blat wrote: » 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.
blat wrote: » 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. 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).
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.
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".
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: » 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. 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)?
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.
NiKr wrote: » blat wrote: » 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. May I introduce to you... drum rollllll....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.
Otr wrote: » 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.
Otr wrote: » 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.
Otr wrote: » What if everyone will switch to your system? Then throw away the other one?
blat wrote: » Well as I've repeatedly clarified, the suggestion would be in addition to existing corruption rules. So....
blat wrote: » 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.
Dygz wrote: » blat wrote: » 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…
NiKr wrote: » blat wrote: » 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. 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).
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).
blat wrote: » 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.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » 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. It doesn't, at all.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » 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. Otr wrote: » What if everyone will switch to your system? Then throw away the other one? 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!
blat wrote: » If that's a "primary reason" then I really couldn't be less convinced.
CROW3 wrote: » If, so - I'd back that. My long standing perspective on Ashes is that you give consent to be attacked upon login, being perma-purple is just an extension of that agreement. I'm open to modifying the drop penalty though for folks that choose this option.
NiKr wrote: » I'm assuming making the drop penalty lower, cause you'd be presumably dying more often, right? So I'm curious to see your opinion on it. What about WARS... The penalty is already pre-lowered, the pvp flag doesn't go away during it and the people on both sides of the flag are all too happy to kill each other over and over again
CROW3 wrote: » Actually, my first thought was to raise the death penalty. Perma-purple is a true commitment to owpvp, so I'd want it to walk the walk. It might also sway players away from attacking greens because they might be able to get the same loot % from a perma-flag player without the threat of corruption. The added risk being that you're fighting someone who is probably quite skilled and may pose a greater chance of you dying.
NiKr wrote: » That's an interesting idea. Though I'd imagine we'd need a new color for the perma-flagged people, otherwise they wouldn't be pulling as many hits away from the greens. But then this new color would immediately attract the abusers that I mentioned here before. Though having higher penalties would definitely detract any potential megaguilds that would be trying to use the xp boost (if you support that part of the suggestion that is). Probably not stop them outright, but if there's even a slight opposition here and there, the chance to lose too much stuff would probably be too high to be optimal.
CROW3 wrote: » idk - you could probably keep the same colors, and now it adds an additional unknown to target selection. All things being equal you have a 100% chance to gain corruption with a green to get 100% of the loot, and a 0% chance of corruption for a purple with 50% chance of 100% loot
CROW3 wrote: » @blat - just to be clear (cause there are 12 pages I skimmed), are you arguing for the current corruption system with the option to remain perma-purple? If, so - I'd back that. My long standing perspective on Ashes is that you give consent to be attacked upon login, being perma-purple is just an extension of that agreement. I'm open to modifying the drop penalty though for folks that choose this option.
CROW3 wrote: » The question would be whether there is any additional benefit to perma-flag beyond the philosophical commitment to owpvp (or not wanting to 'flag up' as a green)?
