I don't see how that's a bad thing dygz. It would only serve to reduce the amount of attacks/deaths to people with no interest in pvp.
Personally I know.. 100% ....that I will end up red.. because I fully intend to find, and loot nearby resource areas, doing that I also know there will be people who troll me and not fight for the ability to gather in the area so I will end up inevitably killing greens and that's fine.
I firmly believe in a player driven economy with an open world limited resource situation that gathering should flag you as a combatant but I have a feeling people would freak out about that because of the competition. Which was my initial mindset to offer a slight bonus to gathering by remaining flagged as a combatant.
Unfortunately being red in Ashes will make you eventually become unable to attack other players and win. Not only can you lose items but you lose stats. It will get to the point where you are just treading backwards instead of forward.
@Gothix, I think having to switch flag status in towns w/ specific NPC's might hurt the PvP community. If, in your suggestion, after defending myself (starting green) I went back to green (from purple for defending myself) then maybe it wouldn't be bad. If I had to run all the way back to a town and then back to where I was (assuming a spawn point would be closer) I would never fight back.
@Azathoth per my suggestion, if you are green, you don't get to be purple, not even while defending yourself. You stay green, and have harsher death penalty if you die.
That would be the point. You have to chose, do you go purple, and be a free target while roaming around, or you go green, but then you don't get to temporarily go purple to have lighter death penalty when you chose so. You stay green, and if killed you die as green (even if you fought back you stay green).
The point of my suggestion would be a permanent color, until you change it in a city.
1. You roam around as green: - you can't initiate attack against anyone - you CAN defend yourself when attacked (but you remain green) - if you win when attacked, you are still green, you get loot from enemy normally - if you die, you die as green (even if you fought back) having green death penalty - to change to purple you have to go to a city
2. You roam around as purple: - you can initiate an attack against any player you see (and defend ofc.) - if you win, you get loot based on if target was green or purple, also corruption based on who you kill (green or purple) - if you die, you die as purple - if you want to change to green you have to go to city
Imo, this would kill open world PvP, there are enough PvP players already concerned about killing greens, let alone if they are punished (corruption) even when the greens fight back.
Also, again, I would be green 90% of the time because I don't go out specifically looking for PvP and have other things I like accomplishing. I am not going to flag purple and then be frustrated when I am engaged in PvP while trying to do other things.
I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of people would flag green (some/most might even fight back). In the end this would punish PvP more than it would encourage it. I think so at least.
@Azathoth Maybe I suggested poor implementation, but my reasoning behind this is valid imho.
What I would like to avoid is player going around, and then choosing color based on target he meets.
If he meets weak target, he purples up and attacks. If he meets strong target he pussy's out and stays green, so attackers get corruption if they kill him.
I would like for players choice to mean something, so if you venture out in woods green, you do not just get to purple up and attack weak target when you see it. You are green, no attacking allowed.
On the other hand if you go out purple, then you don't get to pussy out and switch to green if you meet a group of players and they start moving towards you.
This "color changing" based on situation, just feels extremely lame to me. I would LOVE to make players not be able to do that somehow, while still keeping other things cool, and not broken by this.
That would be the point. You have to chose, do you go purple, and be a free target while roaming around, or you go green, but then you don't get to temporarily go purple to have lighter death penalty when you chose so. You stay green, and if killed you die as green (even if you fought back you stay green).
The point of my suggestion would be a permanent color, until you change it in a city.
With that ruleset, I would not play Ashes at all.
It basically inherently punishes non-PvPers and casual PvPers.
@Gothix I see your point and agree, being able to change on a whim could allow for nit picking your fights. Unfortunately I don't see a way of implementing that fairly. It is a good thought experiment.
I think perma-flag purple with long term cool down would be okay. Even perma-flag green with long term cool down, but if attacked (and then fighting back) the player should be able to "go purple." Just be forced back into green. This however does nothing for the greens and is clearly lopsided when compared to perma-flag purple.
