Noaani wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » On the other hand, I don't see how the above comment can be correct without sieges being mostly open world. You can still have instances within instances. A room within a room. You can - but can you have an open world siege within an instance? To me, it is the blatant statement of "otherwise open-world castle and node sieges" that signals that they will be mostly open world. And at a point where you have yourself an effective instance, I'd imagine it'd be only a small step to go into a full instance, especially if that step lets you have a way healthier siege because it's now on a separate server body or smth like that. I mean, it is absolutely easier to implement sieges using instances - that is why instancing them was always the fall-back plan. Since sieges are always going to be number restricted, I actually don't understand why many people really want them to be open world. It makes no functional difference to me, and I've not heard an argument from anyone in relation to this. However, there are a lot of people that really want sieges to be open world - which is why Intrepid said they will attempt to make it happen. If they are able to pull off the target of 500v500 siege in an open world setting without much impact in playability, that is something that even I would be impressed with - even if I don't see the point.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » On the other hand, I don't see how the above comment can be correct without sieges being mostly open world. You can still have instances within instances. A room within a room.
Noaani wrote: » On the other hand, I don't see how the above comment can be correct without sieges being mostly open world.
And at a point where you have yourself an effective instance, I'd imagine it'd be only a small step to go into a full instance, especially if that step lets you have a way healthier siege because it's now on a separate server body or smth like that.
Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » ArnasPanika wrote: » Not showing your enemies HP was sometimes even the core of the whole flagging system Yeah, but showing it means players can make more informed decisions - and since a game is nothing more than a scenario in which players make decisions and then see the results of them, enabling players to make more informed decisions can only ever be a good thing. yeah the decision of run away and hide... This doesn't make sense to me. I'd be interested to hear what situation you think would cause being able to see what percent health a rival is on would make you want to run away and hide, when not knowing that wouldn't cause this.
Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » ArnasPanika wrote: » Not showing your enemies HP was sometimes even the core of the whole flagging system Yeah, but showing it means players can make more informed decisions - and since a game is nothing more than a scenario in which players make decisions and then see the results of them, enabling players to make more informed decisions can only ever be a good thing. yeah the decision of run away and hide...
Noaani wrote: » ArnasPanika wrote: » Not showing your enemies HP was sometimes even the core of the whole flagging system Yeah, but showing it means players can make more informed decisions - and since a game is nothing more than a scenario in which players make decisions and then see the results of them, enabling players to make more informed decisions can only ever be a good thing.
ArnasPanika wrote: » Not showing your enemies HP was sometimes even the core of the whole flagging system
Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » On the other hand, I don't see how the above comment can be correct without sieges being mostly open world. You can still have instances within instances. A room within a room. You can - but can you have an open world siege within an instance? To me, it is the blatant statement of "otherwise open-world castle and node sieges" that signals that they will be mostly open world. And at a point where you have yourself an effective instance, I'd imagine it'd be only a small step to go into a full instance, especially if that step lets you have a way healthier siege because it's now on a separate server body or smth like that. I mean, it is absolutely easier to implement sieges using instances - that is why instancing them was always the fall-back plan. Since sieges are always going to be number restricted, I actually don't understand why many people really want them to be open world. It makes no functional difference to me, and I've not heard an argument from anyone in relation to this. However, there are a lot of people that really want sieges to be open world - which is why Intrepid said they will attempt to make it happen. If they are able to pull off the target of 500v500 siege in an open world setting without much impact in playability, that is something that even I would be impressed with - even if I don't see the point. technically you can. the open world itels is an instance. each server is an instance
in the first scenarios, while non registered players cant enter the siege area, they could still kill and prevent registered players from entering. also, people could potentially go outside to heal then come back in. who knows. you also don't have loading screens, which means you don't get spawn camped and you can assist your allies quicker.
I wouldn't run and hide if I'm winning. the other person would when they realize they are losing hard.
we wont see the exact hp, but if you need to hit me 3 times to drop 1/4 for my bar, and I can drop 1/4 of yours with 1 attack, you will most likely run, even after initiating the fight
you also miss the opportunity to bait players.
Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » On the other hand, I don't see how the above comment can be correct without sieges being mostly open world. You can still have instances within instances. A room within a room. You can - but can you have an open world siege within an instance? To me, it is the blatant statement of "otherwise open-world castle and node sieges" that signals that they will be mostly open world. And at a point where you have yourself an effective instance, I'd imagine it'd be only a small step to go into a full instance, especially if that step lets you have a way healthier siege because it's now on a separate server body or smth like that. I mean, it is absolutely easier to implement sieges using instances - that is why instancing them was always the fall-back plan. Since sieges are always going to be number restricted, I actually don't understand why many people really want them to be open world. It makes no functional difference to me, and I've not heard an argument from anyone in relation to this. However, there are a lot of people that really want sieges to be open world - which is why Intrepid said they will attempt to make it happen. If they are able to pull off the target of 500v500 siege in an open world setting without much impact in playability, that is something that even I would be impressed with - even if I don't see the point. technically you can. the open world itels is an instance. each server is an instance So, what you are sayig is that you are right, but only if we assume that the whole game is just one big instance. Are you a Dygz alt now? in the first scenarios, while non registered players cant enter the siege area, they could still kill and prevent registered players from entering. also, people could potentially go outside to heal then come back in. who knows. you also don't have loading screens, which means you don't get spawn camped and you can assist your allies quicker. Why would you want or need to go outside to heal? Spawn camping can be prevented with either method if Intrepid wish to prevent it. None of this registers as being relavent at all. I wouldn't run and hide if I'm winning. the other person would when they realize they are losing hard. And yet, this doesn't happen all that much in games that show health. That's the thing - you seem to be talking about this as if it is some new thing that we have no examples of, and so conjecture on how it will play out is valid. In truth, it isn't new, we have many examples of how it plays out, and so conjecture isn't needed. If people have something to fight over, if there is a reason for the fight to happen, running is not something that happens very often. we wont see the exact hp, but if you need to hit me 3 times to drop 1/4 for my bar, and I can drop 1/4 of yours with 1 attack, you will most likely run, even after initiating the fight See, this isn't how it works. If you think that is how it will work in Ashes, then you'll be bottom tier PvP. When gearing a character, you aren't just adding raw HP to it, you are adding other defenses. To most classes, these defenses are more valuable than raw HP. If all you are looking at is the amount of damage - as a rough eyeballed percent - that your opening attack does against me, then you're not going to win. you also miss the opportunity to bait players. No, this still exists. It is just a little bit more effort than taking a few steps back, or walking around a corner. Again, keep in mind, we are not talking about a new thing where conjecture is valid, We are talking about a system that is known and understood - just perhaps not by you.
Depraved wrote: » 1- the whole game is a big instance. can you interact at any time with players in another server? also, everything in the game is also an instance. every rock, every tree, etc. but I get it, somehow players started to use the word instance for stuff that is separated from the player mass. it still an instance, but not the only thing that is an instance. i just use it that way when communicating since not every gamer is a programmer. they are right, but doesn't mean I'm wrong. i was just pointing out that technically, the castle siege would happen in an instance of the game, even if everybody has access to it at any time.
2- when I said spawn camping, I meant you can get killed while loading. some games add a protection if you arent moving. if you do anything by accident you are dead. you cant control where you load inside the game, but if there was a barrier and you could see inside, you could choose where to enter it avoiding being camped.
3- it does. pvp more.
4- obviously defenses and stuff are included. i didn't think it was necessary to mention those. if I'm a mage and you are a mage and my hp doesn't move when you hit me and you lose 1/4 when I hit you, obviously I have higher defense or more damage than you. there are many factors not worth mentioning since in the end, what matters Is that my hp isn't going down and yours is.
4- seems its you who doesn't understand the system. don't you mostly play pve games? or focus on pve in PVP games?
Noaani wrote: » This is only true if you only factor in one aspect of instances, and ignore the rest.
ExiledByrd wrote: » If i can play a ranged/ambusher, couldn't I hunt noncombatants at will by attacking during PvE fights and timing my damage so the mobs kill them instead? This would greatly reduce my risk for ganking gatherers. Or I if I am not worried about gaining corruption can I kill them at low life, so they dont even have a chance to flag. This will theoretically double the drop rate of materials (Combatants have 50% reduced death penalties).
ExiledByrd wrote: » I've been away for a while, but doesn't having health bars mess with the flagging system to much? from the wiki: "Green players killed by mobs (the mob deals the killing blow) do not flag attacking players as corrupt, but since the exact health of another player is not known (outside of the same party, raid, alliance, or guild), attackers run the risk of killing the player and becoming corrupt.[80]" If i can play a ranged/ambusher, couldn't I hunt noncombatants at will by attacking during PvE fights and timing my damage so the mobs kill them instead? This would greatly reduce my risk for ganking gatherers. Or I if I am not worried about gaining corruption can I kill them at low life, so they dont even have a chance to flag. This will theoretically double the drop rate of materials (Combatants have 50% reduced death penalties).
George_Black wrote: » Knowing a target players health can lead to gameplay that's not fun for the defender. If a player battles mobs and an attacker notices his low HP he could lower it to the point where the mobs can deal the final blow and the attacker can claim the dropped items and the area.
GrizzlyRed wrote: » If a player interacts with another player in any way, it counts as a player vs player death, even if the mob deals the final blow. It would not affect the drops you receive.
NiKr wrote: » It would be a green death, if the victim doesn't strike the player attacker back. So it directly influences the loot you'd get from the victim.
GrizzlyRed wrote: » If I had 100% life and no mobs attacking me
NiKr wrote: » And visible hp makes that bad thing happen more frequently, because it's now easier to execute.
