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

Dygz wrote: »

Most of the PvP is intended for non-Corruption PvP.
Plenty of places to "have the advantage coming out of Stealth" during Guild/Node Wars, Castle/Node Sieges, Caravans and the Open Seas.

You're right, that is indeed where most PvP will happen. I am just pointing out the bad design philosophy of keeping players from using all of their abilities. I know your concern would be for the pacifists, which in my previous comments is addressed with simply making the CC immunity/break into an action, locking into green and committing to the escape.

GrappLr

I think the bigger problem is CC immunity for people who are non flagged. I understand the issue of being cc'd while pulling mobs, and dying to mobs, as a form of griefing. But there must be a more elegant solution than making everyone cc immune...

Dolyem wrote: »

Laetitian wrote:

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...

The whole problem is locking out certain abilities while attacking a specific flagged state, when traditionally those types of abilities are key to PvP.

Okay, so just to be completely clear, the threat of Corruption on the killing player is not something you have an issue with in its own right?

I think this is a valid discussion to have. Perhaps to change something about the game, or at least better communicate the intended gameplay dynamic of the ganking protection system to players.

My problem in this thread is that you didn't mention CC immunity in your initial post, and you never clearly stated whether your problem is that enemies can run away because you can't lock them down with CC, or that they can run away because you're not willing to commit to gaining Corruption (in both cases with the added threat that they can play around at the edge of escape-range and counter-engage range to keep the ambusher under threat and force them to make concessions for their own defence or their target's escape options).
That's two very different problems to discuss, and both might be something going on in a forum user's mind.

If you're willing to clarify that Corruption as a punishment for killing players who do not become combattants is not what you consider part of the problem that negatively affects the ambush playstyle, I'm super ready to move on to just discussing CC immunity.
What I'm not willing to accept though is that we discuss CC immunity to exhaustion now, and then 30 pages in you go: "Whatever, the whole problem was that players can just not attack back and I have to go corrupt to kill them. :grumpyface:"
I hope you understand now why I'm struggling to engage in this discussion without digging for the nucleus of your argument first. Any accusations I made were just attempts at getting that clear answer.

For the rest of your response to me, I think I'll defer to NiKr's argument. Especially the point about

Nikr wrote:

"But the greens don't get an advantage though. They get a fair fight. A reason to fight back."

I don't actually agree with him that this needs to be in the game in order for people to be motivated to attack back. I've played games where ganking was between tolerated and encouraged (there just wasn't any reward for it, so it still wasn't excessive, because there was more useful PVP to engage in) and people absolutely do fight back when they're at half HP. There's a disadvantage to it, but also that ranger just used up their CC, so often enough, it's fine. Not "fair", but fine.

However, where I still agree with NiKr is that I also don't think that the protections for non-combattants in Ashes right now disincentivise anything that's vital to the game, or mess up any playstyles or classes. It just makes ambushing slightly riskier, which is a perfectly acceptable aspect to it, considering it also provides an advantage in many other ways.
It's not an advantage for the defender, it's just slightly less of an advantage for the ambusher.
(Because if the enemy player happens to be someone who can whoop your butt if you can't CC them before they reach you, you can just not attack them...; Kind of a defining aspect of the initiation advantage.)

That all said, I wouldn't see much of a problem to turning the non-combattant CC-protection into a committal active/toggle opt-in effect. It would cost no skill points or resources, and just be an ability you can trigger whenever you feel like it. And the conditions would be something like

"Must be non-combattant to activate; cannot attack players during effect, and for 5 minutes after disabling the effect."

It crucially wouldn't give any protection besides the CC immunity as it is currently the default behaviour, plus an initial cleanse of current PvP CC on you, again assuming you're still non-combattant.
I also think in order to preserve the current nature of the system, it should be impossible for opponents to tell whether a player has the toggle active or not, until they try to CC them.

Spoiler for insignificant ramble:

The only downside I see at that point is that the whole system looks kinda cringe and convoluted to outsiders. And the only fix I would see for *that* would be just to simplify the whole system way more, and just make it very binary. No protections for anyone besides the threat of corruption to the attacker, but make that threat feel serious, without any way to play the system. You become corrupted as soon as you attack a non-combattant. Corruption multiplies by 5 in duration and by 2 in severity every time one of your non-combattant targets dies.
But the fans of corruption won't ever agree to that, because they're used to a more nuanced gameplay loop where very deliberate decisions are made to balance out the difference between ganking for fun and ganking for a purpose, and both of them have layers of justification.

My main issue with understanding the point is the contradiction in the suggested solution and the presented problem.

Dolyem said this is not a discussion about corruption. But he's also insistent on forcing greens to remain greens if they want the CC immunity, which in turn literally spells out "I don't want you fighting back, if you want the protection right now" - and that is most definitely a conversation about corruption.

Needing a CC as your first attack against a green player screams to me "I want to kill him before he can retaliate", or at the very least "I want to bring him down so low that he sees no point in fighting back, and even if he does - I'll always win".

I'm gonna be a tank, so more than half of my abilities would be useless against an enemy in a 1v1 fight, if I'm the initiator, cause they're defensive. Same would be true for the cleric and bard, because as long as the victim doesn't fight back - any protective/healing/defensive abilities do not matter AT ALL.

Should we change those too, so that they somehow do dmg or smth?

I've played a pvp mmo with this design for over a decade. And in absolute majority of encounters, I was more willing to fight back if I knew that I could retaliate against my attacker in a way that would equal out our hp values. This didn't magically mean that I would win. It would simply be fairer to me, as the original victim of the attack.

And yes, if I was the one who attacked first (while thinking that the dude approaching me was about to attack me) - I'd be on the receiving end of his CCs. That's simply a part of the risk/reward equation. Attacker always has the bigger risk.

We've heard the complaint about the CC immunity before, but to me it always sounded like whining from "pvpers" who just don't want their victims to fight back, while also having a slightly bigger chance of winning against the attacker. To me, all those whiners are simply weak pvpers who always want to be at an advantage in a fight.

I want owpvp to be as fair to both sides as possible, because I believe that this would lead to much more owpvp than any other kind of design. And as I already said, imo, pvp is when both players decide to fight each other, not when one dude attacks a fucking tree that moves but doesn't retaliate.

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Laetitian wrote:

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...

The whole problem is locking out certain abilities while attacking a specific flagged state, when traditionally those types of abilities are key to PvP.

Okay, so just to be completely clear, the threat of Corruption on the killing player is not something you have an issue with in its own right?

I think this is a valid discussion to have. Perhaps to change something about the game, or at least better communicate the intended gameplay dynamic of the ganking protection system to players.

My problem in this thread is that you didn't mention CC immunity in your initial post, and you never clearly stated whether your problem is that enemies can run away because you can't lock them down with CC, or that they can run away because you're not willing to commit to gaining Corruption (in both cases with the added threat that they can play around at the edge of escape-range and counter-engage range to keep the ambusher under threat and force them to make concessions for their own defence or their target's escape options).
That's two very different problems to discuss, and both might be something going on in a forum user's mind.

If you're willing to clarify that Corruption as a punishment for killing players who do not become combattants is not what you consider part of the problem that negatively affects the ambush playstyle, I'm super ready to move on to just discussing CC immunity.
What I'm not willing to accept though is that we discuss CC immunity to exhaustion now, and then 30 pages in you go: "Whatever, the whole problem was that players can just not attack back and I have to go corrupt to kill them. :grumpyface:"
I hope you understand now why I'm struggling to engage in this discussion without digging for the nucleus of your argument first. Any accusations I made were just attempts at getting that clear answer.

For the rest of your response to me, I think I'll defer to NiKr's argument. Especially the point about

Nikr wrote:

"But the greens don't get an advantage though. They get a fair fight. A reason to fight back."

I don't actually agree with him that this needs to be in the game in order for people to be motivated to attack back. I've played games where ganking was between tolerated and encouraged (there just wasn't any reward for it, so it still wasn't excessive, because there was more useful PVP to engage in) and people absolutely do fight back when they're at half HP. There's a disadvantage to it, but also that ranger just used up their CC, so often enough, it's fine. Not "fair", but fine.

