scenario, they would have corruption. If you think that you gaining corruption would result in you being killed and dropping all your gear, wouldn't that have happened to that other player first?

Again, not saying it's a good idea, but your scenario here doesn't work.

yes i thought about that. but hey i lost the fight. the example he is giving is to prevent people from initiating an attack on greens, giving them a penalty, as in initiating an attack on a green is not justified and should be punished by game mechanics. as in the person initiating the attack is in the wrong.

so based on that logic of the person initiating the attack is wrong, im giving an example of a person initiating an attack and that person is right. people arent looking at both sides of the coin.

Mag7spy

Raven016 wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

How long the corruption lasts?

Forever until you work it off or die enough times.

How do you work it off?

HumblePuffin

Percimes wrote: »

90 seconds is both long and short. I wonder... Could it be one of the factor that lead to the open sea the become an always combatant zone?

I can easily imagine a chain of adjustments where it became the chosen option. Internal testing of naval combat showed that to be interesting, a bigger ocean was required for ships to manoeuvre. With more space players would de-flag too easily or too frequently in naval battle and it was messing something with CC immunity or naval skills. To keep the de-flag timer consistent, it was decided instead to make the open sea a "purple zone". Upping the risks lead to upping the rewards.

I repeat, just one way I imagine the reasoning. Everything completely pulled out of my a... well, you know how the saying goes.

This is similar to where I landed on how they came to this decision. I could see they maybe wanted the open oceans to have additional risk of PvP, and the current corruption penalties felt too heavy handed in the context of multiple players on a ship out at sea. Maybe some technical limitations in being able to tune naval corruption separately from from not naval corruption, and eventually the fix being “screw it, just make them auto flag”

Dygz

Well, then maybe that's the way Steven should have spun the reason for the change - instead of:
"We want to encourage intelligent calculations of Risk v Reward. These are elements that I think players feel really accomplished when they know that they overcame risk for the trophy. That not everybody makes it, but I did."
"When you move off of land, you need to be careful! And there is a lot of opportunity... and because there is a lot of opportunity that is unique to that content, that's unique to that sea... that's treasure finding, that's NPCs, that's a lot of different things... there's a lot of different stuff...there needs to be risk associated with all of that."
---Steven - Development Update with New Map and Feature Discussions - August 26, 2022

It's really just an excuse for more intense, adrenaline-fueled PvP combat.
Which is great for Hardcore Challenge gamers who crave intense competition.
Too intense for my interests.

Dolyem

superhero6785 wrote: »

Honestly, I feel like you should gain corruption for even attacking a green player. Albeit a small amount. I can see people who don't mind playing as combatants just attacking greens because they think it's funny, or to annoy them & to bait them into fighting back.

Hard no. Otherwise you have anyone who attacks first being immediately subjected to being corrupted. Corruption should only be to deter griefing, not PvP in general.

Shabooey

Are they making the open seas a loot hot-spot in order to fit with their risk v reward mantra? I haven't seen/read enough about them to know what content is going to be there.

The other reason is that, like a few have mentioned, that it's too difficult at the minute to change the corruption system for the open sea. I have no technical background so no idea how easy/hard that would be but to a layman like me it doesn't seem that difficult to do. Might cause a problem if one person on your ship gets the killing blow and goes red but the rest of you don't? I don't know I'm just thinking aloud.

Or is it they just want the open seas to be a place where people can get their pirate on?

Ayeveegaming1

Shabooey wrote: »

Are they making the open seas a loot hot-spot in order to fit with their risk v reward mantra? I haven't seen/read enough about them to know what content is going to be there.

The other reason is that, like a few have mentioned, that it's too difficult at the minute to change the corruption system for the open sea. I have no technical background so no idea how easy/hard that would be but to a layman like me it doesn't seem that difficult to do. Might cause a problem if one person on your ship gets the killing blow and goes red but the rest of you don't? I don't know I'm just thinking aloud.

Or is it they just want the open seas to be a place where people can get their pirate on?

I vaguely remember something being said about underwater dungeons or something. Not positive though. I will try to find where I heard it.

Child Item