Technical aspect of the flagging system

Situation: I'm walking down the street doing my thing feeding pigeons (cause that's what carebears do) or what have you and someone comes along and smacks me down in the face with a 12 pound sledge hammer because he's displeased with my behavior or whatever.

In this situation we can hardly argue who's the combatant.

But then with the current flagging system it gets really interesting.

Let's say after I've been struck I'm a bit disgruntled, get up and start assessing whether I should defend myself, or not.

Here the game tells me that if I chose to defending myself I become a combatant and puts me on the same combativeness level as my aggressor on a global level. Meaning that anyone that comes along sees two combatants.

My question: will there be any sort of mechanism that will indicate to anyone coming along that someone is defending themself?

Thank you

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Veeshan

cupi wrote: »

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

If you ask almost any pver, they'll tell you that they don't want to be attacked in the open world.

It depends, I would say what matters alot here are the builds. On even xp/gear grounds, someone specialized for Pve probably won't be able to hold it up against someone who's build is jacked towards consistent PVP

Ill comment on this part here.

One would argue thats would be consider risk vs reward you made a choice to optimised your PvE farming and getting more loot with a higher risk of being weaken in being attacked by a player
Where somone who PvE with a spec optimal for PvP is gonna be farming less mobs in the same time but there more capable at fighting back if attacked.

So there a trade off there

Veeshan

Corruption system is there to punish non consential PvP

if a red player is attacked by a green player then the green player is participating in consensual PvP agaist the red player there for the corruption hit should not occur,

Also some more points
- It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[9] – Steven Sharif

If the corruption system is to harsh then there no risk in open world due to no one will be willing to go red at all. Corruption is there to curtail griefig other players and killing a single person around ur level would not be considered griefing in most people eyes (repetaivly or ganking lowbies however would be)
Now i would consider it griefing if green players can just throw themself repetaivly at a red player dieing over and over compounding the corruption penalty on the player, when the only option is to die or make things worst its a bad system.
So overall the system need a buffer zone where there can be threat of killing somone green to add risk to the world but the buffer cant be to big that it allows for constant ganking before triggering corruption ststus

So it needs to have atleast the ability to kill 1 person (your level or above) without going red to maintain that risk in the world.
Or
If you go corrupt on 1 kill you need the ability to defend yourself without making your corruption penalty worst from greens throwing themselfs at you. Stage 1 corruption shouldnt be to harsh of a penalty and the x4 death penalty should suffice here, with gear drops and stat dampering playing a roll in deeper stages of corruption if that player chooses to kill more greens (Or lowbie) without working off the corruption from the kill first. The system realy comes down to how long it takes to work off per kill and when the more painful death penalty take into account which will probaly be a big part of A2 dialling in those numbers.

Ludullu

Veeshan wrote: »

from greens throwing themselfs at you.

Once again
The primary means to remove corruption is through death. Multiple deaths may be necessary to remove all corruption.[46][27]

This has been said since 2017. There's no "greens throwing themselves at you". There's only "you're pretty much a mob and don't deserve to defend yourself, so either die at the hands of people or avoid them and kill mobs".

Yes, PKing will be rare. That's the entire point. It'll always be there as a choice, but it's the last resort, because the potential punishment is high.

More and damn more I'm lead to believe that "pvpers" are just PKers and couldn't care less about good pvp where their target wants to fight back.

The risk in event-based pvp will come from losing time and losing out on content (which is ultimately also time). And if those even-based pvp is properly balanced to make up for the rarity of PKing - you'll be losing a tooon of time to it, just as it was the case in L2.

Yall really need to stop thinking about PKing as the only way to pvp.

Noaani

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Yes, PKing will be rare. That's the entire point. It'll always be there as a choice, but it's the last resort, because the potential punishment is high.

From the perspective of a PvE player, this is kind of the worst case scenario.

If such a player is out hunting random mobs, running dungeons and all that kind of stuff - the kind of stuff where they perhaps don't so much mind an interruption - no one will consider it worth it.

As soon as they get to a boss - the kind of content that PvE players actually want - that is when the PvP starts.

If a PvE player is going to be attacked, they would rather it be while they are running content they don't care about than while they are running the content that is the reason they play MMORPG's at all.

Dolyem

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

And I never said a first kill shouldnt give corruption, I said it should be less extreme punishment at a low level of corruption, such as 1 or 2 kills. And we have literally just watched a video showing such a case. Its not written in stone of course, but to sit there and act like its meaningless just because you dont agree with it is being disingenuous about the design possibilities.

By "punishment", do you mean "corruption-based stat dampening" or "corruption-based death penalties"?

Maybe that's where the misunderstanding is? I'm talking about death penalties. As long as you have even a single point of corruption - you're Red and you get full Red death penalties.