I think the current design is a farce and would not be a deterrent for me if I liked ganking people, but... While I will still be pissed if some player attacks me when I'm not in the mood, I currently at least have the option of "flagging" purple and discontinuing the fight so it can end as quickly as possible. I get a lesser death penalty and my assailant gets an easy kill with no Corruption. Which is much better than being stuck at green, maximum death penalty and my assailant gaining Corruption.
1: Steven wants to increase the incentive for players who typically avoid PvP combat to actually engage in combat. 2: Steven wants the Corruption system to have some meaning.
The Corruption system would be a completely broken mechanic if PvP lovers simply stayed flagged as combatants and non-PvPers were rarely if ever pushed to actively choose greater death penalties over minimum death penalties.
When I saw your name DYGZ I just knew it would be on about your anti pvp stance lol. It would not ruin the corruption system because those like me would fight would fight for the love of fighting. We will still need property, supplies, mats and so on. Pvp will just exsists two forms. If your really understood pvpers you'd know it's. not gonna slow us down having another viable option. It just gives us another option more inlined with our needs. You will have your nodes to protect, caravan to guard and so on. You will still get your pvp no less no more w/o another system in place.
Right. The PvP lovers would fight for the love of fighting... without gaining Corruption. Which means the Corruption system would be completely broken.
People don't gain Corruption from caravan PvP combat.
I am casual PvP; not anti-PvP. And, all I did was explain why the devs won't choose a mechanic that breaks their Corruption system. The Corruption system is their vision for an alternative to manual flagging. They aren't going to undermine that.
Right. The PvP lovers would fight for the love of fighting without gaining Corruption. Which means the Corruption system would be completely broken.
People don't gain Corruption from caravan PvP combat.
I am casual PvP; not anti-PvP. And, all I did was explain why the devs won't choose a mechanic that breaks their Corruption system. The Corruption system is their vision for an alternative to manual flagging. They aren't going to undermine that.
The point of the thread were viable options. Kind of like the one a suggested a dedicated zone. Also devs have changed there minds many times over. Not talking about it will defiantly make sure it will never happen. However threads like this and the conversation of pvp is brought up so often. They may implement something for dedicated pvpers. Having a voice is what pushes that narrative so I am in full support of it.
This thread asks if perma-flagging would be a good option. The answer is: No. Because it would break the Corruption system.
That is not an anti-PvP answer. That is a "The devs are not going to break their Corruption mechanic in order to implement a flagging system that is basically the same as EQ or WoW" answer.
Of course, former EQ devs will have already considered perma-flagging as an option. And rejected it in favor of their Corruption system.
(The devs aren't going to include global fast travel as an option, either.) 😉
This thread asks if perma-flagging would be a good option. The answer is: No. Because it would break the Corruption system.
That is not an anti-PvP answer. That is a "The devs are not going to break their Corruption mechanic in order to implement a flagging system that is basically the same as EQ or WoW" answer.
Of course, former EQ devs will have already considered perma-flagging as an option. And rejected it in favor of their Corruption system.
(The devs aren't going to include global fast travel as an option, either.) 😉
There are many viable options to consider, this being one of them. He devs say a lot of things, it's what they do. In time seeing how they are open and being some former pvpers of Archeage. I have a good feeling they will do something for us. It's not outside the realm of possibilities and I don't see it at launch. However I do feel in time they will incoperate something for more dedicated pvpers. Fast travel is something else entirely different. Like comparing apples to sheet rock.
They have literally never announced a single change to a mechanic since original info release. Not flying, corruption system, monster coins, node types and leveling, or even the dreaded QTE (it is still there, just called a "combo system", got everyone to stop whining about it). Attempts by the pvp brahs to gaslight the community won't work, they have a plan and are sticking to it. Over the last several months whenever I see "dedicated pvper" I just equate them with rapists, cause both can't take no for an answer and it is all about forcing others to fill their twisted needs. Will they make tweaks and changes to systems during testing? Sure. But a total revision to satisfy the full loot bros is not coming.