However, where I still agree with NiKr is that I also don't think that the protections for non-combattants in Ashes right now disincentivise anything that's vital to the game, or mess up any playstyles or classes. It just makes ambushing slightly riskier, which is a perfectly acceptable aspect to it, considering it also provides an advantage in many other ways.
It's not an advantage for the defender, it's just slightly less of an advantage for the ambusher.
(Because if the enemy player happens to be someone who can whoop your butt if you can't CC them before they reach you, you can just not attack them...; Kind of a defining aspect of the initiation advantage.)

That all said, I wouldn't see much of a problem to turning the non-combattant CC-protection into a committal active/toggle opt-in effect. It would cost no skill points or resources, and just be an ability you can trigger whenever you feel like it. And the conditions would be something like

"Must be non-combattant to activate; cannot attack players during effect, and for 5 minutes after disabling the effect."

It crucially wouldn't give any protection besides the CC immunity as it is currently the default behaviour, plus an initial cleanse of current PvP CC on you, again assuming you're still non-combattant.
I also think in order to preserve the current nature of the system, it should be impossible for opponents to tell whether a player has the toggle active or not, until they try to CC them.
Spoiler for insignificant ramble:

The only downside I see at that point is that the whole system looks kinda cringe and convoluted to outsiders. And the only fix I would see for *that* would be just to simplify the whole system way more, and just make it very binary. No protections for anyone besides the threat of corruption to the attacker, but make that threat feel serious, without any way to play the system. You become corrupted as soon as you attack a non-combattant. Corruption multiplies by 5 in duration and by 2 in severity every time one of your non-combattant targets dies.
But the fans of corruption won't ever agree to that, because they're used to a more nuanced gameplay loop where very deliberate decisions are made to balance out the difference between ganking for fun and ganking for a purpose, and both of them have layers of justification.

I do not have an issue with players gaining corruption. I definitely think the corruption should be balanced in a particular way, but that will just come with testing. It should deter griefing of all types, it should not deter PvP in general.
I changed the original topic name to flagging because I did realize what the real issue was, being the CC immunity during engagements. Ill have to update it further so people arent having to read through every comment.
My problem is not with CC immunity letting people get away, the problem I have is that in an engagement where the player being attacked fights back, you start without your full kit as an attacker. The other problem is that if the player who is about to be engaged detects the attacker before they act, that player cant preemptively engage without being at that disadvantage. Another scenario is the player being attacked running off with the intent to reengage to gain those CC benefits while also being the initial attacker at that point.
With my proposal of the active ability, this allows the players with the full intention to escape with the benefits of this systems primary purpose, which is to allow the non-combatants the chance to run away.

But yes, we can discuss the CC immunity because I am completely in support of a balanced corruption system that deters griefing.

What you disagree with and agree with @Ludullu_(NiKr) is all fine and fair. But I and others I have discussed this with over voice chat are already theorizing ways around it, and while we will wait to test it, I still 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. Youre 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.

And I am up in the air about whether or not the toggle is broadcast to the attacker, maybe have that as a setting that can be switched on? I feel like if its shown, the attacker not willing to go corrupted will disengage and both players will go about their business sooner, and if someone is fully intending to go corrupt they will chase either way, but I dont really see a bad reason either way.

I too would purely vote on a balanced corruption system as opposed to having any sort of protections, but honestly I could see the active ability idea being kind of fun? Because it gives the players who wont ever fight back a sort of "CATCH ME IF YOU CAN!" mini game as opposed to fighting to the death.
I personally love ganking, but within reason. I wont ever gank the same person more than twice, with the only exception being if they happen to be interfering with something I am doing like gathering a specific resource that is rare, and if they engage me then I dont consider it ganking anymore.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

My main issue with understanding the point is the contradiction in the suggested solution and the presented problem.

Dolyem said this is not a discussion about corruption. But he's also insistent on forcing greens to remain greens if they want the CC immunity, which in turn literally spells out "I don't want you fighting back, if you want the protection right now" - and that is most definitely a conversation about corruption.

Needing a CC as your first attack against a green player screams to me "I want to kill him before he can retaliate", or at the very least "I want to bring him down so low that he sees no point in fighting back, and even if he does - I'll always win".

I'm gonna be a tank, so more than half of my abilities would be useless against an enemy in a 1v1 fight, if I'm the initiator, cause they're defensive. Same would be true for the cleric and bard, because as long as the victim doesn't fight back - any protective/healing/defensive abilities do not matter AT ALL.

Should we change those too, so that they somehow do dmg or smth?

I've played a pvp mmo with this design for over a decade. And in absolute majority of encounters, I was more willing to fight back if I knew that I could retaliate against my attacker in a way that would equal out our hp values. This didn't magically mean that I would win. It would simply be fairer to me, as the original victim of the attack.

And yes, if I was the one who attacked first (while thinking that the dude approaching me was about to attack me) - I'd be on the receiving end of his CCs. That's simply a part of the risk/reward equation. Attacker always has the bigger risk.

We've heard the complaint about the CC immunity before, but to me it always sounded like whining from "pvpers" who just don't want their victims to fight back, while also having a slightly bigger chance of winning against the attacker. To me, all those whiners are simply weak pvpers who always want to be at an advantage in a fight.

I want owpvp to be as fair to both sides as possible, because I believe that this would lead to much more owpvp than any other kind of design. And as I already said, imo, pvp is when both players decide to fight each other, not when one dude attacks a fucking tree that moves but doesn't retaliate.

Greens committing to staying as green in order to escape without engaging in combat by attaining CC immunities. This is focusing on the entire reason there is a CC immunity, so those particular players have a chance to get away. They literally aren't fighting back. They are fully embracing the fact that they will either escape, or give corruption to the attacker. Perfect. The system is working as intended.

2 players(or any number) fighting each other, one of them has to start it obviously. There is no objective reason that player shouldn't be at 100% capability while engaging. Every players goal in this situation is to kill the enemy before they kill you. You are acting like this is going to be a 1 shot kill of the rip. TTK prevents this, but anytime someone gets the first hit, including the defending player who could notice the attacker before the engagement starts, that initial engager shouldn't be punished or limited because they reacted first. You're still trying to slander the point of the argument by claiming this is only to guarantee a PK in every and any situation.

To say you are a tank or any class right now and that you're instantly at a disadvantage simply because of the class you play is disingenuous because we have no idea if that is true or not. This is just a case of balancing and fight matchups. My argument is that ANY class that depends on abilities this CC immunity negates is instantly effected in a negative way due to having abilities removed for engagements. A defensive ability can potentially block an initial attack. Heals can save you. These paired with other abilities in those kits could counter whatever is attacking you. We dont know those yet, and they should be balanced during testing. The point I am making is that BOTH parties should have 100% access to their abilities during the interaction.

Fairness of a fight shouldn't be decided by punishing a player who engages the fight. It should be decided through class balances and counters. It wont always be fair in certain matchups, while others should be fairly even. These factors, as well as your capabilities as a PvPer, are what should determine your reaction of fight or flight. Thats the risk and reward decision making. An attacker already accepts the risk of dying or corruption by engaging the fight. Any player accept risks of a hostile encounter once theyve logged in and ventured anywhere that allows PvP. A player being attacked decides to fight or flight and the risks/rewards that come with that. Thats an even amount of risks from what I am seeing.

Your opinion of people whining over one thing or another is subjective. One could say you're whining that you're being engaged in PvP and have to rely on what your class has at its disposal instead of having a buff that helps you. Instead of that though, I argue that Objectively, nullifying some of a players abilities just for starting a fight is bad gameplay design. Imagine if as a tank you couldn't use any defenses until after the enemy did enough damage to you first.