GrizzlyRed wrote: » George_Black wrote: » Knowing a target players health can lead to gameplay that's not fun for the defender. If a player battles mobs and an attacker notices his low HP he could lower it to the point where the mobs can deal the final blow and the attacker can claim the dropped items and the area. This is a non issue in most games I have played. If a player interacts with another player in any way, it counts as a player vs player death, even if the mob deals the final blow. It would not affect the drops you receive. Yea its annoying to be attacked while questing and some guy waiting for you to be low health before he attacks but them are usually bad players. Than you just come back and kill them quick. Well, the player is usually bad, or they are a rogue. Still haven't met a rogue I like in any game, usually all toxic people. Specifically rolled warrior in WoW long time ago just so I could kill rogues easily, Overpower was one hell of a drug.
George_Black wrote: » The other mmos you played were a themepark trail to the end game, with gearing from safe instanced raid treadmills.
Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » ArnasPanika wrote: » Not showing your enemies HP was sometimes even the core of the whole flagging system Yeah, but showing it means players can make more informed decisions - and since a game is nothing more than a scenario in which players make decisions and then see the results of them, enabling players to make more informed decisions can only ever be a good thing. yeah the decision of run away and hide... Texas wrote: » Someone from Intrepid said that non-registered players will be prevented from participating by not being able to use respawn points near the node. That implies they have shifted to open world to me. But sometimes things get said that are just ideas and aren't final. --- Why to have PvP enemy health indicators: 1) Executes/builder-spender/combo/dmg burst styles of gameplay. They've already leaned into these styles of play with their class design. Fighters even have an execute. And, no, knowledge of the game and a feeling for TTK doesn't make this go away. Those basically only apply to fair duels. In open world pvp and group battles there's no accurate sense you can develop for who is low on health and not. 2) Target choice. This matters for group PvP. Why not to: 1) Gaming the flagging system. --- These seem like the main important factors. I don't think the aesthetic (or immersion) reasons or seeing the bars change matter as much. There will be combat text, so big numbers are shown anyway. Aesthetics just take a back seat to gameplay - especially right now as things are aesthetically going to change a lot before launch. --- A: The partial HP bars seem like they address both issues pretty decently already. If anything, there are still issues with the con. Maybe you can't tell exaclty if you will kill a low HP player, you can be reasonably assured that you won't accidentally kill a high HP player. B: Seems like the better answer for the con is to just change the flagging system to where if I attack a green and the green dies within ~30 secs, I get corruption regardless of if the killing blow was an NPC or other players, or myself.It has been sitting weird with me for a while now that the flagging feels like too rigid a structure with obvious loopholes and that needs to be over-explained because it's very unintuitive. 1- it snot that hard to see who is injured or not. just look at your screen. unless someone just came new to your screen, you can always tell. on top of that, you are supposed to coordinate strikes with your team. your reasoning for health bars is "I wanna go for picks so I need to know exactly who to pick on". it doesn't matter if you could have done 5% more damage with your execute, since the target will die anyways because you are hitting him with your team. doesn't matter who gets the kill. 2- god no. that has been suggested before, and its one of the worst changes that could happen to the corruption system. only the person who lands the killing blow on a green should get corruption, otherwise you make the system worse and super abusable.
Texas wrote: » Someone from Intrepid said that non-registered players will be prevented from participating by not being able to use respawn points near the node. That implies they have shifted to open world to me. But sometimes things get said that are just ideas and aren't final. --- Why to have PvP enemy health indicators: 1) Executes/builder-spender/combo/dmg burst styles of gameplay. They've already leaned into these styles of play with their class design. Fighters even have an execute. And, no, knowledge of the game and a feeling for TTK doesn't make this go away. Those basically only apply to fair duels. In open world pvp and group battles there's no accurate sense you can develop for who is low on health and not. 2) Target choice. This matters for group PvP. Why not to: 1) Gaming the flagging system. --- These seem like the main important factors. I don't think the aesthetic (or immersion) reasons or seeing the bars change matter as much. There will be combat text, so big numbers are shown anyway. Aesthetics just take a back seat to gameplay - especially right now as things are aesthetically going to change a lot before launch. --- A: The partial HP bars seem like they address both issues pretty decently already. If anything, there are still issues with the con. Maybe you can't tell exaclty if you will kill a low HP player, you can be reasonably assured that you won't accidentally kill a high HP player. B: Seems like the better answer for the con is to just change the flagging system to where if I attack a green and the green dies within ~30 secs, I get corruption regardless of if the killing blow was an NPC or other players, or myself.It has been sitting weird with me for a while now that the flagging feels like too rigid a structure with obvious loopholes and that needs to be over-explained because it's very unintuitive.
GrizzlyRed wrote: » Do I hate when it happens to me, yes, that's why I then join the guild chat, get some buddies to come, and make that guys next hour a respawn counter simulator.
GrizzlyRed wrote: » Also I pretty much only pvp in games unless it's necessary to pve to either a: level up faster, b: get very important gear upgrades, c: skill unlock quests.