If you disagree with that position then we simply disagree on how the system should work.

As for the video we saw. Every damn video Steven says "this is not final product, not final pass, not final application, not final visual, not final bugs". We've also seen other videos where some skill wasn't working for some reason or where Steven had to use the admin cheats to enable smth. So no, I will not rely on what we saw there, when I've listened to Steven explain the corruption system for years and nothing has indicated to me that it's in any way different from L2's system, aside from the corruption-based stat dampening which is there EXACTLY to prevent the kind of griefing Steven is talking about.

I have no issues with death penalties that are 4x loot and the current chance to drop gear increasing as corruption increases. Those can start ASAP. Progressively dampening is fine too.

I'd even consider the utility lock downs of a character fine to activate ASAP as it creates a sense of urgency to deal with and can't be put off. Though I wouldn't mind some of these features also being eased into as more corruption happens. But the ability to remove/trade items from your character should still absolutely be prohibited for obvious reasons. But perhaps with lower corruption players should be able to at least withdraw items from storage, and have limited access to cities, very limited access mind and I would want it tested to make sure it even felt right.

I'd chalk the 60 minute log-out up to wherever the team considers the beginning of actual griefing.

I'd also say punishments should not decrease as you cleanse it in a single instance of corruption. Whatever your top end of corruption for that single instance should remain as such until you cleanse it or die.

My only real concerns are how the system is set up for exponential corruption growth after just a single engagement via simply defending oneself from attacks. I'd also argue that aside from those penalties I mentioned, other progressingly severe penalties such as permanent PK values should have a sort of threshold via reaching a specified number of PKs during any single instance of corruption or even throughout a day being added as a PK value to punish griefing(a spree) specifically as opposed to one off incidents not defined as griefing which wouldnt be added to a Total PK value because they wouldnt be defined as excessive PK griefing.

Also. This system is not Lineage 2, nor do i recall Steven ever saying it will be exactly as such, just inspired by it. That does not mean anything I've been suggesting is off of the table. And I already said that what we saw in the video isn't set in stone, but the mere fact that it exists is cause to consider the direction of design isn't exactly what you think. It's not guaranteed of course, but it's still possible considering what we have seen so far.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

If a PvE player is going to be attacked, they would rather it be while they are running content they don't care about than while they are running the content that is the reason they play MMORPG's at all.

I mean, I'm pretty sure you're the one who've been expecting pvp zones around bosses, right? I expect those zones to simply be always taken buy guilds and guilds will be at war, so those pvers will always be PKed one way or the other. That's the point of open world bosses and contesting them. And yes, I know all pvers want instanced content and all that stuff.

Dolyem wrote: »

My only real concerns are how the system is set up for exponential corruption growth after just a single engagement via simply defending oneself from attacks.

As I've been saying, Red can't defend themselves, but I fully support them having a really small amount of corruption on their first 2-3 PKs, that they can clear within just a few minutes (but only on best mobs at their lvl of course). That's the counterbalance to Reds not being able to defend themselves.

And yes, Reds can defend themselves against BHs, but it's on BHs to self-flag themselves to be able to track PKers, so it's still not a defense against a green.

Dolyem wrote: »

Also. This system is not Lineage 2, nor do i recall Steven ever saying it will be exactly as such, just inspired by it.

I'm sure other games had smth similar, but I'd be very curious to see the similarities between AoC's system and those other games' systems. And then compare that level of similarity with L2's similarity.

The only change between L2's system and AoC's is the corruption-based stat dampening. That's it. Everything else is the exact same: flagging rules, greens not being CCable, corruption, corruption only going to one person out of a group and only if they made the killing blow, PK count, scaling of corruption gain with subsequent kills due to said PK count, heightened death penalties due to being corrupt, corruption going away by killing mobs and/or dying - literally all of that is 1-to-1 from L2.

Otr

Veeshan wrote: »

Corruption system is there to punish non consential PvP

if a red player is attacked by a green player then the green player is participating in consensual PvP agaist the red player there for the corruption hit should not occur,

Also some more points
- It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[9] – Steven Sharif

If the corruption system is to harsh then there no risk in open world due to no one will be willing to go red at all. Corruption is there to curtail griefig other players and killing a single person around ur level would not be considered griefing in most people eyes (repetaivly or ganking lowbies however would be)
Now i would consider it griefing if green players can just throw themself repetaivly at a red player dieing over and over compounding the corruption penalty on the player, when the only option is to die or make things worst its a bad system.
So overall the system need a buffer zone where there can be threat of killing somone green to add risk to the world but the buffer cant be to big that it allows for constant ganking before triggering corruption ststus

So it needs to have atleast the ability to kill 1 person (your level or above) without going red to maintain that risk in the world.
Or
If you go corrupt on 1 kill you need the ability to defend yourself without making your corruption penalty worst from greens throwing themselfs at you. Stage 1 corruption shouldnt be to harsh of a penalty and the x4 death penalty should suffice here, with gear drops and stat dampering playing a roll in deeper stages of corruption if that player chooses to kill more greens (Or lowbie) without working off the corruption from the kill first. The system realy comes down to how long it takes to work off per kill and when the more painful death penalty take into account which will probaly be a big part of A2 dialling in those numbers.