I can tell you right now, players will be more hesitant to engage in PvP if they're at a disadvantage for doing so. And what will cause less PvP? Players hesitant to even start a fight because they don't get 100% of their loadout for doing so? Or players having to defend themselves with their toolkits they chose when leveling that class? I will absolutely fight less encounters if I am immediately put at a disadvantage because of it, because not being able to use everything at my disposal doesn't sound fun when the other player can. "fair" or as fair as OWPvP can be is simply letting everyone use 100% of their classes abilities, and making sure to balance the classes as best as they can for 8v8 while accepting what counters appear for 1v1. If this means rogues are complete shit for some reason in 1v1 so be it, but at least I can use every ability I have.

Dolyem wrote: »

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.

That would be up to the ambusher to counteract by setting up their attack well enough to make their opening advantage higher than the opponent's CC immunity advantage. And again, if you can't set yourself up enough against a certain class, you're free not to attack that player. combines into a pretty solid advantage. Just less of an advantage than if you were also allowed to CC first.

Dolyem wrote: »

Attacking a player isn't supposed to be something the game punishes, that in itself will deter engagements from happening.

That's literally what corruption exists for, what do you mean?
Edit: Oh, wait, you mean literally "attacking" without necessarily committing to kill them, right? That's probably fair enough. But like, are you really arguing from situations where you'd be happy not to kill your targets and just sort of let them sit around the same area if they don't fight back? Because if you don't stop attacking them if they don't run, then yes, your "attack" is punished by corruption.

Dolyem wrote: »

What you disagree with and agree with @Ludullu_(NiKr) is all fine and fair. But I and others I have discussed this with over voice chat are already theorizing ways around it, and while we will wait to test it, I still predict any system that limits your toolkit in combat will feel bad.

The counter here is almost too obvious:
Do you think being CC'd as the ambushed target won't feel bad?

I'd go as far as to say that to the Lineage player, the current system already is the compromise. To them, you're still getting a lot of benefits as the ambusher that almost tip the scales from the set-up time and choice of initiation distance you have on the target, plus the first blood priority.
Keep in mind, as soon as the enemy has attacked you in any way, you still have all your CC off-cooldown, *and* you will already have dealt a noticable chunk of damage, even if you haven't CC'd them yet. So it's not like you're completely disarmed when that melee reaches you. You can always counter-CC and get your distance. And have your defensive buffs set up by the time they hit.

Dolyem wrote: »

And I am up in the air about whether or not the toggle is broadcast to the attacker, maybe have that as a setting that can be switched on? I feel like if its shown, the attacker not willing to go corrupted will disengage and both players will go about their business sooner, and if someone is fully intending to go corrupt they will chase either way, but I dont really see a bad reason either way.

Like I said, I think that part is not up for debate. If you want to a non-combattant, them trying to run away should be a desirable outcome within the Corruption system. If you don't consider it worth it if they run away, why did you attack them?
Also in the situations where what you said is true, the toggle broadcast can easily be replaced by asking a one-word question-and-answer in chat, and/or the ambusher setting themselves up and using a low-cd ability to test. If they get CCd and stay CCd, you can keep CCing them until they die or do activate their PvP-CC protection and run away. If they attack, you know you'll have used the full range of your kit to the best of your abiliity before they reach you. Best of both worlds. No need to get free information and remove the last bit of risk for the ambusher, too.

Dolyem wrote: »

I too would purely vote on a balanced corruption system as opposed to having any sort of protections, but honestly I could see the active ability idea being kind of fun? Because it gives the players who wont ever fight back a sort of "CATCH ME IF YOU CAN!" mini game as opposed to fighting to the death.

Yeah, I won't lie, I am warming up to the toggle idea. I wonder if there's an even more ideal compromise, because Lineage players probably will think anything short of what they're used to won't even the playing field enough. They really like that the ambusher is as far from auto-winning as possible. But I like the dynamic of the toggle idea so far.

Dolyem wrote: »

I personally love ganking, but within reason. I wont ever gank the same person more than twice, with the only exception being if they happen to be interfering with something I am doing like gathering a specific resource that is rare, and if they engage me then I dont consider it ganking anymore.

I think the problem is that things like PvP-CC-protection are intended to prevent ganking/griefing, and define ganking/griefing (most would probably just call it ganking) rather broadly and strictly as any initiation of PvP that isn't either consensual, or serves a higher purpose for the attacker (and thus is balanced through reward-versus-risk incentive for the attacker). So essentially as soon as you're ganking for fun rather than just to contest something valuable in the game, the system is already meant to punish you fairly hard, and it's up to you whether that attack is still worth it to you.
Even if you kill a player for their resources, the system punishes you just the same, just by a less immediate threat (potential bounty hunters) than the PvP-CC-protection.

So most of what you're describing just isn't meant to exist in Ashes without you being disadvantaged in some way in return, unless you only do it with willing or semi-willing participants.

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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.

That would be up to the ambusher to counteract by setting up their attack well enough to make their opening advantage higher than the opponent's CC immunity advantage. And again, if you can't set yourself up enough against a certain class, you're free not to attack that player. combines into a pretty solid advantage. Just less of an advantage than if you were also allowed to CC first.

Dolyem wrote: »

Attacking a player isn't supposed to be something the game punishes, that in itself will deter engagements from happening.

That's literally what corruption exists for, what do you mean?
Edit: Oh, wait, you mean literally "attacking" without necessarily committing to kill them, right? That's probably fair enough. But like, are you really arguing from situations where you'd be happy not to kill your targets and just sort of let them sit around the same area if they don't fight back? Because if you don't stop attacking them if they don't run, then yes, your "attack" is punished by corruption.

Dolyem wrote: »

What you disagree with and agree with @Ludullu_(NiKr) is all fine and fair. But I and others I have discussed this with over voice chat are already theorizing ways around it, and while we will wait to test it, I still predict any system that limits your toolkit in combat will feel bad.

The counter here is almost too obvious:
Do you think being CC'd as the ambushed target won't feel bad?

I'd go as far as to say that to the Lineage player, the current system already is the compromise. To them, you're still getting a lot of benefits as the ambusher that almost tip the scales from the set-up time and choice of initiation distance you have on the target, plus the first blood priority.
Keep in mind, as soon as the enemy has attacked you in any way, you still have all your CC off-cooldown, *and* you will already have dealt a noticable chunk of damage, even if you haven't CC'd them yet. So it's not like you're completely disarmed when that melee reaches you. You can always counter-CC and get your distance. And have your defensive buffs set up by the time they hit.

Dolyem wrote: »

And I am up in the air about whether or not the toggle is broadcast to the attacker, maybe have that as a setting that can be switched on? I feel like if its shown, the attacker not willing to go corrupted will disengage and both players will go about their business sooner, and if someone is fully intending to go corrupt they will chase either way, but I dont really see a bad reason either way.

Like I said, I think that part is not up for debate. If you want to a non-combattant, them trying to run away should be a desirable outcome within the Corruption system. If you don't consider it worth it if they run away, why did you attack them?
Also in the situations where what you said is true, the toggle broadcast can easily be replaced by asking a one-word question-and-answer in chat, and/or the ambusher setting themselves up and using a low-cd ability to test. If they get CCd and stay CCd, you can keep CCing them until they die or do activate their PvP-CC protection and run away. If they attack, you know you'll have used the full range of your kit to the best of your abiliity before they reach you. Best of both worlds. No need to get free information and remove the last bit of risk for the ambusher, too.

Dolyem wrote: »

I too would purely vote on a balanced corruption system as opposed to having any sort of protections, but honestly I could see the active ability idea being kind of fun? Because it gives the players who wont ever fight back a sort of "CATCH ME IF YOU CAN!" mini game as opposed to fighting to the death.

Yeah, I won't lie, I am warming up to the toggle idea. I wonder if there's an even more ideal compromise, because Lineage players probably will think anything short of what they're used to won't even the playing field enough. They really like that the ambusher is as far from auto-winning as possible. But I like the dynamic of the toggle idea so far.

Dolyem wrote: »

I personally love ganking, but within reason. I wont ever gank the same person more than twice, with the only exception being if they happen to be interfering with something I am doing like gathering a specific resource that is rare, and if they engage me then I dont consider it ganking anymore.

