Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Question about corruption

leameseleamese Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If a green player (has no corruption yet) starts attacking me, and I decide to fight back and I win the fight, wool I gain corruption even though it was defensive? What if the player that attacks me Already has corruption?
«1

Comments

  • WololoWololo Member, Phoenix Initiative, Hero of the People, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    you will both become a combatant but not gain additional corruption
    Wololo.png
  • DamoklesDamokles Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited October 2019
    He will become a combatant, the second he hits a single target attack on you i believe. (Not 100% shure though)
    KkvMmA5.png
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    A green player can’t have corruption. If you have corruption, you’re red. The two are mutually exclusive. So the green player attacking you can’t have corruption.

    Green attacking green turns purple immediately. If you fight back you’d be a green attacking purple, and would turn purple. In that situation neither would gain corruption if either died.

    If you don’t fight back and you die, he goes from purple to red as he gains corruption.

    pvp_flagging_diagram.png

    You can read about the system in more detail here:
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

    The only thing I don’t get is that according to that page, a green player who attacks a red player stays green. So if you’re attacked by a corrupt player while not flagged for PvP and you fight back you stay green. But that would mean if the red player kills you, you would die as a green player. And a non-combatant suffers greater death penalties. So does that mean that if you are green and your enemy is too strong to beat and you can’t run away, you’re hosed? That doesn’t seem right.

    I suspect that the chart above is wrong on that point. I think that if a green player who fights back against a red character becomes purple. Other statements I’ve read suggest as much.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Nope, a green player stays green when attacking corrupted players. You only flag purple when you force flag on another green or purple. The issue of dropping green flagged percentage when attacking reds was brought up and we are still waiting on an answer for it. Steven said a long time back that the system looks at corrupted players as mobs in game. So just as a green or purple attacking a mob will not force flag, attacking a red will also not. There are also going to be "areas surrounding" things like dungeons and other POI that will reduce the % of dropped materials further to discourage open world dungeon camping and griefing.
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    One of the issues I have with the corruption system is the greater penalty for greens. I get that this game has lots of PVP. I just don't get why non-combatants are penalized for not fighting back. There is a corruption system to deter griefers. But if you fight back, you turn purple and thereby bypass the corruption system. The best way to actually activate the corruption system is to not fight back. But then you lose more.

    Is there an easy way to understand why using the corruption system to deter griefers penalizes the person more for supporting that system?

    And I agree with @Atama on the red attacking a green causing even more grief as the green doesn't change. I am not sure if that is what IS wants as well.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    There is not a greater penalty for greens.
    Greens get normal death penalty - same as if killed by a mob.
    Purple gets half normal death penalty.
    Combatants are rewarded for flagging for combat.
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Sorry, but how do you figure that double the penalty (green) is not greater (purple being half of green)? I don't get that calculation.
    2 > 1.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Is there an easy way to understand why using the corruption system to deter griefers penalizes the person more for supporting that system?
    Yes.

    Intrepid want to encourage concentual open world PvP, and discourage but not disallow non-consented open world PvP. This is the key to understanding almost the entire game.

    Now, say you are a player out looking for open world PvP, and you see another player. You could ask this player if they concent to PvP with you, but now you are in a duel situation rather than open PvP.

    So, the only thing the player looking for open PvP can do is attack you. On doing this, they have to flag as a combatant, which in itself is a potential negative.

    Now switch positions and look at things from the perspective of the player being attacked. You can fight back, in which case you are literally saying that this is concentual open world PvP, exactly what Intrepid want to encourage, and so the least potential penalty for anyone involved.

    However, you can also refuse to give concent, and not fight back. This is now non-concented PvP, which Intrepid want to discourage, but still allow.

    Now switch back to the perspective of the attacker.

    If the defender fought back, he got the open PvP he wanted. If the defender DOESN'T fight back, the attacker has the option of ending the engagement without killing the other player, meaning they don't gain corruption, as you only get corruption when you kill another player.

    They will still be flagged as a combatant, making them better targets for others lookong for PvP.

