Corruption system and getting "the jump" in wpvp

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

Is the target "willing" if they stop fighting? Cause afaik if an opponent taps out in the hexagon - he's no longer willing to continue the fight.

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

This is exactly what happened in L2 (which had this flagging system). Like, EXACTLY the same. I've been on both sides: the attacker and the target. And many a times we've gone at it for hours while grinding a single mob spot.

Sooner or later one might attempt not fighting back and "win' the fight by purely fighting mobs better. And at that point the attacker would have to decide what's easier to do: kill mobs better yourself, PK the target, try keeping the target at low hp or move on.

We didn't see target's hp in L2, so that 3 option was usually fairly difficult w/o a higher risk of going Red. In Ashes it'll be way easier to do so and "win" by keeping the target at low hp and preventing them from farming mobs optimally.

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

I can't even interpret this one.

Is this one of those 'assuming I'm a PvE player and can't possibly understand'?

I'm literally telling you that I don't understand. How is 'refusing to fight back' in a situation where you are both 'accepting that getting the jump is part of the fight', not 'giving up the fight'?

In my circles we call that a 'ragequit' because the explicit purpose is to 'not give your opponent the deserved win', as opposed to 'tapping out' which is 'leaving your character (talking about fighting games here) just doing nothing or walking forward defenselessly until they finish you'.

I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.

Azherae wrote: »

I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.

Blat's assumption here that the target will then "tap back in" and this will somehow be "abuse(?) of the system, and feels unnatural".

So smth like "you're fighting a Bo7 in a fighting game. After your 2 wins, the opponent stops fighting, and killing him would not give a win. He just stands there doing nothing, even if you start hitting him. Then once yourself try to "ragequit" - he tries to kill you".

I think it's smth like that, unless I misunderstood the point as well.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.

Blat's assumption here that the target will then "tap back in" and this will somehow be "abuse(?) of the system, and feels unnatural".

So smth like "you're fighting a Bo7 in a fighting game. After your 2 wins, the opponent stops fighting, and killing him would not give a win. He just stands there doing nothing, even if you start hitting him. Then once yourself try to "ragequit" - he tries to kill you".

I think it's smth like that, unless I misunderstood the point as well.

Oh, then I'll leave it to you.

This is actually a result of my toxic attitude in competitive games.

People who do this are trash weaklings and not worth my time, but it's still weird to me, so I'll pass my thought on to you to handle.

If the idea is that you are 'just enjoying PvP' (and you don't have some other goal where doing this serves your purpose better), then every engagement is 'one match', so unless you can only get your... satisfaction? Rank points? Whatever? If you can only get that without 'them being on the ground', in this scenario, then you won.

It resets the exact same as it probably would if you won, except I guess that they don't have to go to a respawn point and get to stay in their position?

But it's a position where you just successfully got the drop on them, so?

If they're doing it because 'they want their chance to fight from that position instead of having to figure out how to beat you now that you've taken it', they can just say that.

Anyways, all yours, NiKr, can't be getting into this state pre-livestream, and it was my fault, so.

Azherae wrote: »

It resets the exact same as it probably would if you won, except I guess that they don't have to go to a respawn point and get to stay in their position?

But it's a position where you just successfully got the drop on them, so?

If they're doing it because 'they want their chance to fight from that position instead of having to figure out how to beat you now that you've taken it', they can just say that.

Anyways, all yours, NiKr, can't be getting into this state pre-livestream, and it was my fault, so.

I'm not sure I can do much here either, cause I also really don't understand the issue here. I understand the situation, because I've experienced and done it myself, but I do not see how this is an issue with the system.

Maybe blat will explain more of the point, but if the premise doesn't change then the only thing I can say is that I disagree with the conclusion that blot comes to from this premise.

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

Again, is the version that you'd prefer here just "they can kill each other at any time from any point"?

To me what you're saying is weird because it's self-contradicting, in my experience. The whole point is awareness and preparedness. There's no "system being in the way", because your opponent could attack you while you're at half hp or he could bring you to half hp in just a few hits or bring a train with him to dump on you before fighting.

All of those would be seen as "unfair" by majority of people. Owpvp doesn't have a perfectly fair encounter, even if both sides are fully willing to fight. And that's not even considering the RPS balancing of AoC's classes.

If you hit your opponent, but he retaliates later - that's the same as them coming back to the spot while you're still flagged from the previous fight, while they're at full hp.

Again, I completely fail to see what the system is standing in the way of.

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

I mean, this is literally fighting "unfair" with "unfair" though. So they cancel each other out and it's a fair fight. That's kinda the entire point of the system. The attacker has the first hit, the target has the first CC - everything else is a calculation on both sides of what they wanna use first in terms of abilities.

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

I mean, I understand the base desire to either have a pve game or a full pvp game, but Ashes is neither of those, so yeah, discussions of this system before people get to properly try it will be kind of a pain

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

The balancing of that timer would be near-impossible, if it would even be accepted by people. Too many abuses possible and/or too many limitations required for this system to be acceptably balanced.

Even pvpers want to rest sometimes. Losing your flag is meant to create that "rest". If your attackers are still free to kill you - that's kinda bad imo.

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

L2 had a "duel" mechanic for these kinds of moments. People soooometimes used it to decide stuff, but usually it was just a thing to pass the time with while waiting for your mates.

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

Yes, the game won't appeal to those who're completely used free pvp. I hope you like this system once you get to try it, but before that I doubt I can properly explain that the current design is "fair" to all players.

You just need to account for this possibility, just as you're accounting for enemy abilities and/or surroundings.

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

Considering that we can fight pretty much anywhere in the game, huge guilds will absolutely demolish anyone who even tries to stand up against them.

A smaller guild got wiped during a fight? The big guild is absolutely free to keep killing them over and over and over again within this time limit (and that's assuming that the victim doesn't fight back and doesn't renew the timer). And they'd be able to do this outside of a guild war, so the victims would be suffering death penalties. MAJOR penalties.

Also, would this flag be a 1v1 kinda thing or literally "plain combatant flag"? Cause if it's a full combatant flag that anyone can now attack - that's even worse (again, especially against big guilds).

This just creates super bad player behavior imo. To me this would be a MUCH MUCH bigger issue than the visible hp. And would ultimately drive even more people away from even attempting to flag up.

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

And this plays into my last sentence.

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

L2 had group duels as well, but that was only used for tournaments, so yeah, doubt it'd be used in Ashes to "decide a spot" or whatever.

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

Honestly, no. Because again, this game is not meant for free kills. Well, the open seas are - the remainder of the map no.

If you want to kill a person - do so and be ready for the consequences. No matter who that person is, pvper or not.

Pvpers are not constantly pvpers, because the base state of a character in Ashes is green (passive/non-combatant). Your pov on this system comes from a game where players' base state is pvper - at all times.

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

I think our views on how much pvp there should be in the game are wildly different.

I want more pvp, but when both sides are fine continuing that pvp. To me there's no "hiding behind the system". Everyone is a non-combatant and shouldn't be forceable to become one, no matter when they had pvp last time or against whom.

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

They didn't though. They simply attacked another person. And while this attacker is green - anyone else is free to attack them as well. But both of these attacks should result in corruption if executed till the death of the target.

You're suggesting free PKs of those who flagged up for a second and then went back to green. And you're suggesting that free PKs for up to an hour?!

Like I said, I strongly disagree.

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

Ok, a question then. IRL should a punch be punishable by death?