I think the problem is that things like PvP-CC-protection are intended to prevent ganking/griefing, and define ganking/griefing (most would probably just call it ganking) rather broadly and strictly as any initiation of PvP that isn't either consensual, or serves a higher purpose for the attacker (and thus is balanced through reward-versus-risk incentive for the attacker). So essentially as soon as you're ganking for fun rather than just to contest something valuable in the game, the system is already meant to punish you fairly hard, and it's up to you whether that attack is still worth it to you.
Even if you kill a player for their resources, the system punishes you just the same, just by a less immediate threat (potential bounty hunters) than the PvP-CC-protection.

So most of what you're describing just isn't meant to exist in Ashes without you being disadvantaged in some way in return, unless you only do it with willing or semi-willing participants.

Ganking is not griefing. This is a screenshot of an answer to a question I asked awhile ago on here about OWPvP being condemned or not.

and here is Stevens definition of griefing.

Griefing in Ashes of Creation is defined as impacting another player's gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. It is something that is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1]

When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif
Players that work outside of the game design to grief or harass other players are actionable by customer services.[1]

Now if you said excessive ganking is griefing, youd be correct. But just PKing a player once or twice in a reasonable timeframe is not griefing. And therefore should not be punished. Sure, they should still gain corruption if those PKs didnt fight back or werent a proper level. But they shouldnt be punished in a fight that fully engages on both ends.

seeing as that is what drove most of your points, rethink those and get back to me with this definition in mind.

That wasn't what drove most of my points. And the very sentence you replied to said "ganking/griefing" anyways. Stop being lazy please.

I include "griefing" because the quotes you are giving list "risk versus reward," and running around killing random players isn't usually done for a "reward." You can take it or leave it, it doesn't matter, but pretending that the word "griefing" is at the core of my argument in order to avoid dealing with the rest of what I said is engaging in rhetorics that are not conducive to a good-faith discussion.

You're barking up the wrong tree here anyway. I already told you, I don't mind random ganking. This is about player consensus and shaping your idea to make it enticing to the community at large.

Laetitian wrote: »

That wasn't what drove most of my points. And the very sentence you replied to said "ganking/griefing" anyways. Stop being lazy please.

I include "griefing" because the quotes you are giving list "risk versus reward," and running around killing random players isn't usually done for a "reward." You can take it or leave it, it doesn't matter, but pretending that the word "griefing" is at the core of my argument in order to avoid dealing with the rest of what I said is engaging in rhetorics that are not conducive to a good-faith discussion.

You're barking up the wrong tree here anyway. I already told you, I don't mind random ganking. This is about player consensus and shaping your idea to make it enticing to the community at large.

it was actually genuine.

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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.

That would be up to the ambusher to counteract by setting up their attack well enough to make their opening advantage higher than the opponent's CC immunity advantage. And again, if you can't set yourself up enough against a certain class, you're free not to attack that player. combines into a pretty solid advantage. Just less of an advantage than if you were also allowed to CC first.

The ambusher should be able to counteract it off the rip by not being handicapped in the first place. If I have the ability, I should be able to use it, same goes for whoever is being attacked. Class matchup is a factor with or without that CC immunity applied, it just adds an unnecessary advantage for whoever is engaged. Just let them both use 100% of their kits regardless of who engages first without worrying about your abilities being disabled off the rip.

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Attacking a player isn't supposed to be something the game punishes, that in itself will deter engagements from happening.

That's literally what corruption exists for, what do you mean?
Edit: Oh, wait, you mean literally "attacking" without necessarily committing to kill them, right? That's probably fair enough. But like, are you really arguing from situations where you'd be happy not to kill your targets and just sort of let them sit around the same area if they don't fight back? Because if you don't stop attacking them if they don't run, then yes, your "attack" is punished by corruption.

Corruption exists to deter griefing. It does not exist to deter someone from engaging combat with another player. The current CC immunity punishes a player for just engaging another player. The only punishment the attacking player should recieve is corruption for killing the player they attacked if they dont fight back, or dying to the player if they cant defeat them after engaging them. No need of automatically impeding the attacking player right from the start.

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

What you disagree with and agree with @Ludullu_(NiKr) is all fine and fair. But I and others I have discussed this with over voice chat are already theorizing ways around it, and while we will wait to test it, I still predict any system that limits your toolkit in combat will feel bad.

The counter here is almost too obvious:
Do you think being CC'd as the ambushed target won't feel bad?

I'd go as far as to say that to the Lineage player, the current system already is the compromise. To them, you're still getting a lot of benefits as the ambusher that almost tip the scales from the set-up time and choice of initiation distance you have on the target, plus the first blood priority.
Keep in mind, as soon as the enemy has attacked you in any way, you still have all your CC off-cooldown, *and* you will already have dealt a noticable chunk of damage, even if you haven't CC'd them yet. So it's not like you're completely disarmed when that melee reaches you. You can always counter-CC and get your distance. And have your defensive buffs set up by the time they hit.

Being caught off guard always feels bad, but youre supposed to stay alert and keep an out while roaming so that doesnt happen. You as a player should actively try to prevent getting caught unaware by another player. Thats what you risk when going out into the world where PvP is active. If it feels so bad that you cant survive it, simply activate the CC immunity and run. problem solved.

This isnt lineage, this is Ashes of Creation. Sure, take inspiration from that game where applicable, but improve upon it, dont copy it. If there is no advantage to ambushing someone, why would anyone bother doing it? It is actively deterring PvP, not griefing. You shouldnt HAVE to wait to use abilities until someone has closed the distance or created distance from you. Youre locking out a players skills to make up for a player not paying attention. This even goes the other way around punishing the defender for catching the ambusher being careless and getting spotted, the defender still gets punished for striking them first, allowing the ambusher to close any distance they need unimpeded.

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

And I am up in the air about whether or not the toggle is broadcast to the attacker, maybe have that as a setting that can be switched on? I feel like if its shown, the attacker not willing to go corrupted will disengage and both players will go about their business sooner, and if someone is fully intending to go corrupt they will chase either way, but I dont really see a bad reason either way.

Like I said, I think that part is not up for debate. If you want to a non-combattant, them trying to run away should be a desirable outcome within the Corruption system. If you don't consider it worth it if they run away, why did you attack them?
Also in the situations where what you said is true, the toggle broadcast can easily be replaced by asking a one-word question-and-answer in chat, and/or the ambusher setting themselves up and using a low-cd ability to test. If they get CCd and stay CCd, you can keep CCing them until they die or do activate their PvP-CC protection and run away. If they attack, you know you'll have used the full range of your kit to the best of your abiliity before they reach you. Best of both worlds. No need to get free information and remove the last bit of risk for the ambusher, too.

They are supposed to have the opportunity to run away if they can. Killing a green once or twice isnt griefing according to Stevens definition. But EXCESSIVE killing would be, and the built up corruption effects will reflect that in a balanced corruption system. As it is now, one or 2 corruption kills of the same level wont be too severe for you. PKing a green is fine within reason, and incentivized with the maximum amount of resources you can loot from them, at the risk of gaining that corruption.
And nothing is stopping anyone from communicating. But that isnt in any way required by the players, nor is what they say required to be acknowledged. You can spare them if they beg sure, but you dont have to. And as long as you arent griefing by Stevens definition, its fine and intended in the games design.
And non-combatants/combatants/corrupted players are all indicated by the color of their name, green, purple, and red respectively. I was simply saying that if a player commits to the non-combatant CC immunity active and it shows that somehow as opposed to just being a normal non-combatant, that would tell the pursuing player they either should give up, or be ready to get corrupted.

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I too would purely vote on a balanced corruption system as opposed to having any sort of protections, but honestly I could see the active ability idea being kind of fun? Because it gives the players who wont ever fight back a sort of "CATCH ME IF YOU CAN!" mini game as opposed to fighting to the death.

Yeah, I won't lie, I am warming up to the toggle idea. I wonder if there's an even more ideal compromise, because Lineage players probably will think anything short of what they're used to won't even the playing field enough. They really like that the ambusher is as far from auto-winning as possible. But I like the dynamic of the toggle idea so far.

