@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.
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.
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.
@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.
I really think the only impact on others (who are unwilling to pre-flag) is less non-consensual PvP! As the PvPers would have plenty more targets to go for.
But you always have the option of flagging up when it suits you and getting involved. Win win!
@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 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.
Fair enough. Yeah I agree the actual incentive used and potential consequences would need a bit more thought.
Realistically it would need an incentive of some kind otherwise the risk v reward would just be nonsensical, it'd only be a niche "hardcore" mode type of thing.
Personally I do think an exp buff of some kind feels appropriate. Stat buffs feel harder to balance, and exp is a major cost to active PvP.
Even in games without any exp loss on death, I tend to level far slower when getting side tracked by wpvp.
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.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
I'm not missing the point.
I vehemently disagree with the suggestion - on several levels.
Along the same lines as Azherae.
If you want to be a madman and permaflag - be a madman and permaflag.
You already have a reward of half-normal death penalties for dying as a Combatant.
You don't deserve any more reward than that.
Ashes is not made for everyone.
Corruption is not going to be an acceptable mechanic for everyone.
Is clearly missing the point.
Not that it matters.
I get the impression you're going to "vehemently disagree" with most things! But I'm yet to see many (any?) actual substantial reasons.
Although @Azherae has made good constructive points for the "other side" so to speak.
Surely we're all here to discuss & constructively solve these things together? Then again my forum expectations may need to be slightly corrected! (I take the points raised in a couple of earlier posts in this thread).
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 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.
Well again I disagree.
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.
This v much sounds like you've exclusively played MMOs with flagging systems.
No problem with that but a lack of perspective maybe.
Let's say I opted in to pre-flag: there will be many times when I don't want to PvP.
Eg: herbing, trying to finish a quest, have little time, on my way to join a group etc etc list goes on.
You have no idea of my appetite for PvP until you attack. Many times I'll simply CC and run.
But with pre-flags, you're not faced with this awkward dynamic where your PvP-active opponent simply decides to let you eat corruption because you've managed to get the jump.
It's a long thread but that's the one little niggle that the suggestion was intended to resolve.
A parallel flagging system like you described, prevents the corruption state and also allows more open world PvP.
It would not prevent corruption from working as intended, at all. As @Azherae and others agree.
It would leave the existing corruption dynamics as the default for anyone who doesn't opt-in (eg via a military node option).
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.
Tis a good point but I guess this is part of my (open) question... would it be that big of a change?
Bearing in mind we know very little about Military nodes. I could easily imagine a "choose to pre-flag in exchange for some perks" option in a military node.
Again I can't see any reason this would negatively impact PvEers, at all.
Or even complicate the system. It's the same system just jumping into "combatant" status early.
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).
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.
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.
My guild's name in L2 was "WarToAll". You know what the first thing we did after creating the guild on a server? Declaring a war on literally every guild on the server (luckily L2 allowed this).
So I know from experience how it feels to be "perma-flagged" against everyone you see.
I've also played on servers where pvp was simply always on. No corruption no nothing. It was an utter mess of constant deaths (mostly because even towns were pvp zones). It was super fun for me, cause I like pvp, but the server itself wasn't at all popular.
So again, I know how it is to play a game with either setup, both in huge groups and as a solo player. And I'm telling you, there's no tangible benefit to the absolute majority of potential Ashes players in having a pvp toggle.
There will be so many avenues to have constant (or at least very frequent) pvp, that creating a whole system just for a few people seems highly impractical.
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.
I think where the main disconnect between you and NiKr specifically is happening (based on what I know about NiKr) is that NiKr is expecting a lot more from the Guilds, Node, and War systems, to fill the space you're referring to.
I also hope to see something like this. I am not sure we will, but I have no problems with the idea that a whole Guild or a whole Node or even a whole Alliance can just mark me as a target, even just as a 'rival'. This is a way to have some pretty heavy 'autoflag' and also help the first thing you wanted.
I will gladly have cool 'stalking' battles with a known enemy through whatever forests we live in.
