blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » @blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly. Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it. It is a shame but you're not wrong. Even if a decent % of players would enjoy the gameplay option, of course it would still need to be incentivised, otherwise people may as well just remain unflagged and jump in to the action when it suits (with all the impact that has on wpvp). I think a token 5%, even 10% still wouldn't compensate for the increased action & risk you will be taking. I really think it'd go a long way to improving things for "PvP server" people without impacting the PvEers. Maybe a military node option? It would just get abused, that's why we don't want it in the overall game. Giving an incentive like that will just lead to some zerg guild locking down a dungeon so their permaflagged members can farm with an exp bonus. Or is that something you actually want here? I don't think it was clear if you are in support of that aspect. Nah of course not. I only gave the suggestion of a 5% buff to exp gain as an example for the sake of argument. The point was the option to pre-flag (permanently or otherwise) and that it would require an incentive. Of course it's always a challenge to fix one problem without introducing new ones. Hence the difficulty of MMO balance.
Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » @blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly. Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it. It is a shame but you're not wrong. Even if a decent % of players would enjoy the gameplay option, of course it would still need to be incentivised, otherwise people may as well just remain unflagged and jump in to the action when it suits (with all the impact that has on wpvp). I think a token 5%, even 10% still wouldn't compensate for the increased action & risk you will be taking. I really think it'd go a long way to improving things for "PvP server" people without impacting the PvEers. Maybe a military node option? It would just get abused, that's why we don't want it in the overall game. Giving an incentive like that will just lead to some zerg guild locking down a dungeon so their permaflagged members can farm with an exp bonus. Or is that something you actually want here? I don't think it was clear if you are in support of that aspect.
blat wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » @blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly. Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it. It is a shame but you're not wrong. Even if a decent % of players would enjoy the gameplay option, of course it would still need to be incentivised, otherwise people may as well just remain unflagged and jump in to the action when it suits (with all the impact that has on wpvp). I think a token 5%, even 10% still wouldn't compensate for the increased action & risk you will be taking. I really think it'd go a long way to improving things for "PvP server" people without impacting the PvEers. Maybe a military node option?
Mag7spy wrote: » @blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly. Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
Dygz wrote: » It's just a flawed suggestion on several levels. Corruption is infinitely better. No need to try to improve upon it past what Steven has done compared to Karma. Just some tweaking likely during Alpha 2 and the Betas.
Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » @blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly. Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it. It is a shame but you're not wrong. Even if a decent % of players would enjoy the gameplay option, of course it would still need to be incentivised, otherwise people may as well just remain unflagged and jump in to the action when it suits (with all the impact that has on wpvp). I think a token 5%, even 10% still wouldn't compensate for the increased action & risk you will be taking. I really think it'd go a long way to improving things for "PvP server" people without impacting the PvEers. Maybe a military node option? It would just get abused, that's why we don't want it in the overall game. Giving an incentive like that will just lead to some zerg guild locking down a dungeon so their permaflagged members can farm with an exp bonus. Or is that something you actually want here? I don't think it was clear if you are in support of that aspect. Nah of course not. I only gave the suggestion of a 5% buff to exp gain as an example for the sake of argument. The point was the option to pre-flag (permanently or otherwise) and that it would require an incentive. Of course it's always a challenge to fix one problem without introducing new ones. Hence the difficulty of MMO balance. Well, if it was somehow unclear before now, my problem with any incentive for permaflag is that literally any incentive other than 'you have less penalties when you actually do die' has the problem noted. Someone will 'use it for a bonus while actually avoiding PvP however possible'. And from there, if we consider that to be a skill that should be rewarded, then my stance is that if you are dying too much from flagging, it's that you have insufficient skill. But since one already get a bonus that alleviates exactly that issue (half the normal death penalties), then one can take more time to resolve personal skill issues.
blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » @blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly. Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it. It is a shame but you're not wrong. Even if a decent % of players would enjoy the gameplay option, of course it would still need to be incentivised, otherwise people may as well just remain unflagged and jump in to the action when it suits (with all the impact that has on wpvp). I think a token 5%, even 10% still wouldn't compensate for the increased action & risk you will be taking. I really think it'd go a long way to improving things for "PvP server" people without impacting the PvEers. Maybe a military node option? It would just get abused, that's why we don't want it in the overall game. Giving an incentive like that will just lead to some zerg guild locking down a dungeon so their permaflagged members can farm with an exp bonus. Or is that something you actually want here? I don't think it was clear if you are in support of that aspect. Nah of course not. I only gave the suggestion of a 5% buff to exp gain as an example for the sake of argument. The point was the option to pre-flag (permanently or otherwise) and that it would require an incentive. Of course it's always a challenge to fix one problem without introducing new ones. Hence the difficulty of MMO balance. Well, if it was somehow unclear before now, my problem with any incentive for permaflag is that literally any incentive other than 'you have less penalties when you actually do die' has the problem noted. Someone will 'use it for a bonus while actually avoiding PvP however possible'. And from there, if we consider that to be a skill that should be rewarded, then my stance is that if you are dying too much from flagging, it's that you have insufficient skill. But since one already get a bonus that alleviates exactly that issue (half the normal death penalties), then one can take more time to resolve personal skill issues. Well we just disagree on this point, which is fine. As @Mag7spy points out as well, playing the game in a pre-flagged state would open you up to a tonne more PvP. And by definition, you wouldn't always be ready for it either. Might be low hp, questing, dealing with mobs etc. The risk is loads greater.
Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » @blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly. Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it. It is a shame but you're not wrong. Even if a decent % of players would enjoy the gameplay option, of course it would still need to be incentivised, otherwise people may as well just remain unflagged and jump in to the action when it suits (with all the impact that has on wpvp). I think a token 5%, even 10% still wouldn't compensate for the increased action & risk you will be taking. I really think it'd go a long way to improving things for "PvP server" people without impacting the PvEers. Maybe a military node option? It would just get abused, that's why we don't want it in the overall game. Giving an incentive like that will just lead to some zerg guild locking down a dungeon so their permaflagged members can farm with an exp bonus. Or is that something you actually want here? I don't think it was clear if you are in support of that aspect. Nah of course not. I only gave the suggestion of a 5% buff to exp gain as an example for the sake of argument. The point was the option to pre-flag (permanently or otherwise) and that it would require an incentive. Of course it's always a challenge to fix one problem without introducing new ones. Hence the difficulty of MMO balance. Well, if it was somehow unclear before now, my problem with any incentive for permaflag is that literally any incentive other than 'you have less penalties when you actually do die' has the problem noted. Someone will 'use it for a bonus while actually avoiding PvP however possible'. And from there, if we consider that to be a skill that should be rewarded, then my stance is that if you are dying too much from flagging, it's that you have insufficient skill. But since one already get a bonus that alleviates exactly that issue (half the normal death penalties), then one can take more time to resolve personal skill issues. Well we just disagree on this point, which is fine. As @Mag7spy points out as well, playing the game in a pre-flagged state would open you up to a tonne more PvP. And by definition, you wouldn't always be ready for it either. Might be low hp, questing, dealing with mobs etc. The risk is loads greater. So, back to the point. Permaflag as an option a player can personally take is ok with me with Ashes' current design. I am ok with the current benefit for permaflag, i.e. guaranteed less item drops and exp loss on death. I am even ok with this benefit being used to prevent losses when taking on hard PvE content. I'm not ok with any exp benefit. I might be open to other suggested benefits, but I haven't personally thought of any.
blat wrote: » Respectfully @Dygz, I think you're missing the point. For a start I've repeatedly clarified that the suggestion would be in addition to the existing corruption system. In fact it would completely depend on corruption! As my intention here is for a system that works for all of us.
Dygz wrote: » I'm not missing the point.
Dygz wrote: » Corruption is infinitely better.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. We do not agree. I want the risk part too. Players who flag themselves get the additional agency to do that. The game does not want to give that option in advance. If you have anything to gain by flagging yourself up in advance you should not get it. Also it causes an effect on the entire population behavior, an effect which is detrimental to the game. You want the risk of what? I'm not understanding here.
Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. We do not agree. I want the risk part too. Players who flag themselves get the additional agency to do that. The game does not want to give that option in advance. If you have anything to gain by flagging yourself up in advance you should not get it. Also it causes an effect on the entire population behavior, an effect which is detrimental to the game.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised.
Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk.
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. We do not agree. I want the risk part too. Players who flag themselves get the additional agency to do that. The game does not want to give that option in advance. If you have anything to gain by flagging yourself up in advance you should not get it. Also it causes an effect on the entire population behavior, an effect which is detrimental to the game. You want the risk of what? I'm not understanding here. I want to NOT know if a player is in combat mood or not until he attacks me or until he answers my attack. Therefore it should be green by default. It is just a slight risk but I like it that way. A parallel flagging system like you described, prevents the corruption state and also allows more open world PvP. So it makes no sense to be added. The only reason would be to obtain a different kind of game, now 3 months before Alpha 2 starts. It would split the player base into 2 categories and might even happen that the entire player base uses only one of them, whichever is better. Then is like having a redundant one which could be removed and is not even worth being balanced.
I want to NOT know if a player is in combat mood or not until he attacks me or until he answers my attack. Therefore it should be green by default. It is just a slight risk but I like it that way.
A parallel flagging system like you described, prevents the corruption state and also allows more open world PvP.
NiKr wrote: » Wars. Mainly guild wars. Simply find a guild that wants owpvp as much as you do and work together to upkeep at least one guild war against another strong guild at all times. You'll get your endless pvp against others that would be willing to pvp (or at least wouldn't punish you for killing them), while also not impacting the entire game with a big design change.
blat wrote: » Tis a good point but I guess this is part of my (open) question... would it be that big of a change?