I definitely dont think a player who is initially attacking should get an auto-win, nor would they considering the TTK in the games design, and the balancing of the classes that will happen. All I am saying is in no scenario is it a good thing to stop players from using their abilities, just because they got the drop on another player. Let corruption and dying be the punishments for those who engage first.

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I personally love ganking, but within reason. I wont ever gank the same person more than twice, with the only exception being if they happen to be interfering with something I am doing like gathering a specific resource that is rare, and if they engage me then I dont consider it ganking anymore.

I think the problem is that things like PvP-CC-protection are intended to prevent ganking/griefing, and define ganking/griefing (most would probably just call it ganking) rather broadly and strictly as any initiation of PvP that isn't either consensual, or serves a higher purpose for the attacker (and thus is balanced through reward-versus-risk incentive for the attacker). So essentially as soon as you're ganking for fun rather than just to contest something valuable in the game, the system is already meant to punish you fairly hard, and it's up to you whether that attack is still worth it to you.
Even if you kill a player for their resources, the system punishes you just the same, just by a less immediate threat (potential bounty hunters) than the PvP-CC-protection.

So most of what you're describing just isn't meant to exist in Ashes without you being disadvantaged in some way in return, unless you only do it with willing or semi-willing participants.

yet again, Stevens definition does not include ganking as griefing. EXCESSIVE ganking is griefing. PvP is consensual the minute you step into an area you can get attacked, its your responsibility to not die once it happens. You are venturing out into the world for rewards at the risk of dying to PVE or PVP content.
I am 100% encouraged to PvP and gank for fun, just within reason. As long as I am not doing so excessively to a player or players over and over again in a short amount of time, it is perfectly allowed and encouraged. If I want to push passed the line of griefing wihtout dying, corruption deals with my actions.
NONE of this gives a valid reason to punish a player for simply initiating an attack against another player. I would accept that after a significant amount of corruption is acquired, then you could implement this effect as a punishment.

Azherae

But you're also encouraged to do it without relying on your from-stealth opener while solo.

That's also the current 'Definition'.

A certain very Lucky Ghost helped us get that definition.

No one's CCs work, so the only reason for considering this relative to Rogues is that Rogues in some games do the 'invisible get into position and burst damage' even when solo. Nothing prevents this. This isn't even CC related, most of the time if you do a Sneak Attack, your enemy won't fight back because you took a big chunk of their health and it has nothing to do with any CC you did, so...

Dolyem wrote:

The ambusher should be able to counteract it off the rip by not being handicapped in the first place.

You can't keep saying the same thing over and over again without acknowledging my counter arguments, there's no point in having a conversation that way.

Dolyem wrote:

Being caught off guard always feels bad, but youre supposed to stay alert and keep an out of while roaming so that doesnt happen.
[...]
[The ambusher] shouldnt HAVE to wait to use abilities until someone has closed the distance or created distance from you.

This is simply a matter of degree/scope. In your ideal version of a game, unawareness is punished by the full range of the ambusher's skill set, in NiKr's ideal version of a game it's punished by the ambusher's advantage of their preparation, choice of range, initial first blood damage, and any other setup. And while it's some amount of a disadvantage for a ranger not to be able to use their CC immediately after they open, they still HAVE their CC after they get attacked in order to reposition and deal more damage at range.

(Not to mention it's only really a disadvantage against melees anyway; a ranger who ambushes a mage or archer won't really get any disadvantage versus their victim from the PvP-CC-protection; they both will get to use all of their CC, unless the ranger uses their priority to execute the ranged target before they can use al of their CC. That's something you really ought to start accounting for in your "disadvantage" complaint, considering it's like two thirds of the ranger's potential targets.)

Your framing of the ranger being defenseless because they can't frontload all their CC and damage before their target reaches them is just wrong, so you can't pretend that this disadvantage negates their ambushing advantage by default.
And you have to start acknowledging that your conviction that the ambusher's advantage should be the highest it could possibily be is simply a matter of opinion. There's nothing inherently superior about a game not doing anything to balance out that advantage in order to give gank targets a fighting chance.

Dolyem wrote:

Corruption exists to deter griefing. It does not exist to deter someone from engaging combat with another player. The current CC immunity punishes a player for just engaging another player.

You didn't respond to what I said. Are you really talking about scenarios where you'd be letting go the target if they don't fight back and stay in the area? If yes, what's the purpose of your attack? If no, you're attacking with the intention of killing the player and going corrupt, unless they happen to fight back. Them sometimes justifying your attack by fighting back doesn't absolve you of the intention to kill that non-combattant player if they don't fight back. You're just distracting from the fact that what you're doing is something the game punishes with corruption by obfuscating the argument with situations where your action happens to be justified.

You have to be honest about your underlying goal here. If your only goal is finding a fair fight, why aren't you having it with people who are already combattants, or doing it in a location where you actually care about control of the location (i.e. not ganking, but simply risk-versus-reward objective control, which will likely be contested by larger groups and rarely involve 1v1 scenarios.)?

Dolyem wrote:

Killing a green once or twice isnt griefing according to Stevens definition.

I'm not interested in picking apart quotes to show you why you're wrong, but just talk to any player who has played the games inspiring Steven's position. This forum is packed full with them, and they all clearly outline the purpose of Corruption at deterring all PvP, especially 1v1 PvP, that doesn't serve to advance a ganker's personal advancement, but simply serves to pick unconsenting fights for no reason (Again, if you want to deny the consent part, you have to address whether you'd kill them if they don't fight back...). You can pick apart that definition and deny that consensus if you like, but then your suggestions will just not be taken into consideration.

Dolyem wrote:

yet again, Stevens definition does not include ganking as griefing. EXCESSIVE ganking is griefing. PvP is consensual the minute you step into an area you can get attacked, its your responsibility to not lose once it happens. You are venturing out into the world for rewards at the risk of dying to PVE or PVP content.

I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously if you just ignore the general community consensus and insist on presenting your opinion as logical facts. We got plenty of PvX and PvP enthusiasts here, and like 90% have accepted that PvP in Ashes is meant to be purpose-driven, and random ganking for the sake of ganking without doing much for your personal advancement from it is not purpose-driven. Most of the solo players you'll run into won't have a lot of loot on them and won't have much reason to defend themselves; most of the ones who opt to defend themselves anyway will probabably kick you right back to your respawn point.

Dolyem wrote:

I am 100% encouraged to PvP and gank for fun, just within reason. As long as I am not doing so excessively to a player or players over and over again, it is perfectly allowed and encouraged.

By ambushing rando after rando, you're essentially asking to either accrue Corruption or get killed. That's what the courruption system exists for. It exists to discourage your behaviour and encourage purpose-driven PvP.

Your definition of "consent" mouth-breathingly screams "GamerGate was my life blood;" I don't believe you actually believe your own words when you say that. You can get attacked in every area. Existing in Ashes isn't consent to PvP. It's consent to be attacked, but if the ambusher is just hanging out picking fights with random people for no reason, the corruption system is going to take care of that behaviour pretty quickly. There are plenty of full loot open PvP games, why are you trying to change the reality of a game that's clearly not meant to be what you want?

(I can't restate enough that I love open PvP, this is not about my preferences.)

Laetitian wrote: »

Dolyem wrote:

The ambusher should be able to counteract it off the rip by not being handicapped in the first place.

You can't keep saying the same thing over and over again without acknowledging my counter arguments, there's no point in having a conversation that way.

Dolyem wrote:

Being caught off guard always feels bad, but youre supposed to stay alert and keep an out of while roaming so that doesnt happen.
[...]
[The ambusher] shouldnt HAVE to wait to use abilities until someone has closed the distance or created distance from you.