Since you don't seem as committed to the 'true survivor' lifestyle where literally anyone can attack you all the time (in the sense that it's not the thing you are trying to enjoy here), I'd think this was better. Doesn't even require real animosity, it could easily be a meaningful 'agreement'.
Node A and node B citizens tend to gather in the same forest, fighting to take the others' resources in that forest is just always ok, but maybe they sometimes want to give peace a chance, during winter or if dealing with a shared threat.
Btw, on the note of "even towns 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
Poss just one of those things, as someone said earlier, that I'll adjust to and it'll start to feel better given time...
But right now my gut feel is that we're overcomplicating matters.
Giving those people who like the "purer" form of wpvp (always on, attacker gets the advantage, no option to lean on corruption) an option to pre-flag, provided some compensatory incentive.. I just don't see how that doesn't improve things for that section of players. And leave the others unaffected.
Fundamentally anyway (IE: potential exploits aside a sec).
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
Yeah if there's no safety in towns etc that could be a problem.
Otherwise the general open world potential for corpse camping.. is just one of those things (it's why you'd need an incentive!).
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.
IMO at the very least I (as a citizen of a military node) should be able to attack and kill the citizens of foreign military nodes without corruption.
And them me.
In the same way killing a "civvy" IRL is seen as worse than killing an enlisted enemy.
In military warfare, even gangs etc.
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.
Unless I missed it, this wasn't asked before. In your toggleable system, when would you be able to disable it? Would you even let people disable it?
Cause if you allow disabling then how is this any different from the current system? If you're not ok with how short the current flag timer is, what's stopping the supposed "system evader" from simply going to an npc and removing their flag (which in majority of cases would require the same amount of time as waiting out a flag timer)?
IMO at the very least I (as a citizen of a military node) should be able to attack and kill the citizens of foreign military nodes without corruption.
And them me.
In the same way killing a "civvy" IRL is seen as worse than killing an enlisted enemy.
In military warfare, even gangs etc.
You've literally just described this. Militaristic countries don't suddenly start fighting others or are ok when others fight them. They CAN go to war (I know this from very personal experience), but they don't always do.
So, once again, your suggestion is already in the game. You just gotta use the tools. The chances are, military mayors will probably try being at war way more often than other nodes (especially if Intrepid design the nodes in a good way), so you simply become a citizen of such a node and you have yourself a whole damn vassal system in which you're the enemy.
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.
Well again I disagree.
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.
This v much sounds like you've exclusively played MMOs with flagging systems.
No problem with that but a lack of perspective maybe.
Let's say I opted in to pre-flag: there will be many times when I don't want to PvP.
Eg: herbing, trying to finish a quest, have little time, on my way to join a group etc etc list goes on.
You have no idea of my appetite for PvP until you attack. Many times I'll simply CC and run.
But with pre-flags, you're not faced with this awkward dynamic where your PvP-active opponent simply decides to let you eat corruption because you've managed to get the jump.
It's a long thread but that's the one little niggle that the suggestion was intended to resolve.
A parallel flagging system like you described, prevents the corruption state and also allows more open world PvP.
It would not prevent corruption from working as intended, at all. As @Azherae and others agree.
It would leave the existing corruption dynamics as the default for anyone who doesn't opt-in (eg via a military node option).
What does mean "to get the jump"?
I seen Steven describing the corruption as a bad thing but also as a thrilling experience in the context of bounty hunter trying to catch the corrupted player before that manages to clear the corruption.
So for both red and BH, this can be a thrilling experience.
Your system prevents that.
I don't care if others agree or not. I have my own opinion about what is good from game design point of view.
You just want a different game and you think you can make it happen 3 months before Alpha 2 by bringing a parallel flagging system and incentivizing to players to use it.
What if everyone will switch to your system? Then throw away the other one? The current 3 state system is not easy to balance.
If you say no, let it be used by players who do not want to PvP so much, then I am against it because it separates players into PvPers and PvEers.
I don't want to see such a separation in the game.
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.
Unless I missed it, this wasn't asked before. In your toggleable system, when would you be able to disable it? Would you even let people disable it?