Devs have never mentioned a lot of game concepts, patches, new zones, game mechanics, updates and so on in many games over years until it was close to release.. As a gamer this concept can not be new to you? Also in part I am just speaking down the road not so much about the initial launch of the game. I want them to focus on what they have now in order for us to get the game asap. ( they have a plan and are sticking to it. ) Um nooooo That is impossible to know that. Nether you nor I have no idea what is or what will be in the future. You see dedicated pvpers as ****.... lol ok then. I think you are severely misguided (also a tad odd) I personally have not gotten the feeling from other pvpers they are trying to " push" anything on you or anyone else. It is more about something for us that has very negligible effects on you. What I suggested in a previous discussions would not effect you at all or anyone like you. It simple just gives ppl who love to pvp to pvp freely and openly. Perhaps you are afraid this will somehow disrupt the corruption system. I am not sure how many times I can say it. Pvpers will be pvp and you will still have to protect your nodes, caravans, mats, and so on. The majority of the world will be based on that principle. Thats like suggesting arena would destroy the corruption system. Well we are having arena and no it wont, thats silly. People will still need what only the pvx world can provide,and also pvpers are pvpers so having something aside for us wont make a virtual dent in the open free world at all. Understand what has been said from me and other pvpers is simple something for us not something changing or taking away from you or the rest of the community. You are aware of it, its there but you can continue on in your world doing whatever it is you do. It is good to see threads about it, it shows people are very interested in this idea.it is good for the devs to see yes there is a viable audience who want it. Saying nothing is the worst thing you can do, and so far I have seen a large community very interested in the idea. Being the nature this team seems to be. it is quite possible way down the road they just might offer us something. I am not asking for a total revision at all ( nor do I want it) personally I am just asking to add something just for us in the future. I doubt you would be upset if they added a new dungeon or something to that magnitude. Having a open world island you never have to step foot on with no beneficial aspects of going to it, other than just to pvp wont hurt you farming on your land you know.
I have seen an equally sized population say they don't want special accommodation for PvP's. Indicating that since it doesn't directly effect PvE players they should not be concerned is, imo, a huge mistake. Everyone that wants to play this game should have an equal voice on any mechanic, even if they will never use it.
Personally I think the devs have done a great job accommodating PvP players for many of the same reasons you do; Castles, Sieges, Caravan runs, open battlefields. I don't see why they would need another reason to PvP. If the PvP community has to be given so many reasons to PvP maybe that community is not as big or as dedicated as some might have suggested.
I have only noticed a few 'dedicated' PvP players that voice their concern for more reasons to do it, and they dislike of corruption. I have noticed many PvP players indicate they want to give it a go as is and are interested in the meaningful PvP like; Castles, Sieges, and Caravans.
I will even suggest that far more are on your side for pvp than mine, that's typically the norm. When a game mechanic really has no barring on the rest of the community at all. It specifically just addresses those who have a different need. For example We both eat at a restaurant that serves food we both like. But 30 percent of us would really like to have a Reuben on the menu. Thats still a reasonable profit margin to address, and you do not have to eat it at all. So why should it matter to you what some of us prefer to eat. You are suggesting that you can tell me you have influence on something you do not even have to consume. Even the prevailing ratio on this thread shows 30 percent so I am not far off base. You see a few because there is only a few of us who really speak on the threads. I imagine if it were a million folks you'd still see about the same ratio give or take.