This is simply a matter of degree/scope. In your ideal version of a game, unawareness is punished by the full range of the ambusher's skill set, in NiKr's ideal version of a game it's punished by the ambusher's advantage of their preparation, choice of range, initial first blood damage, and any other setup. And while it's some amount of a disadvantage for a ranger not to be able to use their CC immediately after they open, they still HAVE their CC after they get attacked in order to reposition and deal more damage at range. Your framing of the ranger being defenseless because they can't frontload all their CC and damage before their target reaches them is just wrong, so you can't pretend that this disadvantage negates their ambushing advantage by default.
And you have to start acknowledging that your conviction that the ambusher's advantage should be the highest it could possibily be is simply a matter of opinion. There's nothing inherently superior about a game not doing anything to balance out that advantage in order to give gank targets a fighting chance.

Dolyem wrote:

Corruption exists to deter griefing. It does not exist to deter someone from engaging combat with another player. The current CC immunity punishes a player for just engaging another player.

You didn't respond to what I said. Are you really talking about scenarios where you'd be letting go the target if they don't fight back and stay in the area? If yes, what's the purpose of your attack? If no, you're attacking with the intention of killing the player and going corrupt, unless they happen to fight back. Them sometimes justifying your attack by fighting back doesn't absolve you of the intention to kill that non-combattant player if they don't fight back. You're just distracting from the fact that what you're doing is something the game punishes with corruption by obfuscating the argument with situations where your action happens to be justified.

You have to be honest about your underlying goal here. If your only goal is finding a fair fight, why aren't you having it with people who are already combattants, or doing it in a location where you actually care about control of the location (i.e. not ganking, but simply risk-versus-reward objective control, which will likely be contested by larger groups and rarely involve 1v1 scenarios.)?

Dolyem wrote:

Killing a green once or twice isnt griefing according to Stevens definition.

I'm not interested in picking apart quotes to show you why you're wrong, but just talk to any player who has played the games inspiring Steven's position. This forum is packed full with them, and they all clearly outline the purpose of Corruption at deterring all PvP, especially 1v1 PvP, that doesn't serve to advance a ganker's personal advancement, but simply serves to pick unconsenting fights for no reason (Again, if you want to deny the consent part, you have to address whether you'd kill them if they don't fight back...). You can pick apart that definition and deny that consensus if you like, but then your suggestions will just not be taken into consideration.

Dolyem wrote:

yet again, Stevens definition does not include ganking as griefing. EXCESSIVE ganking is griefing. PvP is consensual the minute you step into an area you can get attacked, its your responsibility to not lose once it happens. You are venturing out into the world for rewards at the risk of dying to PVE or PVP content.

I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously if you just ignore the general community consensus and insist on presenting your opinion as logical facts. We got plenty of PvX and PvP enthusiasts here, and like 90% have accepted that PvP in Ashes is meant to be purpose-driven, and random ganking for the sake of ganking without doing much for your personal advancement from it is not purpose-driven. Most of the solo players you'll run into won't have a lot of loot on them and won't have much reason to defend themselves; most of the ones who opt to defend themselves anyway will probabably kick you right back to your respawn point.

Dolyem wrote:

I am 100% encouraged to PvP and gank for fun, just within reason. As long as I am not doing so excessively to a player or players over and over again, it is perfectly allowed and encouraged.

By ambushing rando after rando, you're essentially asking to either accrue Corruption or get killed. That's what the courruption system exists for. It exists to discourage your behaviour and encourage purpose-driven PvP.

Your definition of "consent" mouth-breathingly screams "GamerGate was my life blood;" I don't believe you actually believe your own words when you say that. You can get attacked in every area. Existing in Ashes isn't consent to PvP. It's consent to be attacked, but if the ambusher is just hanging out picking fights with random people for no reason, the corruption system is going to take care of that behaviour pretty quickly. There are plenty of full loot open PvP games, why are you trying to change the reality of a game that's clearly not meant to be what you want?

(I can't restate enough that I love open PvP, this is not about my preferences.)

If you're going to ignore a pillar of the games design, then you're not staying true to the heart of this games design. I at least am making an objective argument. No matter what you argue, it's Steven's game, as well as his definition. This system interferes with that Pillar of design, so it is bad. Simple as that. With your reasoning of habdling PKs and your definition of griefing we may as well have PVE servers, and that's unacceptable.

Azherae wrote: »

But you're also encouraged to do it without relying on your from-stealth opener while solo.

That's also the current 'Definition'.

A certain very Lucky Ghost helped us get that definition.

No one's CCs work, so the only reason for considering this relative to Rogues is that Rogues in some games do the 'invisible get into position and burst damage' even when solo. Nothing prevents this. This isn't even CC related, most of the time if you do a Sneak Attack, your enemy won't fight back because you took a big chunk of their health and it has nothing to do with any CC you did, so...

I've stated in previous comments it doesn't only affect rogues. It affects any class whose skillset relies on or include surprise, CC, or aren't very mobile. If you're limiting a players abilities just for attacking, that is punishing them for PvPing. You should only be punished if you are griefing.

Dolyem wrote: »

To say you are a tank or any class right now and that you're instantly at a disadvantage simply because of the class you play is disingenuous because we have no idea if that is true or not. This is just a case of balancing and fight matchups. My argument is that ANY class that depends on abilities this CC immunity negates is instantly effected in a negative way due to having abilities removed for engagements. A defensive ability can potentially block an initial attack. Heals can save you. These paired with other abilities in those kits could counter whatever is attacking you. We dont know those yet, and they should be balanced during testing. The point I am making is that BOTH parties should have 100% access to their abilities during the interaction.

You are so close to understanding my point about "pvp".

"A defensive ability can potentially block an initial attack. Heals can save you. These paired with other abilities in those kits could counter whatever is attacking you"

Use this, but on the attacker side and not the defender. Would you need these abilities if your target was a green player unwilling to fight back? Would they serve any purpose at all, if your target never fought back?

I hope you see that they don't. So 3 other archetypes are pretty much useless (some to bigger extent, especially depending on their build) in the scenario you're trying to argue. Yet you're trying to get a huge advantage for the rogue (and maybe one other archetype that would specialize in CCs) with your suggestion.

How is that fair to those 3 other archetypes then?

This is why I keep saying that pvp doesn't start until the defender player fights back. And as soon as they DO fight back - you both have your full toolkits, except you, as the first attacker, already have the advantage of having dealt damage to the defender.

Dolyem wrote: »

Fairness of a fight shouldn't be decided by punishing a player who engages the fight.

Is the chess player that has the white pieces disadvantaged against the player that has the black ones? Or is he completely free to choose absolutely any starting move he can come up with?

Because that's the parallel here. You, as the attacker, have near-limitless freedom in your approach to the target:

You can buff up to do the biggest hit possible
You can call others to help you if you think the target is way stronger than you
You can wait until the target is engaged with mobs, so you have an easier time killing them (potentially w/o corruption)
You can choose positioning (rogues will have bows and might even be able to throw daggers or smth, so they're not fully melee)
You can choose timing (i.e. the target had just spent a ton of mana against a few mobs)
You can choose the type of dmg you wanna do (a small "challenging" hit or the biggest strike you can muster)

All of those are your advantages, where your target is fully at your mercy (especially if you're a rogue in stealth).

And to ALLLL of that shit, the only advantage the victim has is their CC immunity. Mostly, because it will allow the passive players to try and escape you. And the only way for them to truly escape you is if you decide to let them go. Like I already said before, we know that mounts can be summoned in combat, so no matter what the green player does to escape, you literally mount up and easily follow them, if you want to lose your flag before they try to hit you back. If they're on a mount as well - they can't heal/buff up. If they're running away while trying to heal up - you don't even need a mount, because they'd be way slower than you (no matter your class).

That precise situation is the core reason behind my not understanding of your point. You LET them run away and then complain that your escapee has the ability to come back and fight back.

And as Lae said before, if they do fight back right away - they lose a CC (that is if they even start with one), while you have your entire kit AND they're at a lower hp value than you. You are LITERALLY still at an advantage against them.

Dolyem wrote: »

This isnt lineage, this is Ashes of Creation. Sure, take inspiration from that game where applicable, but improve upon it, dont copy it.