Cause if you allow disabling then how is this any different from the current system? If you're not ok with how short the current flag timer is, what's stopping the supposed "system evader" from simply going to an npc and removing their flag (which in majority of cases would require the same amount of time as waiting out a flag timer)?
Yeah it's a good question. The suggestion was deliberately broad; there'd be a few details to work out of course.
But for argument's sake I said assume either permanent or some "firmer" rules, IE not something that will auto-toggle off after X mins.
In Ashes it'd probably mean visiting a friendly military node or even your home node to disable.
And I really don't think this would be "same amount of time as waiting out a flag timer", considering the size of the world and lack of fast travel, lack of hearthstones etc.
Let's just assume it'd be some way that locks you in more than you would be otherwise.
IMO at the very least I (as a citizen of a military node) should be able to attack and kill the citizens of foreign military nodes without corruption.
And them me.
In the same way killing a "civvy" IRL is seen as worse than killing an enlisted enemy.
In military warfare, even gangs etc.
You've literally just described this. Militaristic countries don't suddenly start fighting others or are ok when others fight them. They CAN go to war (I know this from very personal experience), but they don't always do.
So, once again, your suggestion is already in the game. You just gotta use the tools. The chances are, military mayors will probably try being at war way more often than other nodes (especially if Intrepid design the nodes in a good way), so you simply become a citizen of such a node and you have yourself a whole damn vassal system in which you're the enemy.
Well that's cool. I wasn't aware of the mutual-flagging.
I guess the only differences between my thinking and this system then is:
1) same thing just inverted. My system assumes war by default (then if anything you'd make peace treaties with the few friendly nodes)
2) incentivised opt-in on a per player basis. But I like it being a node-wide thing tbh.
So overall, yeah I wish it was a bit more "war by default" for those of us who like it that way (still without affecting the PvE crew).. but this looks as close as it's likely to get
I seen Steven describing the corruption as a bad thing but also as a thrilling experience in the context of bounty hunter trying to catch the corrupted player before that manages to clear the corruption.
So for both red and BH, this can be a thrilling experience.
Your system prevents that.
You just want a different game and you think you can make it happen 3 months before Alpha 2 by bringing a parallel flagging system and incentivizing to players to use it.
I really don't. It was a good faith discussion, assume what you like.
Well as I've repeatedly clarified, the suggestion would be in addition to existing corruption rules.
So....
And I have repeatedly clarified that “in addition to the existing Corruption rules” is one of the primary reasons I find your suggestion untenable.
So…
You tend to be given reasons, overlook/dismiss them and then complain you haven’t seen any reasons.
Both Azherae and I explained to you that the bonuses you get for flagging Purple are sufficient.
If you wish to be a mad man and perma-flag, go for it. But you should not get any additional bonuses for doing so.
Especially when it’s not possible for PvEers to have a similar function and bonus for perma-flagging PvE-Only.
In Ashes it'd probably mean visiting a friendly military node or even your home node to disable.
And I really don't think this would be "same amount of time as waiting out a flag timer", considering the size of the world and lack of fast travel, lack of hearthstones etc.
Let's just assume it'd be some way that locks you in more than you would be otherwise.
So yeah, I don't really see how this would work in Ashes and not be the main route to absolute spawncamping by pretty much any group that just wants to have "some fun".
Alternatively perma-flaggers would just operate in their own node, which would mean that general travel times are under 2 minutes (from any point in the node to its center, on a mount), which is pretty much the same as the current timer.
So, say, in a situation where you were pvping deep in a dungeon and you win. Your opponent would rez somewhere outside the dungeon (assumedly). If dungeons are as big as was promised, it would probably take him about 30s-1m to get back to your location (if there's a way to completely avoid all mobs along the way and also no one else aggros onto the flagged person). So in this scenario both of you would be still flagged.
If the opponent now wanted to come to that location unflagged (especially if he doesn't want to risk anyone else killing him), he'd wait to unflag outside the dungeon and then run inside. Assuming that flag doesn't drop on death, that'd be 2min at minimum.
Which means that it takes even less to mount from other points in the node to the center. So if the opponent wanted to remove the toggle and then come back, it'd take him ~2.5-3m to come back to your location unflagged (again, assuming no one kills him on his way to the node center).
