Will the Flagging System Negatively Impact the Way Classes Function When Engaging PvP? edited

Long time no see everyone. Figured I may as well toss another topic out since its been so long.

Its a simple idea. Seeing as traditionally rogues are all about openers and getting the jump on players in PvP, will this simply disincentivize players being attacked by rogues to fight back when Rogues get the jump on them, pushing said rogues to gain corruption or disengage? Would this pretty much nullify the classic rogue mechanic of stealth attacks in PvP? Will the potential loss of materials be enough to push back against a rogue doing this? I plan to test this in alpha 2 quite a bit but any feedback or suggestions to test are welcome.

This is also just theory, seeing as we dont know anything about ashes rogues, its just speculation using what rogues have been in mmorpgs traditionally.

*****EDIT******: This has become less about corruption and more about the non-combatant CC immunity system preventing players from using their full skill-kits for many classes when engaging a PvP fight

With the parameters I propose:
-balancing will prevent initial attacks from outright deleting a player
-initiative is earned, and it wont always be in favor of the attacker if the player who is the would-be attacked sees the player and can engage first. The current system in this scenario now puts the would-be attacked player at a disadvantage since if they preemptively strike, they don't get to utilize their CCs to not only attempt to fight it out, but they could very well choose to CC that ambusher on initiative to escape more easily even though they are now a combatant, this is likely a dependent on class matchup decision.
-Non-combatant players should get the choice to fight or flight. Fighting is simple, they turn and engage and fight to win, risking win or loss. Non-combatant players who don't want to fight at all or don't believe they can win the fight can activate a CC immunity that functions as the current passive, breaking any current CCs and allowing them the ability to attempt an escape at the cost of committing to that non-combatant state for a period of time that prevents them from turning on their attacker to utilize their CC immunities in the initial combat.

I predict any system that limits your toolkit in combat will feel bad. It is objectively a bad call to give someone abilities, and then say "yea but they dont work if you attack first". And one way I would say it is an advantage for the defender is that it gives them the ability to close any sort of distance or create distance unhindered before they react, which for certain class matchups could be the deciding factor. So I believe it is bad to pitch that against someone for being the one who engages. You're automatically punishing them. Attacking a player isn't supposed to be something the game punishes, that in itself will deter engagements from happening. Griefing is the only thing that should be punished.

You should absolutely be capable of reacting and fighting against a player attacking you, but not by preventing a player from playing their class at 100%.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Fantmx

You will decide whether to attack and they will decide whether to attack back. I don't see how this is any different than everyone else. It I am walking along and charge you or sit in a bush camouflaged, they person being attacked will do whatever they plan to.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

As I said, its not about griefing.

I am not talking about griefing. I am talking about PKing. Different things

Dolyem wrote: »

If the main concern is allowing non-combatants who dont wish to engage to have the ability to flee, then provide a sort of non-combatant only feature that, when activated as a non-combatant, then does the CC immunity thing, while simultaneously locking in being a non-combatant for 5 minutes or something, preventing them from turning around and engaging after utilizing the advantage.

The system is built around protecting the greens from repeated forced deaths. The rogue is still at an advantage, if they want to kill their target quickly. They simply have higher stakes than in other games.

And as I keep saying, in Ashes rogue seems to be more of a group class. Groups will have pvps that don't involve PKing. And in that pvp the rogue can do their thing. It's the same as tanks not being able to do shit, because they're meant to protect things and not destroy them (at least I fucking hope that's the case).

There's gonna be a ton of ways for a rogue to make use of their specific abilities w/o suffering corruption.

Also, if the ttk is high enough, the victim can still turn around, CC the rogue and engage pvp. I doubt people will do this, but the possibility will probably be there.

George_Black

Fantmx wrote: »

You will decide whether to attack and they will decide whether to attack back. I don't see how this is any different than everyone else. It I am walking along and charge you or sit in a bush camouflaged, they person being attacked will do whatever they plan to.