"If the corruption system is to harsh"

Replace this with concrete numbers.
I mean the threshold depends from player to player and even on same player it changes over time, as the player gets desensitized if he doesn't lose patience first.

Can be that Steven sold us a dream.

Ludullu

Otr wrote: »

Can be that Steven sold us a dream.

He never did though. People, as always, chose to hear what they wanted and only believed that. And this has been true for pretty much everyone so far. If anything, there's been even more confusion because "pvpers" hear that PKing will allow them to kill greens, which then makes greens even more fearful of that threat, even though Steven's been saying "corruption is there to limit PKing as much as possible and we'll test the game to make it so", yet neither "pvpers" nor pvers hear him and just keep yelling at each other making things only worse for themselves

All the while neither side realizes that absolute majority of PKing will be happening during wars, all of which will be infinitely worse than any PKing system out there (which is also literally what Steven has said several times before, and namely in the video I linked).

Saabynator

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

cupi wrote: »

It depends, I would say what matters alot here are the builds. On even xp/gear grounds, someone specialized for Pve probably won't be able to hold it up against someone who's build is jacked towards consistent PVP

Saabynator wrote: »

One thing I do like about this, is that you cant spec for 100 % PvE, and still have an edge in PvP. To be competative, you need abilities up, that work well in PvP. I like that idea. It worked well in other games. You have a choice to make around your own security.

There won't be a pvp/pve separation in gear. And we currently don't know what kind of mobs we'll have, so it's impossible to say if any of the skillset builds will be stronger in pve rather than in pvp, or the other way around.

I personally expect mobs to have same defensive passives, stats, potentially even abilities as players do, so any given player would have builds that would work in the same manner against both/either.

Obviously there's gonna be differences between any given mob or player, but this still doesn't mean that there's pvp builds and pve builds, it simply means that there's different builds to match different situations.

There will always be abilities that are better for PvE and/or PvP - always.

Ludullu

Saabynator wrote: »

There will always be abilities that are better for PvE and/or PvP - always.

As a counter argument I can give the example of L2, where both gear and skills were the same in pvp and pve, and it was only in way later updates where NCsoft added the separation between the two.

And with Ashes claiming to be a pvx game, I'd fully expect pve to require the same breadth of skill/gear usage as pvp will.

Otr

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

PKing players for pleasure only can be rare.
But if they have loot on them? Will dungeons feel like PvE areas?

As I've been saying - guild wars. Node wars will work as well.

We will literally have unlimited PKing during both of those "events". And that PKing will be over the locations themselves rather than player loot, which is how it was in L2.

PKing is still not going anywhere, but it will simply be really rare.

this must be a useful feature
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Definition:PK_value

Otr

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Can be that Steven sold us a dream.

He never did though.

He said many things, and avoided clear answers invoking complexity and need to test in Alpha 2.
Regarding this topic I can find comments supporting both sides, depending in what mood he was or what he wanted to emphasize.
I think the corruption penalties should not be fixed but should change over time based on more events, not all predictable or under player control.

Dolyem

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

My only real concerns are how the system is set up for exponential corruption growth after just a single engagement via simply defending oneself from attacks.

As I've been saying, Red can't defend themselves, but I fully support them having a really small amount of corruption on their first 2-3 PKs, that they can clear within just a few minutes (but only on best mobs at their lvl of course). That's the counterbalance to Reds not being able to defend themselves.

And yes, Reds can defend themselves against BHs, but it's on BHs to self-flag themselves to be able to track PKers, so it's still not a defense against a green.

Dolyem wrote: »

Also. This system is not Lineage 2, nor do i recall Steven ever saying it will be exactly as such, just inspired by it.

I'm sure other games had smth similar, but I'd be very curious to see the similarities between AoC's system and those other games' systems. And then compare that level of similarity with L2's similarity.

The only change between L2's system and AoC's is the corruption-based stat dampening. That's it. Everything else is the exact same: flagging rules, greens not being CCable, corruption, corruption only going to one person out of a group and only if they made the killing blow, PK count, scaling of corruption gain with subsequent kills due to said PK count, heightened death penalties due to being corrupt, corruption going away by killing mobs and/or dying - literally all of that is 1-to-1 from L2.