The xp loss (let alone other penalties) of operating as a perma-flagged person outside your own node (or a military one, as you suggested) would HIGHLY outweigh any 5-10% bonus to xp gain, which would decrease the amount of people who do decide to do this to absolutely miniscule amounts (again, outside of big groups that do this on purpose).
So, having said all that, would you be fine if the pvp flag stayed on the person for 3m instead of 1.5? Cause I'd be totally fine with that number for those who make the first strike against a green (which would be the "jump" in the context of this thread).
Well as I've repeatedly clarified, the suggestion would be in addition to existing corruption rules.
So....
And I have repeatedly clarified that “in addition to the existing Corruption rules” is one of the primary reasons I find your suggestion untenable.
So…
If that's a "primary reason" then I really couldn't be less convinced.
In Ashes it'd probably mean visiting a friendly military node or even your home node to disable.
And I really don't think this would be "same amount of time as waiting out a flag timer", considering the size of the world and lack of fast travel, lack of hearthstones etc.
Let's just assume it'd be some way that locks you in more than you would be otherwise.
So yeah, I don't really see how this would work in Ashes and not be the main route to absolute spawncamping by pretty much any group that just wants to have "some fun".
Alternatively perma-flaggers would just operate in their own node, which would mean that general travel times are under 2 minutes (from any point in the node to its center, on a mount), which is pretty much the same as the current timer.
So, say, in a situation where you were pvping deep in a dungeon and you win. Your opponent would rez somewhere outside the dungeon (assumedly). If dungeons are as big as was promised, it would probably take him about 30s-1m to get back to your location (if there's a way to completely avoid all mobs along the way and also no one else aggros onto the flagged person). So in this scenario both of you would be still flagged.
If the opponent now wanted to come to that location unflagged (especially if he doesn't want to risk anyone else killing him), he'd wait to unflag outside the dungeon and then run inside. Assuming that flag doesn't drop on death, that'd be 2min at minimum.
Which means that it takes even less to mount from other points in the node to the center. So if the opponent wanted to remove the toggle and then come back, it'd take him ~2.5-3m to come back to your location unflagged (again, assuming no one kills him on his way to the node center).
The xp loss (let alone other penalties) of operating as a perma-flagged person outside your own node (or a military one, as you suggested) would HIGHLY outweigh any 5-10% bonus to xp gain, which would decrease the amount of people who do decide to do this to absolutely miniscule amounts (again, outside of big groups that do this on purpose).
So, having said all that, would you be fine if the pvp flag stayed on the person for 3m instead of 1.5? Cause I'd be totally fine with that number for those who make the first strike against a green (which would be the "jump" in the context of this thread).
Tbh the point/suggestion was more in principle rather than a "here's a bullet-proof solution". It was more of a "what about this?" attempt.
Details tbc!
But yeah I'm sure given a bit of imagination there are several ways we could make it less convenient and yet still not necessarily permanent. Somewhere between these two is the point I'm going for here.
So, having said all that, would you be fine if the pvp flag stayed on the person for 3m instead of 1.5? Cause I'd be totally fine with that number for those who make the first strike against a green (which would be the "jump" in the context of this thread).
I'd personally always be in favour of extending the timer. But I realise that isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea.
Whereas my suggestion allows us to increase PvP activity only for those who want it rather than dragging all the PvEers in too.
Achieved with a simple pre-flag and a little compensation.
Trying to be balanced though, still, 1.5m does sound crazy short to me.
I'd personally always be in favour of extending the timer. But I realise that isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea.
Whereas my suggestion allows us to increase PvP activity only for those who want it rather than dragging all the PvEers in too.
Achieved with a simple pre-flag and a little compensation.
Trying to be balanced though, still, 1.5m does sound crazy short to me.
I've thought of another problem with the premise. The entire thread rolled out of the issue of "the dude that was just a pvper is now not a pvper". That dude made this choice because he figured he was too weak to keep fighting (or got tired of pvp).