The other part is much harder to explain. ( Castles, Sieges, Caravan runs, open battlefields). It sounds like so much pvp, but it isn't. Those are planned, huge team efforts, time to get it together. I work nights and when I am on just like other games that had those it was already done. I do not logon and auto jump into a siege or solo a caravan and a castle event you know. Then you take into account solo players ( which there is quite a bit) we are in it for the hunt. Those things generally do not appeal to us because it takes a group setting. The only option is arena and that gets boring after a time over and over. It removes the atmosphere of never knowing when and how to. Both parties are across from another ready and on guard with thee arsenal of potions on hand. The excitement of the open atmosphere pales in comparison.
Its not so many reasons to pvp, it is actually quite limiting to how and when we can. I am not even particularly fond of being in guilds ether. None of those sceniros really give me and others the opportunity to have access to a free market of Pvp. Heck I spent hours at a time on games waiting and waiting even in a guild and nothing. I just arena get bored wait and wait mine some gold. Come back do the same all over again.
There are many viable options to consider, this being one of them. The devs say a lot of things, it's what they do. In time, seeing how they are open and being some former pvpers of Archeage. I have a good feeling they will do something for us. It's not outside the realm of possibilities and I don't see it at launch. However I do feel in time they will incorporate something for more dedicated pvpers.
There may be many viable options. Breaking the Corruption system is not a viable option.
The devs may do something for you. They may incorporate something else for more dedicated PvPers. Whatever they do is not going to break their Corruption system - as perma-flagging would inherently do.
The Corruption system is disabled for caravans and sieges. If PvPers are fighting perma-flagged PvPers - then no one is gaining Corruption. Which means there is no point in having the Corruption system in the first place. Especially because a key purpose of the Corruption system is to push non-PvPers to flag as combatants more frequently than they normally would.
Most likely it would Dygz but my suggestion would not. Which was why I promoted my idea. His is one of others that had suggestions. I have been down this rodeo before, so I make sure that mine steps on nobody's toes. While providing something for us.
1: Steven wants to increase the incentive for players who typically avoid PvP combat to actually engage in combat. 2: Steven wants the Corruption system to have some meaning.
The Corruption system would be a completely broken mechanic if PvP lovers simply stayed flagged as combatants and non-PvPers were rarely if ever pushed to actively choose greater death penalties over minimum death penalties.
When I saw your name DYGZ I just knew it would be on about your anti pvp stance lol. It would not ruin the corruption system because those like me would fight would fight for the love of fighting. We will still need property, supplies, mats and so on. Pvp will just exist in two forms. If you really understood pvpers you'd know it's. not gonna slow us down having another viable option. It just gives us another option more inlined with our needs. You will have your nodes to protect, caravan to guard and so on. You will still get your pvp no less no more w/o another system in place.
And, yet, nowhere in your response to me did you mention "your suggestion". I fail to understand why you would single me out as responding to "your suggestion" when I did not mention you or your suggestion and you are not the OP.
I haven't specifically addressed dedicated PvP battlegrounds because, while I am highly skeptical that the devs will introduce one since they never mention it as a PvP combat option, there is a small enough chance that they might that it's not worth arguing against.
I have no interest in feeling uber or elite, nor am I interested in buffs for being flagged all the time. Please to pool all of us hardcore PvPers together and generalize. I just want to challenge myself and my opponents as much as possible.
Generalization is the opposite of blanket statement and whole.
In order for my statement to mean whole, I would have had to include a word like all or whole.
The fact that I did not is what makes my statement a generalization which inherently acknowledges exceptions.
Devs that wouldn't change a single thing based on community feedback would most definitely NOT be a wise devs.
Blindly sticking to own plan is not a good thing. So whoever glorifies a company firmly sticking to own plan and describes that as a good thing is very wrong.
Smart devs not only listen to community feedback, but modify their plans depending on the community feedback. Otherwise, what would be the point of feedback?
Some things will change and some will not. Again, the devs are highly unlikely to change their stance on flying and fast travel - regardless of player feedback. The same is true of manually perma-flagging for PvP. Otherwise, the devs would just make a WoW clone.