The whole advantage of rogues is frontload dmg leaving 0 chance for fightback. Fightback means turning purple from green.
Killing a green means PK.
Rogues are not build for combat survivability.

I do not know how you cant connect certain simple dots in so many topics.

Fantmx

George_Black wrote: »

Fantmx wrote: »

You will decide whether to attack and they will decide whether to attack back. I don't see how this is any different than everyone else. It I am walking along and charge you or sit in a bush camouflaged, they person being attacked will do whatever they plan to.

The whole advantage of rogues is frontload dmg leaving 0 chance for fightback. Fightback means turning purple from green.
Killing a green means PK.
Rogues are not build for combat survivability.

I do not know how you cant connect certain simple dots in so many topics.

I could have sworn you had me muted.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

As I said, its not about griefing.

I am not talking about griefing. I am talking about PKing. Different things

Dolyem wrote: »

If the main concern is allowing non-combatants who dont wish to engage to have the ability to flee, then provide a sort of non-combatant only feature that, when activated as a non-combatant, then does the CC immunity thing, while simultaneously locking in being a non-combatant for 5 minutes or something, preventing them from turning around and engaging after utilizing the advantage.

The system is built around protecting the greens from repeated forced deaths. The rogue is still at an advantage, if they want to kill their target quickly. They simply have higher stakes than in other games.

And as I keep saying, in Ashes rogue seems to be more of a group class. Groups will have pvps that don't involve PKing. And in that pvp the rogue can do their thing. It's the same as tanks not being able to do shit, because they're meant to protect things and not destroy them (at least I fucking hope that's the case).

There's gonna be a ton of ways for a rogue to make use of their specific abilities w/o suffering corruption.

Also, if the ttk is high enough, the victim can still turn around, CC the rogue and engage pvp. I doubt people will do this, but the possibility will probably be there.

PKing isnt a bad thing as long as griefing isnt happening. The entire system is not to protect greens, it is to deter griefing.
In any MMO every class is a group class, this is irrelevant in this topic. You shouldnt have a system that hinders any class from utilizing their abilities, just for engaging another player. I even have ran this by several people as a scenario where they are being attacked, and almost every one of them said theyd likely disengage remaining a non-combatant, heal, and re-engage before the player lost their combat status and open up on them with full CCs.
This is also not about suffering corruption, rather it is more about a sort of terms of engagement issue being exploitable.

My suggestion above for players committing to non-combatant to acquire CC immunity addresses your concerns of protecting greens.

Noaani

George_Black wrote: »

The whole advantage of rogues is frontload dmg leaving 0 chance for fightback.

I don't understand how someone could want this to be a thing in a game like Ashes.

Unless they plan on playing rogues.

They should have a front heavy attack, for sure - but absolutely not to the point where there is 0 chance for fighting back.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

The whole advantage of rogues is frontload dmg leaving 0 chance for fightback.

I don't understand how someone could want this to be a thing in a game like Ashes.

Unless they plan on playing rogues.

They should have a front heavy attack, for sure - but absolutely not to the point where there is 0 chance for fighting back.

I think they should definitely do high damage coming out of stealth, but I feel armor should play a significant role in whether or not a rogue can do substantial damage or not. That being said, I dont think one shot mechanics are good for any class to have.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

The whole advantage of rogues is frontload dmg leaving 0 chance for fightback.

I don't understand how someone could want this to be a thing in a game like Ashes.

Unless they plan on playing rogues.

They should have a front heavy attack, for sure - but absolutely not to the point where there is 0 chance for fighting back.

I think they should definitely do high damage coming out of stealth, but I feel armor should play a significant role in whether or not a rogue can do substantial damage or not. That being said, I dont think one shot mechanics are good for any class to have.

For sure, rogues should be a high burst damage class - just not that much of a burst.

If a rogue is even able to take an equally geared character down to 50% fight out of stealth, no one is going to fight back - even taking in to consideration the fact that rogue DPS after that initial burst should be only slightly above that of a tank.

