This Flag System is disincentivizing PVP

It's very discouraging to read that a good amount of people are like "deal with it, you flagged for PvP". That's like saying: "If you think the story and quests are boring, deal with it... that's what you get for PvEing."

 

And yet sadly, that IS what PvE and offline only people get told all the time when they bring up concerns.

It would be nice if more people tried see things from the perspective of those who are affected and bothered by current design rather than trying to blame them for being concerned. As a primary PvE person I gotta side with it should never be allowed for an unflagged person to attack a flagged person. That's the whole reason for PvP areas (like Shardfalls if you want to try it out) or to flag once you have the taste to PvP in your system. Using the flagging system to grief others (as is currently happening) defeats the entire rationale behind the flagging system.

 

All I've been hearing about on the subject is that PvE folks tend to be really adamant to segregating the player-base and pointing at the Online or PvP aspects (and the players) as the reason(s) why they're not getting their experience.
When's the last time had there been a talk about PvE and single-player offline without any mention of the online part by the PvE/offline folks? Last time I checked, that was: Never.

In comparison, the OP in this thread talks specifically and exclusively about PvP and how the current system is causing a problem. Not only that, it's a problem that can be relatively be easy to fix:

Code:

if (targetPvP && youPvP) {
    Attack();
} else {
   GiveError();
}

As a player who loves PvE, PvP, online and offline games, I find the "us vs them" mindset completely ludicrous.

 

I think its fine how it is that non pvpers can attack pvpers, but then they should either stay flagged for pvp for longer, maybe something equivalent to the old uo count system, for every player you "dishonourably" kill ie without declaring you are pvp first, then you get a short term and long term count.
For every Short term count you have you have to stay pvp flagged (whilst alive and ingame) for 10 minutes. Get X short term counts and the oracle wont turn your pvp flag off until
youve attoned for your sins ie had your ass kicked for a few days

 

Care to share why you think so?

Because the current reasoning against this seems far more sensible to me: If you're not flagged for PvP, that means that you're not interested in PvP... so why allow you to PvP when you're not interesting in PvP in the first place? It's a counter-intuitive system.

Now, if the reason is to allow PvP to happen without having to travel to the Oracle, there are multiple ways around that: Allow the player to flag for PvP and make them unable to attack until a few seconds have passed. This way, you can participate in PvP and the PvP folks can easily recognize you as a potential threat. You can "convert to PvP" safely by going out of the way of everyone and then it becomes YOUR risk, not theirs.

 

There have been quite a few offline threads that start completely offline and it is other posters that bring in the online focus. Agreed this is not the norm as up until recently, there was no offline experience for those interested in it to test.

On this we complete agree, if you reference the entire rest of the post you quoted. I'm very much of the mindset that we are all in this together and even was posting my agreement with those who believe the current flagging system is an exploitable mess.

 

Agreed, yet in the past, many good ideas that were not this false dichotomy were proposed, and either ignored or declined for sota.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...youd-like-to-see-in-shroud-of-the-avatar.580/
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/alternatives-for-lethal-pvp.2021/
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/chance-for-incapacitation.1826/
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/pvp-death-current-thinking-megapost.8247/
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-different-take-on-looting-and-pvp.5811/

And if you're inclined, run search queries for non lethal combat and tavern brawls.

In short, if there were other ways to interact, both positively and negatively, other than "reduce your opponents hit points to zero" then it's likely the opinions wouldn't be so binary.
Even something as simple as global non-lethal combat, so that everyone who selected that could only be beaten to half health, prone, or unconsciousness, rather than killed, would be an innovation in the pvp genre.
Doesn't mean you couldn't rob them. Point is, there's lots of ways to interact. Portalarium has chosen the simplest, easiest, and least innovative method of all the available methods, even from those enumerated on these forums, years ago.
Players using what methods are available to them can't be completely blamed. If it wasn't supposed to be the way it is, it wouldn't be. If it was important enough to the dev team, Portalarium would hot-fix it. Obviously that's not the case, as it hasn't been hot-fixed. Ok, so there are other priorities, that's not surprising, given the development focus to date.

Personally? I wish they would consider many of those ideas from 2013, while they're re-doing massive parts of the gameplay experience/loops, as they are in R29.

 

Quote one part of the sentence without reading the rest and youd`ve had read your answer. Agreed, if only PvP could attack there would be no issue, but the current system is more reminiscent of uo red/grey/blue flag and notos.
Quite simply with the system Id suggested youd end up with potentialy more people flagged for pvp as theyd get permaflagged, and being PvP flagged your after some excitement, like being a red at bucs bank or on siege... or grey flagging
and going into town so someone jumps you. So many reasons why the current system has its advantages, and if the flagging issues were solved so that it wasnt possible to abuse then it could be way better Imo.