Btw, you might've missed this way back when I did this for the last similar discussion for Azherae, but Steven has already changed the system from how L2 worked. Because in L2 if your stun ability had a damage value in it - your stun would work on a green player. And Steven, assumedly, changed that because this mechanic was used SOOOO FUCKING OFTEN to make greens die to mobs w/o getting corruption.

So, you saying "it's Steven's game, but improve it" (but in my way, not in Steven's way) is kinda silly

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

To say you are a tank or any class right now and that you're instantly at a disadvantage simply because of the class you play is disingenuous because we have no idea if that is true or not. This is just a case of balancing and fight matchups. My argument is that ANY class that depends on abilities this CC immunity negates is instantly effected in a negative way due to having abilities removed for engagements. A defensive ability can potentially block an initial attack. Heals can save you. These paired with other abilities in those kits could counter whatever is attacking you. We dont know those yet, and they should be balanced during testing. The point I am making is that BOTH parties should have 100% access to their abilities during the interaction.

You are so close to understanding my point about "pvp".

"A defensive ability can potentially block an initial attack. Heals can save you. These paired with other abilities in those kits could counter whatever is attacking you"

Use this, but on the attacker side and not the defender. Would you need these abilities if your target was a green player unwilling to fight back? Would they serve any purpose at all, if your target never fought back?

I hope you see that they don't. So 3 other archetypes are pretty much useless (some to bigger extent, especially depending on their build) in the scenario you're trying to argue. Yet you're trying to get a huge advantage for the rogue (and maybe one other archetype that would specialize in CCs) with your suggestion.

How is that fair to those 3 other archetypes then?

This is why I keep saying that pvp doesn't start until the defender player fights back. And as soon as they DO fight back - you both have your full toolkits, except you, as the first attacker, already have the advantage of having dealt damage to the defender.

Dolyem wrote: »

Fairness of a fight shouldn't be decided by punishing a player who engages the fight.

Is the chess player that has the white pieces disadvantaged against the player that has the black ones? Or is he completely free to choose absolutely any starting move he can come up with?

Because that's the parallel here. You, as the attacker, have near-limitless freedom in your approach to the target:
You can buff up to do the biggest hit possible

You can call others to help you if you think the target is way stronger than you

You can wait until the target is engaged with mobs, so you have an easier time killing them (potentially w/o corruption)

You can choose positioning (rogues will have bows and might even be able to throw daggers or smth, so they're not fully melee)

You can choose timing (i.e. the target had just spent a ton of mana against a few mobs)

You can choose the type of dmg you wanna do (a small "challenging" hit or the biggest strike you can muster)

All of those are your advantages, where your target is fully at your mercy (especially if you're a rogue in stealth).

And to ALLLL of that shit, the only advantage the victim has is their CC immunity. Mostly, because it will allow the passive players to try and escape you. And the only way for them to truly escape you is if you decide to let them go. Like I already said before, we know that mounts can be summoned in combat, so no matter what the green player does to escape, you literally mount up and easily follow them, if you want to lose your flag before they try to hit you back. If they're on a mount as well - they can't heal/buff up. If they're running away while trying to heal up - you don't even need a mount, because they'd be way slower than you (no matter your class).

That precise situation is the core reason behind my not understanding of your point. You LET them run away and then complain that your escapee has the ability to come back and fight back.

And as Lae said before, if they do fight back right away - they lose a CC (that is if they even start with one), while you have your entire kit AND they're at a lower hp value than you. You are LITERALLY still at an advantage against them.

Dolyem wrote: »

This isnt lineage, this is Ashes of Creation. Sure, take inspiration from that game where applicable, but improve upon it, dont copy it.

Btw, you might've missed this way back when I did this for the last similar discussion for Azherae, but Steven has already changed the system from how L2 worked. Because in L2 if your stun ability had a damage value in it - your stun would work on a green player. And Steven, assumedly, changed that because this mechanic was used SOOOO FUCKING OFTEN to make greens die to mobs w/o getting corruption.

So, you saying "it's Steven's game, but improve it" (but in my way, not in Steven's way) is kinda silly

I think I am understanding your stance on PvP, you don't want to feel overwhelmed or helpless when you are being ambushed. But hear me out. This system should be to protect people who aren't trying to fight at all, or know there is no chance of winning. I don't believe this system is how to remedy your issue with a "fair" fight. Class balancing is what should be resolving your issue with being able to react to different class matchups. If a tank is always losing fights when they are engaged, that should be balanced. If a rogue is always losing after engaging a fight, that should be balanced, etc. My argument is simply that your abilities shouldn't be limited for initiating the engagement, even if you still think the system should be used I hope you will acknowledge that limiting the skills you give players for playing the game is a poor design that does not feel good. That doesn't mean I think whoever is being engaged should be immediately guaranteed a loss. I think every class should have a toolset in mind to fight back in these situations; CC breaks, gap creators, gap closers, shields, heals, etc. That is different than defaulting to making skills nullified passively from the start of the engagement. Would this be more along the lines of what you would consider fair? Where, for example, a Tank would have many counters to CC since (at least in my mind) a tank would likely be less mobile anyway? This is just a tip of the iceberg when it comes to the vastness of balancing as you know, but I feel like as long as characters are balanced enough to deal with the issues you're concerned about on their own through abilities and cooldowns, then there isn't a need to automatically punish a player for choosing to engage. The attacker gets their full skillset, the defender gets their full skillset, and as a result no player feels lessened by being limited for initiating the fight, nor would they feel doomed any time they are caught off guard if there is proper balancing. The only exception would be if you're being ambushed by a hard counter to your class, in which case you will be either having a more difficult fight anyway, or knowing that your class is weak to the matchup you could commit to running if you don't think you can out-play the attacker.

If a player chooses to remain green, then they get to use the CC immunity, I am not understanding what the point you're making is here? Are you saying that it is unfair that some classes would be better at chasing down non-combatants than others? All of those CCs are useless against green players in my suggestion for the active CC immunity, so in that aspect all classes would be on the same playing field if they are trying to kill a non-combatant for some reason. I would expect some classes are better at chasing than others regardless of that, and thats due to class roles being better at certain things than other. High mobility classes will excel at chasing than those who aren't. And mount types would also play a role as well I assume. So yea, Against CC immune green players, all pursuing classes are equal in terms of not being able to CC. The only differences in that case are mobility and dps due to roles.

As I have said, the one who is initiating shouldnt have that ambush automatically diminished. Just provide each class with abilities and cooldowns that could potentially balance that situation. You get to counter attack, and the attacker never has to be told "nah you cant do that yet".

In chess, both players have their full toolkits even when one player gets to go before the other. The player who goes second is still fully capable of winning with the tools available to them. The player playing white isn't told that they cant move their knight up until one of their pawns are taken by the player playing black.

Yes, pulling off an ambush gives you the initiative, as it is supposed to do. You as a player are supposed to keep an eye out so this doesnt happen to you, though you wont always succeed in preventing it. You can just as easily turn the tables on the attacker if you detect them beforehand. You can also choose to commit to running away if you feel that you're being overwhelmed. This is part of what PvP is. Your issue with a player having an advantage after earning said advantage is not objective. You dont want to be ambushed. I will say that me wanting an ambushing attacker to also not be guaranteed a kill is also subjective, but I think we both agree there. What is objective, is that preventing players from using their full skillkits just for playing the game, is bad. A near same solution to what you are asking is the balancing I mentioned, allowing players to fight back, without preventing attackers from using parts of their skillsets automatically.

In regards to chasing players down, if they do get caught and killed, corruption does its job in that case. Killing a green is not prohibited, nor discouraged. You get rewarded for doing so at the cost of corruption. Excessively doing this is discouraged, and that is represented with increased corruption effects, handling that entire issue. The CC immunity gives greens who wish to run the chance to get away, not the guarantee. Otherwise those greens wouldn't have risk themselves if they were always guaranteed an escape.

The point I was making with disengaging to re-engage your attacker before they lose combatant status is to switch the roles, where I am now the ambusher, but the difference now is that the player I am attacking doesn't gain the CC immunity advantage I had during their ambush. Its a work-around which I intend to test and showcase, so I and others can determine how bad or good it feels in terms of flow and gameplay. I could do it even in my proposal, but the difference would be the attacker would have the ability to CC me initially, giving them full access to their tools, and assuming a balanced system and not being hard countered, I could use abilities to react and counter, or choose to run.