Laetitian

CROW3 wrote:

If the rogue is a sustained dps with some non-stealth burst windows, then ambushing a green may not have such an extreme set of assumptions. In this case, rogues may be able to fight as light-warriors (e.g. thugs and highwaymen) with a broader set of abilities to bleed or cc a target between burst windows.

Thanks for going into detail. The quoted assertion is the part I don't see any real motivations for. What does "not causing such an extreme set of assumptions" do for the sustained-DPS ranger? The enemy is still only going to fight back because they were either (1) going to become a combattant regardless of expected outcome in order to preserve loot; or (2) because they expect to kill the hunter (e.g. an armoured barbarian with high mobility, or something), which means the hunter made a mistake in attacking that player in the first place. And the third option still being that the person remains non-combattant and the hunter has to decide if the corruption is worth it and they want to pursue and/or execute the target.
Against which of the enemies in these scenarios is there an advantage for the sustained-DPS ranger versus the burst stealth ranger, and what is that advantage?

Dolyem wrote:

I even have ran this by several people as a scenario where they are being attacked, and almost every one of them said theyd likely disengage remaining a non-combatant, heal, and re-engage before the player lost their combat status and open up on them with full CCs.

So? Why can't the stealth-ranger just kill their target? Or, if disengages trump engages in the game, why can't the stealth-ranger do the same thing in return, until one of the two either gets an execution or stops trying? How is what you're saying any more profound than "When I come out of stealth, I want to win."?

Dolyem wrote:

If you make entire class kits pointless/nullified when initializing engagements, that is a bad gameplay design that should be considered.

What is "nullified" about the ranger's class kit when he opens an attack, and how is it related to the flagging system (which is the topic of your thread, if you want to now make this not about Corruption, then you have to state what the problem mechanic *is* that you want changed. Is it other classes' access to mobility? Is it the damage potential of the stealth class? What's wrong with what it looks like so far?)

I really feel like this topic is suffering because you're not willing to say openly that this really has nothing to do with stealth at all, you just don't like not being able to pick PvP and win fights without an uncomfortable consequence attached to it, whenever you personally deem it to be a justified fight.
And like, you're talking to mostly enthusiastic PvPers in this thread so far, so if that's what you want to talk about, why not talk about that...

Azherae

I don't see any issue here unless the concept is that Rogues are solitary.

All this does is change it so that a Rogue needs to work with another person. The Rogue is hidden, allowing their visible partner to engage (or be engaged, even better) at any time. As soon as the enemy flags up expecting a 'fair fight', the Rogue then moves in and acts.

In my own (probably not 'traditional') experience this is what you want a Rogue for in a group game/MMO. That allows them to be 'flanker' even without true stealth, assuming enough mobility. A source of sudden burst damage that you cannot ignore and tactically shouldn't necessarily try to kill.

Does this work in Ashes? Who knows, I wouldn't bet on it personally right now, but it is an MMO, and 'killing people in specifically unfair fights' is probably not one of the things that should be 'soloable'.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

I even have ran this by several people as a scenario where they are being attacked, and almost every one of them said theyd likely disengage remaining a non-combatant, heal, and re-engage before the player lost their combat status and open up on them with full CCs.

Which is the point of "greens can't be CCed". It makes the encounter fair to both sides. The attacker gets the first hit, the defender gets the first CC.

If you, as the attacker, stand around waiting for your victim to heal up - what the hell are you doing? If your goal was not to PK your target - you can still keep attacking them, so that they don't heal back up.

And if your goal WAS to PK them - you can succeed at that easily.

Dolyem wrote: »

This is also not about suffering corruption, rather it is more about a sort of terms of engagement issue being exploitable.

It's not an exploit. It's an intended interaction. You just dislike that you don't have a huge of an advantage w/o also gaining as huge of a penalty for said advantage.