So in an "inconvenient-to-remove" toggleable system, wouldn't those exact people not even use the toggle? So the very people who you're trying to address wouldn't use your suggestion, because they are not sure in their power.
The, mostly, only ones who'd go for this toggle would be the ones who're sure that they're way stronger than everyone around them (mainly the groups Azherae talked about), at which point there's no real competition or risk for them, because no one in their right mind would flag up against such a player.
And the ones who are not in their right mind, would've 100% flagged up against someone who attacked them first (i.e. "toggled on" the flag in the current system).
So you're either removing the entire premise of the "the jumper has the advantage", because there is no" jumper" or you're back at the current system, where you, as an avid pvper, would simply flag up on an approaching player and that player would then have the advantage of CCing you and continuing the fight (the literal same thing as it would be in your suggested system).
So I still cannot see how this system would be beneficial to the game and not a detriment. It's a completely optional system, with "little compensation" for huge potential losses, where the ones who would choose are either those who wouldn't be attacked in the first place or those who can be perma-flagged in the current system already. All at the cost of potentially letting megaguilds gain even more boosts and benefits than they will already have.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
I really think the only impact on others (who are unwilling to pre-flag) is less non-consensual PvP! As the PvPers would have plenty more targets to go for.
But you always have the option of flagging up when it suits you and getting involved. Win win!
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.
Fair enough. Yeah I agree the actual incentive used and potential consequences would need a bit more thought.
Realistically it would need an incentive of some kind otherwise the risk v reward would just be nonsensical, it'd only be a niche "hardcore" mode type of thing.
Personally I do think an exp buff of some kind feels appropriate. Stat buffs feel harder to balance, and exp is a major cost to active PvP.
Even in games without any exp loss on death, I tend to level far slower when getting side tracked by wpvp.
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.
I vehemently disagree with the suggestion - on several levels.
Along the same lines as Azherae.
If you want to be a madman and permaflag - be a madman and permaflag.
You already have a reward of half-normal death penalties for dying as a Combatant.
You don't deserve any more reward than that.
Ashes is not made for everyone.
Corruption is not going to be an acceptable mechanic for everyone.
Well as I've repeatedly clarified, the suggestion would be in addition to existing corruption rules.
So...
Is clearly missing the point.
Not that it matters.
I get the impression you're going to "vehemently disagree" with most things! But I'm yet to see many (any?) actual substantial reasons.
Although @Azherae has made good constructive points for the "other side" so to speak.
Surely we're all here to discuss & constructively solve these things together? Then again my forum expectations may need to be slightly corrected! (I take the points raised in a couple of earlier posts in this thread).
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.
Well again I disagree.
This v much sounds like you've exclusively played MMOs with flagging systems.
No problem with that but a lack of perspective maybe.
Let's say I opted in to pre-flag: there will be many times when I don't want to PvP.
Eg: herbing, trying to finish a quest, have little time, on my way to join a group etc etc list goes on.
You have no idea of my appetite for PvP until you attack. Many times I'll simply CC and run.
But with pre-flags, you're not faced with this awkward dynamic where your PvP-active opponent simply decides to let you eat corruption because you've managed to get the jump.
It's a long thread but that's the one little niggle that the suggestion was intended to resolve.
It would not prevent corruption from working as intended, at all. As @Azherae and others agree.
It would leave the existing corruption dynamics as the default for anyone who doesn't opt-in (eg via a military node option).
Tis a good point but I guess this is part of my (open) question... would it be that big of a change?
Bearing in mind we know very little about Military nodes. I could easily imagine a "choose to pre-flag in exchange for some perks" option in a military node.
Again I can't see any reason this would negatively impact PvEers, at all.
Or even complicate the system. It's the same system just jumping into "combatant" status early.
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.
So I know from experience how it feels to be "perma-flagged" against everyone you see.
I've also played on servers where pvp was simply always on. No corruption no nothing. It was an utter mess of constant deaths (mostly because even towns were pvp zones). It was super fun for me, cause I like pvp, but the server itself wasn't at all popular.