Dont mind either way, I was just suggesting a mechanic that would work with the current system which they obviously seem to be going with atm and which with some work could be a very good one.

 

PvEers have won here.. No need to bother any further with PVP in this game.

 

I always thought it was unfair for non-flagged players to be able to surprise-attack a flagged player. Unless the new targeting system is improved A LOT, I definitely want this ability to be removed for my own safety. I'm afraid of hitting flagged PVPers by accident!

 

Or implement a system like the criminal system in UO?

So you flag yourself as pvp, great, have fun, run round PvPing, PvEing whatever. Youre free game to other PvPers and NPCs!

If you attack another player you become a criminal. You cant run around hitting people, just because you can! You get a grey name and remain pvp flagged for 2hrs (this stacks the more players you attack). Whilst grey, anyone can attack you without retribution, its your risk vs reward for being a horrible person, or having bad aim!

If you attack 3 players whilst a criminal you become a murderer and your name changes to red so everyone can see you coming, know what a despicable character and PKer you are, and expect you to attack them! NPCs spit at you, run in fear, some may even charge extra for services or refuse point blank etc. It takes 7hrs to loose 1 Murder count, until then you remain flagged for PvP whether you want to or not.

Eventually if you keep picking on others you effectively become Perma Red, basically there arent enough hours ingame to unflag and you forever remain PvP flagged.

This introduces risk to make those think twice before ganking or ambushing players, and allows PvPers some revenge on people who attacked them. Some of the more despicable and evil ( ) players will take pride in being permared!

 

Well it will be abused to make u flag for PVP then they will kill you if ur stupid enough to hit them ^^

 

What do you suggest then?

 

Well it change the targeting system back maybe... and for alignment, reputation and virtue I would advance the old UO system to make it more rewarding to be good and more hardships for red ppl. There have been suggestions already, but devs didn't comment or cared about them as consent seems to be more important to them, resulting in the game being a narrow experience and player interactions very limited.

 

Right now I wouldn't expect (and hope they don't) any further significant changes from their Q2 and last wipe implementation plan. I hope once the final wipe is over, the priorities of features and task items should be shared with the backers again to gauge which one we would prefer them to work on first.

 

I've actually read your entire post multiple times and, aside from your elaboration on an idea and your comparison to UO's system, you've never really explained WHY you don't mind allowing PvEers a free first strike against PvPers.

Last time I checked (and I could be wrong since my experience was brief), UO's system didn't have "PvP" or "PvE"; it was pretty much a giant free-for-all with colored name-tags to differentiate behaviors.

Regardless of how criminals and PKers should be treated, if a player can attack anyone anytime, then he/she should be able to be attacked by anyone anytime. PvEers being able to attack PvPers circumvent that very basic idea.

 

Having not pvp'd yet, Im guessing that whoever gets the first combo in, has a distinct advantage to win? If this isnt the case, then it shouldnt really matter!

 

I have brought a few healers to the dark side unintentionally..

 

It's not a matter of who wins or dies; it's the principle of the thing.

Imagine this scenario:
Low-level PvPer can spot potential threat in the distance and attempt to avoid them. If that player is spotted and the threat is running towards him or her, that player can attempt to root the enemy and escape... except you can't root the threat if he's not flagged for PvP.

Imagine this scenario:
A spell caster who's pretty powerful yet very squishy, he/she wants to participate in PvP but that player understand that they need to attack from a distance and if he gets in melee range, it's his/her own fault... except you can't do that if you're being chased by people not flagged for PvP.

Imagine this scenario:
A stealther plans his/her strategy minutes in advance... biding their time for the perfect strike. That player sees an opportunity of attack but there are PvE people in the area. It's not safe. His potential victim cries out "I'm fighting some assassin but he got away, I'm sure he's still around somewhere!" Now, it's definitely not safe. The player decides to walk away from the fight but comes across one of the bystanders. He could SAP and get away except the bystander IS NOT FLAGGED FOR PVP.

 

In my opinion Un-flagged player should not be able to attack another flagged player (or assist them).

Thinking up moral systems and punishment is good and all but the suggestions at the moment seem to extreme. Yes I agree with them and what they would mean but I still feel that they are overly aggressive. Maybe simply make a reward system for being flagged and engaging in PVP. Such as if you kill a player but you weren't flagged by the oracle, you don't get to ransom them. If you are flagged by the Oracle you do get to ransom them. Unflagged player can still get in to PVP fights but they wont receive anything in winning. I know more problems arise but that's what a discussion is for right?

The biggest issue I find in this discussion doesn't seem to really be about the topic at hand rather players just hating on other players and there chosen play style... hell it toke a moderator to turn aggressiveness to passive aggressiveness.