I do not think a manual perma-flag mechanic is needed, if upon implementation of the corruption system there is a noticeable lack of open world pvp then perhaps a change in the system is needed.
My concern when i started this thread was to encourage a broader group of people to be combatants. I'm specifically concerned to the way open world gathering is addressed and the posts i see. "I just want to gather" in a game where resources are limited there is no incentive for the "I just want to gather" player to flag purple, the punishment to the aggressor is steeper than remaining green and creates a bias to someone who enjoys pvp such as myself to REMAIN GREEN while out gathering because ultimately i know ill spawn in an area nearby and the other is now red for claiming/guarding/chasing me away from said resource.
I am not in anyway against the corruption system i just believe that in a game that is player driven content and economy the *current* (Alpha) implementation of the system leaves room for exploiting or griefing of people simply by remaining green.
I don't know why gatherers are that big of a target. Sure the one that are moving resources out of your node for trade/use are reasonable targets, but what's the point of PvP versus players that don't want to.
I am still not sure why some PvP fans are under the impression there won't be enough PvP in a game that hasn't had the wide (non-NDA) testing that would tell otherwise. If during the Alphas PvP dwindles to only occasional sieges, caravan strikes, etc. then something should be done to allow for and encourage more. Until then, it seems like the PvP crowd is trying to add PvP where it might not be needed.
I don't know why gatherers are that big of a target. Sure the one that are moving resources out of your node for trade/use are reasonable targets, but what's the point of PvP versus players that don't want to.
It's not only about progressing a node, it's a bout progressing yourself.
In a game with limited resources, if another player takes resources (even if player is from your node) this means you DON'T take resources, cause he already took them.
He gets cash for selling them and you don't. He buys better gear for himself, you don't.
That reason valid enough for you?
Other players are taking resources in a game with LIMITED resources. Who cares if they "want to" PvP or not? They are taking limited resources away from you, and you have a legit reason to attack them.
Them "not wanting" to PvP is their own problem. Well.. at least it should be THEIR own problem, but unfortunately Intrepid is making it YOUR problem by making you lose your stats and gear, for simply fighting for resources in resource limited game.
My concern when i started this thread was to encourage a broader group of people to be combatants. I'm specifically concerned to the way open world gathering is addressed and the posts i see. "I just want to gather" in a game where resources are limited there is no incentive for the "I just want to gather" player to flag purple, the punishment to the aggressor is steeper than remaining green and creates a bias to someone who enjoys pvp such as myself to REMAIN GREEN while out gathering because ultimately i know ill spawn in an area nearby and the other is now red for claiming/guarding/chasing me away from said resource.
I am not in anyway against the corruption system i just believe that in a game that is player driven content and economy the *current* (Alpha) implementation of the system leaves room for exploiting or griefing of people simply by remaining green.
The incentive for crafters to flag to purple is not wanting to deal with twice the death penalty and twice the lost of gathered resources. The punishment for the aggressor might be steeper if the aggressor kills the victim after the victim refuses to fight back. If the victim refuses to fight back, go find attack someone else and see if they are willing to fight back.
Alpha-0 doesn't have enough crafting to properly measure how well Corruption encourages greens to flag as combatant.
If I really wanted to steal resources without gaining Corruption, I would go raid a caravan, like an honorable bandit.
Comments
That would be the point. You have to chose, do you go purple, and be a free target while roaming around, or you go green, but then you don't get to temporarily go purple to have lighter death penalty when you chose so. You stay green, and if killed you die as green (even if you fought back you stay green).
The point of my suggestion would be a permanent color, until you change it in a city.
- you can't initiate attack against anyone
- you CAN defend yourself when attacked (but you remain green)
- if you win when attacked, you are still green, you get loot from enemy normally
- if you die, you die as green (even if you fought back) having green death penalty
- to change to purple you have to go to a city
2. You roam around as purple:
- you can initiate an attack against any player you see (and defend ofc.)