So again, I know how it is to play a game with either setup, both in huge groups and as a solo player. And I'm telling you, there's no tangible benefit to the absolute majority of potential Ashes players in having a pvp toggle.
There will be so many avenues to have constant (or at least very frequent) pvp, that creating a whole system just for a few people seems highly impractical.
I think where the main disconnect between you and NiKr specifically is happening (based on what I know about NiKr) is that NiKr is expecting a lot more from the Guilds, Node, and War systems, to fill the space you're referring to.
I also hope to see something like this. I am not sure we will, but I have no problems with the idea that a whole Guild or a whole Node or even a whole Alliance can just mark me as a target, even just as a 'rival'. This is a way to have some pretty heavy 'autoflag' and also help the first thing you wanted.
I will gladly have cool 'stalking' battles with a known enemy through whatever forests we live in.
Since you don't seem as committed to the 'true survivor' lifestyle where literally anyone can attack you all the time (in the sense that it's not the thing you are trying to enjoy here), I'd think this was better. Doesn't even require real animosity, it could easily be a meaningful 'agreement'.
Node A and node B citizens tend to gather in the same forest, fighting to take the others' resources in that forest is just always ok, but maybe they sometimes want to give peace a chance, during winter or if dealing with a shared threat.
Hence, Guild Wars.
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
But right now my gut feel is that we're overcomplicating matters.
Giving those people who like the "purer" form of wpvp (always on, attacker gets the advantage, no option to lean on corruption) an option to pre-flag, provided some compensatory incentive.. I just don't see how that doesn't improve things for that section of players. And leave the others unaffected.
Fundamentally anyway (IE: potential exploits aside a sec).
Yeah if there's no safety in towns etc that could be a problem.
Otherwise the general open world potential for corpse camping.. is just one of those things (it's why you'd need an incentive!).
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.
And them me.
In the same way killing a "civvy" IRL is seen as worse than killing an enlisted enemy.
In military warfare, even gangs etc.
Cause if you allow disabling then how is this any different from the current system? If you're not ok with how short the current flag timer is, what's stopping the supposed "system evader" from simply going to an npc and removing their flag (which in majority of cases would require the same amount of time as waiting out a flag timer)?
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_wars
You've literally just described this. Militaristic countries don't suddenly start fighting others or are ok when others fight them. They CAN go to war (I know this from very personal experience), but they don't always do.
So, once again, your suggestion is already in the game. You just gotta use the tools. The chances are, military mayors will probably try being at war way more often than other nodes (especially if Intrepid design the nodes in a good way), so you simply become a citizen of such a node and you have yourself a whole damn vassal system in which you're the enemy.
What does mean "to get the jump"?
I seen Steven describing the corruption as a bad thing but also as a thrilling experience in the context of bounty hunter trying to catch the corrupted player before that manages to clear the corruption.
So for both red and BH, this can be a thrilling experience.
Your system prevents that.
I don't care if others agree or not. I have my own opinion about what is good from game design point of view.
You just want a different game and you think you can make it happen 3 months before Alpha 2 by bringing a parallel flagging system and incentivizing to players to use it.
What if everyone will switch to your system? Then throw away the other one? The current 3 state system is not easy to balance.
If you say no, let it be used by players who do not want to PvP so much, then I am against it because it separates players into PvPers and PvEers.
I don't want to see such a separation in the game.
Yeah it's a good question. The suggestion was deliberately broad; there'd be a few details to work out of course.
But for argument's sake I said assume either permanent or some "firmer" rules, IE not something that will auto-toggle off after X mins.
In Ashes it'd probably mean visiting a friendly military node or even your home node to disable.
And I really don't think this would be "same amount of time as waiting out a flag timer", considering the size of the world and lack of fast travel, lack of hearthstones etc.
Let's just assume it'd be some way that locks you in more than you would be otherwise.
Well that's cool. I wasn't aware of the mutual-flagging.
I guess the only differences between my thinking and this system then is:
1) same thing just inverted. My system assumes war by default (then if anything you'd make peace treaties with the few friendly nodes)
2) incentivised opt-in on a per player basis. But I like it being a node-wide thing tbh.
