Unable To CC NonCombatants?! What Does It All Mean?!

We have not received permission from Calibix to share the quoted post.

But... the greens attacking you IS the repercussion... for you going red in the first place.

There can't be 'repercussions' for 'repercussions', that doesn't even make sense.

We have not received permission from Okeydoke to share the quoted post.

Well, they're probably testing SOMETHING.

I like to imagine that there's a QA person whose entire job is to go around on the server griefing the other QA people and being hunted down by the QA Bounty Hunters.

We have not received permission from Dolyem to share the quoted post.

Right but isn't the entire POINT that green should be protected from CC griefing by anyone?

Not every green would even think to ATTACK a nearby Red player, so it seems more reasonable to use the 'blanket' response L2 used (for CC only abilities anyway).

And at that point you might as well extend it to Damage+CC abilities given the precise goal of it. Being able to CC greens because you are Red seems to go against the entire concept that 'not being able to CC greens' would be based on. It's just 'a form of dampening that kicks in immediately'.

Granted, only one person in this thread so far seems to be against the 'Damage' part working on them if it has both abilities, so at least they can plan around it.

Azherae wrote: »

Not every green would even think to ATTACK a nearby Red player, so it seems more reasonable to use the 'blanket' response L2 used (for CC only abilities anyway).

While I'm not sure about the current gamers, back in L2 those Reds were just juicy loot buns. You'd go for them if you thought you had at least a somewhat good chance to kill them. Obviously you wouldn't attack a dude in t5 gear when you're in t2, or attack a group with a PKer when you're solo, but in most other cases you wanted to kill that Red asap. And that was despite the fact that gear drops happened quite rarely.

This is one of the reasons why I think that PKers would be punished quite quickly even if the corruption timer was short. All it takes is a chat shout from the victim and at least a few willing and capable greens in the vicinity of the murder location to go and kill the Red while he's still red.

Now I don't have that big of an opinion on CCs vs greens either way cause I'd really have to see how the overall pvp balance is designed first, but if all CCs don't work - PKers will be dying even more than they would've already.

We have not received permission from Calibix to share the quoted post.

But it can only be flawed dependent on the goal.

If the goal is 'nearly anyone ever goes Red because it's so dangerous', then all these things make sense, right?

In what way is it a failure in that case?

People in PvE-only games find ways to compete for resources and camps all the time, so I would assume the idea is that we would do it that way first, and then go Red if there was either no other option or the targets were known and no one would punish us for doing so.

I'd absolutely expect that in most cases where someone goes Red in Ashes, their Node Mates are going to just go 'yeah that was justified, go grind off your Corruption, good job'.

The Corruption is therefore just an option for whoever they killed to take revenge. You probably don't need to worry about CCs for that (if I heal my Red player and you want to stop ME from doing that, you have to flag and can be CCed by said Red player, for example).

We have not received permission from Calibix to share the quoted post.

That's somewhat countered by PKing the healer first. Then the "victims" try to kill the PKer, but the PKer is getting healed and protected by others, which makes those others purple. Now if the "victims" want to win against their attackers - they have to flag up in order to stop the PKer supporters.

And you have yourself party pvp. So it's more logical to just fight back and be at full strength.

We have not received permission from Calibix to share the quoted post.

There's no way to give a specific perfect description of just how much the game is supposed to deter going Red.

But as of TODAY'S Dev Stream, I'm much more inclined toward believing that VERY few people will go Red in this game, and I also believe that this doesn't really reduce owPvP.

In fact, I am constantly 'surprised' by the number of people who think that owPvP has much to do with going Red at all. Red is just 'a last resort for when your opponent refuses to take your challenge seriously', in my mind.

I am ENTIRELY willing to go Red to achieve a goal, but I HOPE for a game where my opponent, realizing that PvP is a valid way to solve their problem, decides 'Let's just fight and the winner takes the Thing'. The 'willingness to go Red' is not for 'standard situations' for most people, I think.

The game doesn't want you to go Red, it wants you to have the option of solving your problems through violence if all else fails and you feel you can get away with it. And if no one blames you for going Red against X target, your chances of getting away with it are way higher.

But at the same time, you have taken a risk. You CAN still suffer for doing it.

We have not received permission from Calibix to share the quoted post.

If ttk will really be 30+ secs, you'll have a tooon of time to flag up against someone and either wait for their response or see them run, or if it's a gatherer in a middle of the field with no mobs in sight - just stand there and wait for you to finish them off or not.

OWPVP can still happen even if PKing is super harsh.

We have not received permission from Calibix to share the quoted post.

Unless Intrepid prohibits any kind of PKer healing/buffing by other people - the bard and healer of the PKer's party will just protect him as long as possible. And if the tank has a bard as his secondary, there's also a chance that the PKer will have a much bigger def values so it'll be easier to defend him. And yes, this will flag the helpers purple.

But unless the victim party manages to outdmg all that protection - they'd need to flag up against the helpers to beat the PKer.

And when it comes to the initial kill, all it takes is some general knowledge of the target's archetype and gear (and potential buffs). With that knowledge you just have a few dpsers shoot off one ability to bring the victim healer down and then the designated PKer does his biggest attack to burst over any potential incoming heal.

Now I'm fairly sure this will be a rare occurrence cause I see no real reason for the victim party to just let one of their members die, but it can happen and I've seen it happen, though L2's ttk was quite shorter so we'll have to see how much AoC's class balancing helps the victim or boosts the attacker.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

You do this all the time, and I don't mean what I'm about to say negatively in any way but...

Shouldn't you focus on what the game's intention is?

Sure, we all fall short on that sometimes, we talk about the game we want instead of what the game is, but the tendency to go 'I think it will change because I wouldn't like it to be this way' isn't productive because the forums just turns into a loop of everyone saying that.

So, for the sake of just this topic, could you specify something beyond 'yeah I don't think it will be this way, no one would like it'? Even if only to prevent the topic from devolving into 'a bunch of people saying the reverse, to you'?