NiKr wrote: » blat wrote: » Tis a good point but I guess this is part of my (open) question... would it be that big of a change? To me it's more about "why even spend time on this when you already have this function". Anyone who wants to be seen as "a pvper" can always attack another person and keep their flag. Or be the first one to shoot an approaching player. This action would, functionally, be no different from just running around perma-flagged, except now there's no confusion on the newcomer's side as to whether you're flagged due to the toggle or due to you wanting (and being ready) to fight right now. Toggles work "fine" in games where they are the only system because the toggled players see each other and know what to expect from the get-go. If a toggle was added to Ashes, you being perma-flagged would simply be a detriment, because anyone can make use of your flag by CCing you and bursting you down for absolutely free loot. The amount of people who'd be willing to use this toggle would be miniscule. And if you implement some additional benefits (such as xp) - we come back to the thing Azherae mentioned, where the toggle would be simply used by huge groups to boost themselves, with absolutely no tangible downside or heightened risk related to the toggle. And if you say "well, those groups can be attacked by other big groups" - that'll already happen in the current system, either due to wars or simply because flagging up deep in a dungeon is a way faster method to remove a competitor, than hoping that they won't PK your healers which would then need to come back here from the very top (at which point you might have to chaperone them as well). As you yourself say, the pvers wouldn't really be impacted. Majority of pvpers wouldn't want to constantly be flagged, because that's simply too inconvenient and time-consuming. And anyone who does want to be constantly flagged or is sure that they can take any competitor on - can simply flag up against anyone they see. There's no real benefit to this system, while there's definitely a ton of friction from both the dev sides of things (balancing xp values, mob locations/respawn frequency, etc) and the player pugs side (if a perma-flagged person joins a pug - they can't be reliably healed, while they can constantly die).
blat wrote: » However where I disagree is with the lack of benefit. I feel the people who've best understood my perspective are those who have enjoyed playing on open PvP servers.
blat wrote: » NiKr wrote: » blat wrote: » Tis a good point but I guess this is part of my (open) question... would it be that big of a change? To me it's more about "why even spend time on this when you already have this function". Anyone who wants to be seen as "a pvper" can always attack another person and keep their flag. Or be the first one to shoot an approaching player. This action would, functionally, be no different from just running around perma-flagged, except now there's no confusion on the newcomer's side as to whether you're flagged due to the toggle or due to you wanting (and being ready) to fight right now. Toggles work "fine" in games where they are the only system because the toggled players see each other and know what to expect from the get-go. If a toggle was added to Ashes, you being perma-flagged would simply be a detriment, because anyone can make use of your flag by CCing you and bursting you down for absolutely free loot. The amount of people who'd be willing to use this toggle would be miniscule. And if you implement some additional benefits (such as xp) - we come back to the thing Azherae mentioned, where the toggle would be simply used by huge groups to boost themselves, with absolutely no tangible downside or heightened risk related to the toggle. And if you say "well, those groups can be attacked by other big groups" - that'll already happen in the current system, either due to wars or simply because flagging up deep in a dungeon is a way faster method to remove a competitor, than hoping that they won't PK your healers which would then need to come back here from the very top (at which point you might have to chaperone them as well). As you yourself say, the pvers wouldn't really be impacted. Majority of pvpers wouldn't want to constantly be flagged, because that's simply too inconvenient and time-consuming. And anyone who does want to be constantly flagged or is sure that they can take any competitor on - can simply flag up against anyone they see. There's no real benefit to this system, while there's definitely a ton of friction from both the dev sides of things (balancing xp values, mob locations/respawn frequency, etc) and the player pugs side (if a perma-flagged person joins a pug - they can't be reliably healed, while they can constantly die). I take your points. Especially the fact that there's always some potential for abuse (this is where each and every mechanic has to be thought out long & hard, and then trialled etc). But abuse aside for a sec... As you say, PvEers wouldn't be at all impacted. V likely positively, if anything. However where I disagree is with the lack of benefit. I feel the people who've best understood my perspective are those who have enjoyed playing on open PvP servers.
NiKr wrote: » Btw, on the note of "even town on that server were pvp zones". This will be true in Ashes if you're perma-flagged. So you won't be able to escape the abuse and pretty much spawncamping from an abusive group. Unless Intrepid make you a special respawn point of "right next to the npc with the toggle enabler (which is also now a safe space)" - you'll be killed over and over and over and over again until you simply log off. Hell, I could definitely see quite a few groups of people having that kind of fun in the game. Just hunting perma-flags and roly-polying them
blat wrote: » Me personally? It's lame but I honestly find leaning on a flag system to be lamer. ... flag up only when the situation suits me. ... run away and wait for an arbitrary timer to grant me PvP immunity and then stand there emoting my frustrated enemy. Feels bad man.