Dolyem wrote: »

My suggestion above for players committing to non-combatant to acquire CC immunity addresses your concerns of protecting greens.

Except it changes nothing in the context of this discussion. If your goal was not to PK the person - CCs don't matter. If your goal is to PK a person - CCs only matter if a green player who didn't even know they're about to be attacked can then somehow easily escape the attacker. But even with a longer ttk, it'd be quite difficult to escape someone who has already dealt some burst dmg and is still doing dmg to you, while you're trying to figure out your best way of retreat.

As Lae said above, I'm not sure what the core of your issue is. If it's simply unfairness towards the attackers - tough luck

daveywavey

Dolyem wrote: »

Long time no see everyone. Figured I may as well toss another topic out since its been so long.

Its a simple idea. Seeing as traditionally rogues are all about openers and getting the jump on players in PvP, will this simply disincentivize players being attacked by rogues to fight back when Rogues get the jump on them, pushing said rogues to gain corruption or disengage? Would this pretty much nullify the classic rogue mechanic of stealth attacks in PvP? Will the potential loss of materials be enough to push back against a rogue doing this? I plan to test this in alpha 2 quite a bit but any feedback or suggestions to test are welcome.

This is also just theory, seeing as we dont know anything about ashes rogues, its just speculation using what rogues have been in mmorpgs traditionally.

Erm, I think you're in the wrong thread. The Memes thread is over 'there'......

Jhoren

Dolyem wrote: »

Its really just looking at the idea of a class that is focused on getting an upper hand by striking first causing players to potentially default to not fighting back because there is no point to when it could be futile.

If that happens, the first strike capability needs to be nerfed. Simple as that. No class should have an IWIN button like that, especially from not from stealth, but really just in general.

The fix to that problem is to lower first strike damage for all classes to an acceptable level, and for rogues, make them more sustained DPS with CC, debuffs and DOTS, rather than making them burst DPS glass cannons.

Depraved

Jhoren wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Its really just looking at the idea of a class that is focused on getting an upper hand by striking first causing players to potentially default to not fighting back because there is no point to when it could be futile.

If that happens, the first strike capability needs to be nerfed. Simple as that. No class should have an IWIN button like that, especially from not from stealth, but really just in general.

The fix to that problem is to lower first strike damage for all classes to an acceptable level, and for rogues, make them more sustained DPS with CC, debuffs and DOTS, rather than making them burst DPS glass cannons.

so basically turn them into warriors?

Jhoren

Depraved wrote: »

Jhoren wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Its really just looking at the idea of a class that is focused on getting an upper hand by striking first causing players to potentially default to not fighting back because there is no point to when it could be futile.

If that happens, the first strike capability needs to be nerfed. Simple as that. No class should have an IWIN button like that, especially from not from stealth, but really just in general.

The fix to that problem is to lower first strike damage for all classes to an acceptable level, and for rogues, make them more sustained DPS with CC, debuffs and DOTS, rather than making them burst DPS glass cannons.

so basically turn them into warriors?

No.

Depraved

Jhoren wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Jhoren wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Its really just looking at the idea of a class that is focused on getting an upper hand by striking first causing players to potentially default to not fighting back because there is no point to when it could be futile.

If that happens, the first strike capability needs to be nerfed. Simple as that. No class should have an IWIN button like that, especially from not from stealth, but really just in general.

The fix to that problem is to lower first strike damage for all classes to an acceptable level, and for rogues, make them more sustained DPS with CC, debuffs and DOTS, rather than making them burst DPS glass cannons.

so basically turn them into warriors?

No.

but that's your suggestion...

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

I think they should definitely do high damage coming out of stealth, but I feel armor should play a significant role in whether or not a rogue can do substantial damage or not. That being said, I dont think one shot mechanics are good for any class to have.

Also, there should be Passive Skills which mitigate that Damage.

Texas

I don't know what rogue will look like, but I do know that there's not going to be only 1 way to rogue. If you don't want to be a glass-cannon, stealth-burst rogue, you don't have to be.