So overall, yeah I wish it was a bit more "war by default" for those of us who like it that way (still without affecting the PvE crew).. but this looks as close as it's likely to get
It doesn't, at all.
I really don't. It was a good faith discussion, assume what you like.
Yet again I repeat, the suggestion was a small opt-in addition to the existing corruption system. A simple option to pre-flag as combatant, is all.
Any thread that goes anywhere near "PvX"... be warned!
So…
You tend to be given reasons, overlook/dismiss them and then complain you haven’t seen any reasons.
Both Azherae and I explained to you that the bonuses you get for flagging Purple are sufficient.
If you wish to be a mad man and perma-flag, go for it. But you should not get any additional bonuses for doing so.
Especially when it’s not possible for PvEers to have a similar function and bonus for perma-flagging PvE-Only.
Alternatively perma-flaggers would just operate in their own node, which would mean that general travel times are under 2 minutes (from any point in the node to its center, on a mount), which is pretty much the same as the current timer.
So, say, in a situation where you were pvping deep in a dungeon and you win. Your opponent would rez somewhere outside the dungeon (assumedly). If dungeons are as big as was promised, it would probably take him about 30s-1m to get back to your location (if there's a way to completely avoid all mobs along the way and also no one else aggros onto the flagged person). So in this scenario both of you would be still flagged.
If the opponent now wanted to come to that location unflagged (especially if he doesn't want to risk anyone else killing him), he'd wait to unflag outside the dungeon and then run inside. Assuming that flag doesn't drop on death, that'd be 2min at minimum.
From a reference here, it takes under 2 minutes to mount from from end of a metro to another.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Faster_travel
Which means that it takes even less to mount from other points in the node to the center. So if the opponent wanted to remove the toggle and then come back, it'd take him ~2.5-3m to come back to your location unflagged (again, assuming no one kills him on his way to the node center).
The xp loss (let alone other penalties) of operating as a perma-flagged person outside your own node (or a military one, as you suggested) would HIGHLY outweigh any 5-10% bonus to xp gain, which would decrease the amount of people who do decide to do this to absolutely miniscule amounts (again, outside of big groups that do this on purpose).
So, having said all that, would you be fine if the pvp flag stayed on the person for 3m instead of 1.5? Cause I'd be totally fine with that number for those who make the first strike against a green (which would be the "jump" in the context of this thread).
If that's a "primary reason" then I really couldn't be less convinced.
Tbh the point/suggestion was more in principle rather than a "here's a bullet-proof solution". It was more of a "what about this?" attempt.
Details tbc!
But yeah I'm sure given a bit of imagination there are several ways we could make it less convenient and yet still not necessarily permanent. Somewhere between these two is the point I'm going for here.
I'd personally always be in favour of extending the timer. But I realise that isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea.
Whereas my suggestion allows us to increase PvP activity only for those who want it rather than dragging all the PvEers in too.
Achieved with a simple pre-flag and a little compensation.
Trying to be balanced though, still, 1.5m does sound crazy short to me.
So in an "inconvenient-to-remove" toggleable system, wouldn't those exact people not even use the toggle? So the very people who you're trying to address wouldn't use your suggestion, because they are not sure in their power.
The, mostly, only ones who'd go for this toggle would be the ones who're sure that they're way stronger than everyone around them (mainly the groups Azherae talked about), at which point there's no real competition or risk for them, because no one in their right mind would flag up against such a player.
And the ones who are not in their right mind, would've 100% flagged up against someone who attacked them first (i.e. "toggled on" the flag in the current system).
So you're either removing the entire premise of the "the jumper has the advantage", because there is no" jumper" or you're back at the current system, where you, as an avid pvper, would simply flag up on an approaching player and that player would then have the advantage of CCing you and continuing the fight (the literal same thing as it would be in your suggested system).
So I still cannot see how this system would be beneficial to the game and not a detriment. It's a completely optional system, with "little compensation" for huge potential losses, where the ones who would choose are either those who wouldn't be attacked in the first place or those who can be perma-flagged in the current system already. All at the cost of potentially letting megaguilds gain even more boosts and benefits than they will already have.