- if you win, you get loot based on if target was green or purple, also corruption based on who you kill (green or purple)
- if you die, you die as purple
- if you want to change to green you have to go to city
Also, again, I would be green 90% of the time because I don't go out specifically looking for PvP and have other things I like accomplishing. I am not going to flag purple and then be frustrated when I am engaged in PvP while trying to do other things.
I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of people would flag green (some/most might even fight back). In the end this would punish PvP more than it would encourage it. I think so at least.
What I would like to avoid is player going around, and then choosing color based on target he meets.
If he meets weak target, he purples up and attacks. If he meets strong target he pussy's out and stays green, so attackers get corruption if they kill him.
I would like for players choice to mean something, so if you venture out in woods green, you do not just get to purple up and attack weak target when you see it. You are green, no attacking allowed.
On the other hand if you go out purple, then you don't get to pussy out and switch to green if you meet a group of players and they start moving towards you.
This "color changing" based on situation, just feels extremely lame to me. I would LOVE to make players not be able to do that somehow, while still keeping other things cool, and not broken by this.
With that ruleset, I would not play Ashes at all. It basically inherently punishes non-PvPers and casual PvPers.
I see your point and agree, being able to change on a whim could allow for nit picking your fights. Unfortunately I don't see a way of implementing that fairly. It is a good thought experiment.
I think perma-flag purple with long term cool down would be okay. Even perma-flag green with long term cool down, but if attacked (and then fighting back) the player should be able to "go purple." Just be forced back into green. This however does nothing for the greens and is clearly lopsided when compared to perma-flag purple.
While I will still be pissed if some player attacks me when I'm not in the mood, I currently at least have the option of "flagging" purple and discontinuing the fight so it can end as quickly as possible.
I get a lesser death penalty and my assailant gets an easy kill with no Corruption.
Which is much better than being stuck at green, maximum death penalty and my assailant gaining Corruption.
The PvP lovers would fight for the love of fighting... without gaining Corruption.
Which means the Corruption system would be completely broken.
People don't gain Corruption from caravan PvP combat.
I am casual PvP; not anti-PvP.
And, all I did was explain why the devs won't choose a mechanic that breaks their Corruption system.
The Corruption system is their vision for an alternative to manual flagging. They aren't going to undermine that.
The answer is: No. Because it would break the Corruption system.
That is not an anti-PvP answer.
That is a "The devs are not going to break their Corruption mechanic in order to implement a flagging system that is basically the same as EQ or WoW" answer.
Of course, former EQ devs will have already considered perma-flagging as an option.
And rejected it in favor of their Corruption system.
(The devs aren't going to include global fast travel as an option, either.) 😉
( they have a plan and are sticking to it. ) Um nooooo That is impossible to know that. Nether you nor I have no idea what is or what will be in the future. You see dedicated pvpers as ****.... lol ok then. I think you are severely misguided (also a tad odd) I personally have not gotten the feeling from other pvpers they are trying to " push" anything on you or anyone else. It is more about something for us that has very negligible effects on you. What I suggested in a previous discussions would not effect you at all or anyone like you. It simple just gives ppl who love to pvp to pvp freely and openly. Perhaps you are afraid this will somehow disrupt the corruption system. I am not sure how many times I can say it. Pvpers will be pvp and you will still have to protect your nodes, caravans, mats, and so on. The majority of the world will be based on that principle. Thats like suggesting arena would destroy the corruption system. Well we are having arena and no it wont, thats silly. People will still need what only the pvx world can provide,and also pvpers are pvpers so having something aside for us wont make a virtual dent in the open free world at all. Understand what has been said from me and other pvpers is simple something for us not something changing or taking away from you or the rest of the community. You are aware of it, its there but you can continue on in your world doing whatever it is you do. It is good to see threads about it, it shows people are very interested in this idea.it is good for the devs to see yes there is a viable audience who want it. Saying nothing is the worst thing you can do, and so far I have seen a large community very interested in the idea. Being the nature this team seems to be. it is quite possible way down the road they just might offer us something. I am not asking for a total revision at all ( nor do I want it) personally I am just asking to add something just for us in the future. I doubt you would be upset if they added a new dungeon or something to that magnitude. Having a open world island you never have to step foot on with no beneficial aspects of going to it, other than just to pvp wont hurt you farming on your land you know.