And just as the video showing initial corruption as miniscule may change, so too may everything you just said.
It's not set in stone that Reds can't defend themselves. It's not set in stone that the system will be a 1 to 1 of lineages system. It's entirely possible to tweak this system, and it very well SHOULD be tweaked as needed throughout testing. To say these things are absolute is again, disingenuous considering information we have and the goals stated.

The main thing you seem to have an issue with is the consideration that not all PKing may be bad for the game. You chalk any PK up to griefing which, by Steven's own definition of griefing, is not true.

Noaani

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If a PvE player is going to be attacked, they would rather it be while they are running content they don't care about than while they are running the content that is the reason they play MMORPG's at all.

I mean, I'm pretty sure you're the one who've been expecting pvp zones around bosses, right? I expect those zones to simply be always taken buy guilds and guilds will be at war, so those pvers will always be PKed one way or the other. That's the point of open world bosses and contesting them. And yes, I know all pvers want instanced content and all that stuff.

Yeah, I do.

I'm just pointing out how poorly designed this aspect is if you assume Intrepid want to bring in people that prefer PvE over PvP.

Steven has literally no idea what a player that prefers PvE even wants in an MMORPG.

Saabynator

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Saabynator wrote: »

There will always be abilities that are better for PvE and/or PvP - always.

As a counter argument I can give the example of L2, where both gear and skills were the same in pvp and pve, and it was only in way later updates where NCsoft added the separation between the two.

And with Ashes claiming to be a pvx game, I'd fully expect pve to require the same breadth of skill/gear usage as pvp will.

Stun, is generally more usefull in PvP, than PvE. A push spell that interrupts. Instant heals, thats normally a waste of mana, is not in PvP. See what I am saying here?

Veeshan

Otr wrote: »

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Can be that Steven sold us a dream.

He never did though.

He said many things, and avoided clear answers invoking complexity and need to test in Alpha 2.
Regarding this topic I can find comments supporting both sides, depending in what mood he was or what he wanted to emphasize.
I think the corruption penalties should not be fixed but should change over time based on more events, not all predictable or under player control.

Corruption is kinda not fixed but not penalty wise, there is a kill counter and the higher that is the more corruption u get per individual kill so if u have 1000 kill in that counter and u kill somone u might go from 0 corruption to like stage 3 or something off 1 kill.
there a quest apparently to reduce that counter though

Atleast with the info we got on the wiki

Edit: saw u mention this later this already in another post

Githal

TBH i dont think that having indicator of who attacked and who is defending himself will do anything in 99% of the cases. Like yes there may be 1 out of 100 times where third party decides to help the defender, but in most cases the third party will try to find opening to kill both.

And Being "defender" has its advantages. Yes the attacker gets first hit, but you get the first CC, since the attacker cant stun you, but you can open with a stun.

Otr

Veeshan wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Can be that Steven sold us a dream.

He never did though.

He said many things, and avoided clear answers invoking complexity and need to test in Alpha 2.
Regarding this topic I can find comments supporting both sides, depending in what mood he was or what he wanted to emphasize.
I think the corruption penalties should not be fixed but should change over time based on more events, not all predictable or under player control.

Corruption is kinda not fixed but not penalty wise, there is a kill counter and the higher that is the more corruption u get per individual kill so if u have 1000 kill in that counter and u kill somone u might go from 0 corruption to like stage 3 or something off 1 kill.
there a quest apparently to reduce that counter though

Atleast with the info we got on the wiki

Edit: saw u mention this later this already in another post

That PK_value is not enough. There should be more parameters to influence the corruption gain.
I would add:

1) a parameter decided by castle owners. Players who would support them would defend their caravans, the others would try to destroy them.
2) health of resource sink. If wealth is accumulated too fast, corruption penalties should be lower
3) difference in progression paths as caravan attacker vs defender. If both are advanced but on opposing side (attacker vs defender) then corruption penalty should be lower.
4) if the above 3 are added (or enough other parameters) then I suggest the amount of corrupted glint in the inventory of the killed player should reduce the attacker's corruption penalty.

cupi

Otr wrote: »

this must be a useful feature
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Definition:PK_value

Interesting, so people can run around with a high PK count and not be corrupted.

Will there be a point where your first kill out of corruption gets you ridiculously deep into corruption perhaps?

Can't wait to see how this will be balanced out. And it might only be possible to do it after the game has been out for a while to see how the people who consistently grief use this feature.

cupi

Githal wrote: »

but in most cases the third party will try to find opening to kill both.

Is there so much benefit to kill a player? This isn't full loot

Child Item