Ya, i don't see the logic of a combatant dropping more than a non-combatant? Maybe cause as a combatant you actually fought and died? But that doesn't make sense... a non-combatant should drop the least amount cause he never pvp'ed?
Combatants will die more often than noncombatants.
Since they want to incentivize open world PvP they need to make it so people want to do it. If I lose the same or more than a non combatant while playing as a combatant, why would I ever take the risk of going combatant in the first place.
Picture this scenario: you're being attacked by someone while you were picking flowers and minding your own business. If you have less penalty as a noncombatant Why would you risk it and fight back; when if you just let that person kill you, you lose less than if you fight back and still lost. Many would not risk it.
Now in the same situation but if you risk it and fight back and lose you only lose half as you would have lost if you did nothing and let him kill you.
In which of the two scenarios above are people more likely to try to defend themselves? My guess is in the one where people are offered the chance to lose only half of their stuff if they try to fight back and lose. or none of their stuff and potentially gain their opponent's if they win.
This makes Open world PvP Combat more meaningful since people actually fighting back, makes for a more exciting and meaningful fight/experience than people just wanting/choosing to stand there and allow the opponent to kill them because they lose less stuff if they do nothing.
If Intrepid wants people to participate they need to make it rewarding or at least less punishing.
Comments