Proposal and ideas regarding pvp in order to avoid griefing.

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

But simply by making that video, that person has successfully caused us to get additional information upon which to judge that system.

People are just as likely to judge 'this system probably won't work' as they will 'this system probably will work', and to compare it to what the stated goals of the system are. That's what he did.

"The system as we understand it doesn't reach the goals as we understand them."

You say 'Ignore them' but Steven didn't ignore them, and I believe Steven was explicitly right to not ignore them.

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

Yeah, but this is a new thing, which was added to the wiki after Steven announced it in the comments of the same video . You can't research things that are only announced in response to your own video.

This is just pure proof that the discussion the video participates in did its job, and influenced the game (or at very least our information about it) in a positive way.

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

Yes, it sounds moreso like we agree. You could argue 'they should never have made this video, it makes no sense' to make it, as Atama has, but I still don't see a point at which they 'should have done more research' and 'didn't do it'.

Nothing in particular would change about the specific situation mentioned in the case of CCs that do damage. The attacker is already purple. Unless the Healer is going to explicitly figure out a way to make their own HP lower for the CHANCE that their CC-er kills them, the same situation given occurs.

But either way, it seems that Steven at least responded in the way I would have hoped for, so I guess it doesn't matter if people here have that opinion of the content. I wasn't arguing 'this person isn't making assumptions'. I'm saying that given how little we know, there is nothing BUT assumptions to make. Now we know a little more, and that's great.

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

It's complicated because of the timeline of events of this particular situation.

But short version: you can go back to Lucky Ghost's Video and scroll down in the comments to find Steven's.

Long Version:
Basically, if you only looked at the Corruption page, it would show a quote that was added today, with a citation added today.

But THAT page doesn't show that they were added today, so if you see the quote, and the citation (for me, the citation is an unreadable screenshot of Steven's comment on the video itself), you might think 'well has this been here the whole time?' and if you check THAT page's history, it will appear to be true.

In MY case that made me assume that whatever the unreadable comment image was, it was old and couldn't possibly be connected to the video. That was why I was 'worried' that Steven hadn't responded or dealt with this. But it's just a weirdness of wiki work.

Even Steven's comment itself has edits though, so I am worried that at least a few people (my group has at least one person like this) will assume that Steven just threw in this instant off-the-cuff solution to the situation the video presents.

One way or the other though, it's all handled, and we can debate 'if not being able to CC Greens at all' is good, separately. It solves a lot of the things you were noting, though.

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

I think that one's intentional.

The other thing I think matters here is the difference in approach that comes up because of what you just noted.

If I can CC someone successfully just by choosing a move that ALSO does damage, I would risk this to do the scenario implied in the video.

If I can do the damage but the CC will NEVER WORK, I can't do the thing mentioned in Lucky Ghost's video. If, as Noaani says, the Green is 'always the first to get to have their CC actually work', that shifts a lot of things.

Azherae wrote: »

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

I think that one's intentional.

The other thing I think matters here is the difference in approach that comes up because of what you just noted.

If I can CC someone successfully just by choosing a move that ALSO does damage, I would risk this to do the scenario implied in the video.

If I can do the damage but the CC will NEVER WORK, I can't do the thing mentioned in Lucky Ghost's video. If, as Noaani says, the Green is 'always the first to get to have their CC actually work', that shifts a lot of things.

I was wondering about this, myself. If you don't get strong CC at all, obviously it was never a problem in the first place, but it's not like you're going to get abilities that are both high damage AND strong CC. That'd just be broken. But low damage, strong CC? That doesn't exactly give you bad odds on pulling off what the video describes. Sure your low damage strong CC move might manage to kill the guy, but it's not exactly likely unless the damage is good. It's basically a straight up catch-22.

This doesn't QUITE clarify enough, @Vaknar , so if SOMEHOW you have just ONE more answer from Steven it would help, especially if y'all aren't planning to make a whole specific post about it (someone else surely will, might be me).

I just want to know if we can interpret this part EXACTLY AS WRITTEN.

Abilities with CC effects do not apply to non-combatants. The target of a cc ability must be flagged in order to suffer the CC effects. This prevents players from opening attacks that stun players during a pull for example.

I think the most reasonable way to interpret this is:

"If your ability does only CC, it cannot affect non-combatants. If it does damage and CC, it can do the damage but the CC will not function."

However I can see an interpretation that is:
"If your ability does only CC, it cannot affect non-combatants. If it does damage and CC, it will not do the damage and the CC will not function."

Which, to me, are very different things, and I feel it would be counterproductive to make a whole post just 'discussing which of them is more likely', so IF this is a decided factor, or even if 'it differs by ability', we might be able to have a much more productive conversation on it.

Thanks as always.

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

That could limit a LOT of the potential CC effect types in the game, and reduce the complexity of the game as a whole, if it was true.

It also wouldn't matter if there were such a thing as a ground template CC. If I augmented my Hallowed Ground to also slow enemies in the radius and explicitly cast it as 'Full flagged, hits all Greens it touches', I want it to slow them, but you also can't 'control whether or not I'm allowed to cast it' as easily.

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

It's going to make an even bigger difference if one has abilities that do heavy damage, light CC, but then NEITHER of those work.

Challenging? Probably. Fun? Debatable.

Azherae wrote: »

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

It's going to make an even bigger difference if one has abilities that do heavy damage, light CC, but then NEITHER of those work.

Challenging? Probably. Fun? Debatable.

Oof, that would be a disaster, in my personal opinion. But it would really take the forced PvP out of the game. Way easier for a Green to run away if a bunch of your big skills don't touch them. It'd basically be the end of ganking gatherers for materials.

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

Oh, this is open for discussion then? At least for now? Post time!

Thank you, Vaknar, pulling through on that 'sorta-end-of-normal-workday' clutch. I may 'stress' you, but I appreciate you.

Off I go!

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

No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.