The CC immunity active addresses your concern here for greens. That falls hand in hand with Stevens design. It just focuses on greens committing to running instead of benefiting a player who wants to retaliate. My comment was directly referring to a comment about lineage players issues with this system. My argument also follows Stevens own designs, addressing that this system deters PvP as it currently is instead of just deterring griefing. My suggestion is to stop it from deterring PvP, and only deter griefing, while still providing the exact same protection to the intended non-combatant players. My other suggestion of providing balanced skills for certain abilities to the proper classes to deal with certain classes ambushing addresses your issue while also not limiting any players from using their full kits.

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%.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

You're right, that is indeed where most PvP will happen. I am just pointing out the bad design philosophy of keeping players from using all of their abilities. I know your concern would be for the pacifists, which in my previous comments is addressed with simply making the CC immunity/break into an action, locking into green and committing to the escape.

I don't really have a concern in this thread, I think...
My choice is to have the least progression possible from just exploring in order to give maximum Corruption to gamers who PK me.
Neither fight nor flight.

I can't weigh in on Rogue PvP attack from Stealth - because I Stealth attack for PvE and I don't PvP in a way that would want to maximize on a PvP sucker-punch from Stealth.

Dolyem wrote: »

What is objective, is that preventing players from using their full skillkits just for playing the game, is bad. A near same solution to what you are asking is the balancing I mentioned, allowing players to fight back, without preventing attackers from using parts of their skillsets automatically.

Ok, so when I tell Intrepid "I want all my tank defensive buffs to also do damage to a target" - I better see you fully supporting that suggestion. Because that is what you're suggesting right now.

You keep talking about healers/tanks as only the defenders. I'm a pvper and I will be the first one flagging, but I'm also a tank. So when I flag on a green player ALL MY DEFENSIVE ABILITIES ARE NON-EXISTENT. They don't matter. They give me abso fucking lutely no advantage against that green player than I'm attacking.

Why? Because the green player is not fighting back. There's nothing for me to defend against. So literally majority of my abilities (because that's the build I'll go for) will be absolutely useless to me as the aggressor.

The same is true for cleric's skills and for all the non-offensive buffs on a bard.

In other words, you simply want an archetype to get an advantage that they currently don't have, while other archetypes will still be at a HUGE disadvantage in the same situation. Imo this is an unfair ask. If rogues are in fact fully reliant on their CCs - that's their niche and it means that they're not meant as initial attackers in pvp, and instead are all about subterfuge and mid-fight engagement.

As for the CC button. You keep only thinking as an attacker who wants the inevitable advantage. You fear that a dude will have it over you, but you still want it for yourself. Imo that's quite selfish.

There's a distinction between greens and purples for a reason. Greens are meant to have fewer default risks in the existence, as opposed to purples. This includes the CC immunity. You want to drastically increase their risk. Steven doesn't want that, otherwise he wouldn't have implemented the CC immunity.

Forcing people to clutch the CC button in case some asshole decides to stun them when they're fighting mobs would directly impact the enjoyment of the game for all the greens who just wanna farm. Their game will already be stressful enough, because they can always get attacked, but now you want them to also keep their finger on an otherwise-useless button, just in case they get CCed instead of attacked.

I know you're all strong and stuff and would react quickly and we should all have our head on a swivel as soon as we log in, and I know that I will play exactly like that because I'm an L2 player - but I want others to be at least slightly less stressed, because that would lead to more people staying in the game and enjoying it.

And I am not willing to give abusive players even more fucking ammo, just because rogues (that already have all the advantages they could wish for) can't use their CCs against an innocent player.

@Dolyem Do you ever in your entire life make concessions? Your claims of objectivity remind me of when I was 18; it's so cringeworthy.

There is nothing objectively inferior about game design making adjustments to make an ambusher less advantaged than they are by default. Which, as has been laid out to you in great detail, is a very broad advantage that can take a hit without being eliminated.

It doesn't make ambushing ineffective. It doesn't make the ambusher "disadvantaged" as a whole. That's the part you're supposed to finally acknowledge.

You did a fine job btw at completely ignoring that bulleted list highlighting the breadth of advantages that the ambusher has, and the point about invisibility making "paying attention" a useless counter to an ambush. Yes, one can stay prepared, but you are specifically talking about "detecting them beforehand" (which btw wouldn't allow you to turn the tables, it would at best even the playing field; It's not like the ambusher is gonna get caught off guard) several times in your responses.

You're allowed to dislike that game design and argue in favour of other ways of creating engaging PvP dynamics and balance, but it's not a "belief", it's an opinion, and it most certainly isn't "objective."

If you could just make any concessions about the imperfections of your ideas, maybe you'd make some progress in convincing other people of your reasons for preferring your ideas to their, equally imperfect, solutions. But as it stands, and you keep rejecting anything that isn't suitable to your flavour preference, this thread has become exceedingly pointess to participate in.

Dolyem wrote:

Killing a green is not prohibited, nor discouraged. You get rewarded for doing so at the cost of corruption. Excessively doing this is discouraged, and that is represented with increased corruption effects, handling that entire issue.

Again, this assumption/interpretation is flawed. You don't get rewarded for killing greens by default. You get rewarded for killing careless greens who are carrying more resources on their person than they should without adequate protection. Most of the greens you'll find and be able to gank won't fall under both of those conditions.
You'll barely be rewarded, and eat the full corruption. You are not being rewarded for killing random non-combatants.
The loot you will get from random kills on unsuspecting greens in these ganks will be laughable compared to the costs you incur every time a pack of bountyhunters reaches you.
I am not saying this because I dislike ganking. I am saying it because you need to understand how this game works, if you want to discuss your suggestions to adjust it.

I'll say it one last time, and if you don't start acknowledging this truth about the game's design after it's been well understood in these forums for years, I'm done talking to you: The game does not encourage random PvP with unconsenting opponents. It encourages purpose-driven PvP that aggressors opt into when they see particuarly meaningful, rewarding opportunities.
(Examples would be territory control, objective control, or particularly careless targets, likely well-known gatherers/artisans, carrying a bunch of resources on their character.)

Dueling consenting opponents is a side thing. Doesn't get punished much, doesn't get rewarded much, because it's done for its own sake among consenting players.

(Edit for clarity: This is all referring to PvP outside of sanctioned PvP events. This is all about scenarios that potentially involve Corruption.)

The game also *lets* you engage in other, meaningless, non-consenting PvP, but it doesn't *reward* it, it punishes it. The pillar allowing you to make this choice in spite of its punishment is the "player agency" pillar - you're allowed to do dumb stuff. It's not the "risk versus reward" pillar.

Dolyem wrote:

The point I was making with disengaging to re-engage your attacker before they lose combatant status is to switch the roles, where I am now the ambusher, but the difference now is that the player I am attacking doesn't gain the CC immunity advantage I had during their ambush. Its a work-around which I intend to test and showcase, so I and others can determine how bad or good it feels in terms of flow and gameplay. I could do it even in my proposal, but the difference would be the attacker would have the ability to CC me initially, giving them full access to their tools, and assuming a balanced system and not being hard countered, I could use abilities to react and counter, or choose to run.

You want enemy players to be punished for being unprepared during any moment of their gameplay, but you can't be expected to stay on guard for 90 seconds after you've chased a bruised target outside of your vision range in case they regenerate their health, buff up, and sneak up on you? That's suddenly unfair balancing?
Do you just say whatever ideas you have that favour your position without making the slightest effort to check how they would work out in reality and self-reflect about your opinion?

I still agree that the committal PvP-CC-protection can suffice to provide the balance this game seeks, (and I'll leave it up to NiKr whether he'll consider CC-breaks a significant factor in this discussion; though I doubt it, considering it's something the ambusher has as well, so it really doesn't do much to even the playingfield), but damn, are you unpersuasive at making the case for it.