Personally I think the devs have done a great job accommodating PvP players for many of the same reasons you do; Castles, Sieges, Caravan runs, open battlefields. I don't see why they would need another reason to PvP. If the PvP community has to be given so many reasons to PvP maybe that community is not as big or as dedicated as some might have suggested.
I have only noticed a few 'dedicated' PvP players that voice their concern for more reasons to do it, and they dislike of corruption. I have noticed many PvP players indicate they want to give it a go as is and are interested in the meaningful PvP like; Castles, Sieges, and Caravans.
The devs may do something for you. They may incorporate something else for more dedicated PvPers.
Whatever they do is not going to break their Corruption system - as perma-flagging would inherently do.
The Corruption system is disabled for caravans and sieges.
If PvPers are fighting perma-flagged PvPers - then no one is gaining Corruption.
Which means there is no point in having the Corruption system in the first place. Especially because a key purpose of the Corruption system is to push non-PvPers to flag as combatants more frequently than they normally would.
I fail to understand why you would single me out as responding to "your suggestion" when I did not mention you or your suggestion and you are not the OP.
I haven't specifically addressed dedicated PvP battlegrounds because, while I am highly skeptical that the devs will introduce one since they never mention it as a PvP combat option, there is a small enough chance that they might that it's not worth arguing against.
In order for my statement to mean whole, I would have had to include a word like all or whole.
The fact that I did not is what makes my statement a generalization which inherently acknowledges exceptions.
Blindly sticking to own plan is not a good thing. So whoever glorifies a company firmly sticking to own plan and describes that as a good thing is very wrong.
Smart devs not only listen to community feedback, but modify their plans depending on the community feedback. Otherwise, what would be the point of feedback?
Again, the devs are highly unlikely to change their stance on flying and fast travel - regardless of player feedback. The same is true of manually perma-flagging for PvP.
Otherwise, the devs would just make a WoW clone.
I am not in anyway against the corruption system i just believe that in a game that is player driven content and economy the *current* (Alpha) implementation of the system leaves room for exploiting or griefing of people simply by remaining green.
I am still not sure why some PvP fans are under the impression there won't be enough PvP in a game that hasn't had the wide (non-NDA) testing that would tell otherwise. If during the Alphas PvP dwindles to only occasional sieges, caravan strikes, etc. then something should be done to allow for and encourage more. Until then, it seems like the PvP crowd is trying to add PvP where it might not be needed.
It's not only about progressing a node, it's a bout progressing yourself.
In a game with limited resources, if another player takes resources (even if player is from your node) this means you DON'T take resources, cause he already took them.
He gets cash for selling them and you don't. He buys better gear for himself, you don't.
That reason valid enough for you?
Other players are taking resources in a game with LIMITED resources. Who cares if they "want to" PvP or not? They are taking limited resources away from you, and you have a legit reason to attack them.
Them "not wanting" to PvP is their own problem. Well.. at least it should be THEIR own problem, but unfortunately Intrepid is making it YOUR problem by making you lose your stats and gear, for simply fighting for resources in resource limited game.
and THAT is as stupid as it gets.
The punishment for the aggressor might be steeper if the aggressor kills the victim after the victim refuses to fight back.
If the victim refuses to fight back, go find attack someone else and see if they are willing to fight back.
Alpha-0 doesn't have enough crafting to properly measure how well Corruption encourages greens to flag as combatant.
If I really wanted to steal resources without gaining Corruption, I would go raid a caravan, like an honorable bandit.