Btw, rogue-tanks, dot specs, and sustained dps are quite common around the genre.

Dolyem

@Laetitian
I don't think you've read all of my comments in this. But it's clear you have a narrative of "this guy's wants to one shot innocent green players!" Stuck in your head and keeping you from looking at this rationally.

Objectively, it is bad when a system prevents players from playing their class as it is designed.

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote:

I even have ran this by several people as a scenario where they are being attacked, and almost every one of them said theyd likely disengage remaining a non-combatant, heal, and re-engage before the player lost their combat status and open up on them with full CCs.

So? Why can't the stealth-ranger just kill their target? Or, if disengages trump engages in the game, why can't the stealth-ranger do the same thing in return, until one of the two either gets an execution or stops trying? How is what you're saying any more profound than "When I come out of stealth, I want to win."?.

Nobody should be able to "just kill their target" as I've said earlier. One shot mechanics are bad.
Disengages are indeed practical in many circumstances, but in this particular scenario you are bypassing a system where striking first is a disadvantage. Disengaging for the sole purpose of being able to get around that system is an exploit technically.

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote:

If you make entire class kits pointless/nullified when initializing engagements, that is a bad gameplay design that should be considered.

What is "nullified" about the ranger's class kit when he opens an attack, and how is it related to the flagging system (which is the topic of your thread, if you want to now make this not about Corruption, then you have to state what the problem mechanic *is* that you want changed. Is it other classes' access to mobility? Is it the damage potential of the stealth class? What's wrong with what it looks like so far?)

I really feel like this topic is suffering because you're not willing to say openly that this really has nothing to do with stealth at all, you just don't like not being able to pick PvP and win fights without an uncomfortable consequence attached to it, whenever you personally deem it to be a justified fight.
And like, you're talking to mostly enthusiastic PvPers in this thread so far, so if that's what you want to talk about, why not talk about that...

It wouldn't be just rangers, it would be any classes whose skill sets rely on CC, surprise, or aren't very mobile themselves. If the flagging system prevents these abilities from being used in initial combat, you're hindering every single one of those players gameplay skillsets.
The whole problem is locking out certain abilities while attacking a specific flagged state, when traditionally those types of abilities are key to PvP. If you're concerned about this being an "YOU JUST WANNA KILL EVERYONE!" problem, then just implement the CC immunity as an action and commitment to choosing to be non-combative and have a better chance of escaping like I've already suggested. It solves the issue I'm pointing out, and it keeps those you seem to be worried that I'm out to PK under the protection I'm critiquing.

And you're right, it's not ONLY about stealth, it's about all of the classes who rely on CC, surprise attacks, and aren't very mobile. And I've already stated I'm against 1 shotting people. But apparently you think it's crazy that someone getting the jump on someone else should be at an advantage while doing so? That makes no sense to not have that advantage, and it sounds terrible on paper let alone how I'm predicting it will feel in game. And the consequences of the fight should be dying, or corruption, that's it. You shouldn't getting a handicap at the start just for engaging the fight, that's a detterent to all PVP, not to griefing. And while I have been gone for quite a few months, I'd say I'm one of the most enthusiastic PvPers on these forums. And while I do love to meme about murderhoboing, I've made it very clear that I do support a system that deters all forms of griefing in an MMORPG, it just has to do so without killing OWPvP as well.

Veeshan

Depraved wrote: »

people forget that the rogue could still lose a 1v1 after doing his initial attack and breaking stealth. the rogue isn't meant to be a direct tanky fighter like the warrior.

yep i suspect rogue will typically excel against say mages/squishy however fall short on the more tankier opponents in 1v1 situations

that being said since the game apparently rock paper scissor u might find if a rock attacks the scissor the scissor might not bother trying to fight back and give them a penalty if they die since they know where at a disadvantage due to the system. However we shal see how things play out

Child Item