    When you look at the system from the point of view of what Intrepid want, it all makes sense.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Dygz wrote: »
    There is not a greater penalty for greens.
    Greens get normal death penalty - same as if killed by a mob.
    Purple gets half normal death penalty.
    Combatants are rewarded for flagging for combat.
    Half a dozen is the same as six.

    1 is double 1/2. So if you’d get 1/2 penalty when dying as purple, then the penalty of dying while green is mathematically doubled. Hence, your statement is factually incorrect. Green players are penalized more.

    We’re not comparing dying while green in PvP to PvE. This is a PvP death penalty discussion. That’s an unnecessary and confusing tangent.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    (actual number of flowers may vary) Die in PVE...drop 10 flowers as green. Die in PVP...drop 10 flowers as green. The penalties are the same. There is no difference in the flagging system. PVX is the word of the day.
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • DamoklesDamokles Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Sorry, but how do you figure that double the penalty (green) is not greater (purple being half of green)? I don't get that calculation.
    2 > 1.

    You have to think about it another way:
    It is not 2>1 but rather 1>0.5
    KkvMmA5.png
  • So staying green is almost impossible as the only way to stay green is to never fight back and just get killed? (as I guess running away wont always be an option)

    The thought of a green bounty hunter sounds intresting
    Something like selective or conditional pacifism
    but that seems rather impossible`?
  • DamoklesDamokles Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Joseline wrote: »
    So staying green is almost impossible as the only way to stay green is to never fight back and just get killed? (as I guess running away wont always be an option)

    The thought of a green bounty hunter sounds intresting
    Something like selective or conditional pacifism
    but that seems rather impossible`?

    A green player can defend himself...
    If the other person attacks you, then you can defend yourself, without getting marked as a combatant.
    You get turned into a combatant, the second that you, as a green player, attack someone first!
    KkvMmA5.png
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    (actual number of flowers may vary) Die in PVE...drop 10 flowers as green. Die in PVP...drop 10 flowers as green. The penalties are the same. There is no difference in the flagging system. PVX is the word of the day.

    Die as purple, drop 5 flowers. That is why we are saying that the penalties are doubled when you are green.
  • AzathothAzathoth Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    If you don't fight back and die you receive the same penalties as if a mob attacked you (or you it) and you died.

    Therefore, the death penalty is the same. Unless you consider the death penalty harsh, I don't see how this could be.

    If you flag you drop half your stuff. Therefore there is incentive to fight back. Which is how IS wants to encourage more PvP in Ashes.
    57597603_387667588743769_477625458809110528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=16e82247154b84484b7f627c0ac76fca&oe=5D448BDD
    +1 Skull & Crown metal coin
  • leameseleamese Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Thanks for all the replies, I get it now!
  • leameseleamese Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    We all know it's pvx servers. As long as it is fair it's OK. There will be times when we die to ganks or just lose pvp battle and drop loot. That's part of the game :)
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    So if everyone fights back 'which is how IS wants to encourage more PVP', nobody will get corruption and the gankers win.
  • So if everyone fights back 'which is how IS wants to encourage more PVP', nobody will get corruption and the gankers win.

    If you lose the fight then yes the ganker wins. But you also lose less, risk no corruption, and potentially stand to gain by fighting back successfully.

    You can give the ganker corruption or you can take a smaller loss in the case you lose the fight.
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    3dmjoi.png
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited October 2019
    The death penalty is not doubled when green.
    Rather, the death penalty is halved when purple.



  • Dygz wrote: »
    The death penalty is not doubled when green.
    Rather, the death penalty is halved when purple.



    It’s not arguable that green players have double the penalty of purple whether you say purple is 0.5 and green is 1.0, or purple is 1.0 and green is 2.0. It’s all the same.

    That being said, green players taking a bigger hit than purple seems fine. Either you value payback via corruption, or you value the materials themselves more highly. Rewarding passive play and punishing all aggression would mean that instead of PvX, it’s would be a PvE game where everyone who focuses on PvP is penalized for even agreed-on PvP.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    You are correct - it is not arguable.
    The death penalty for non-combatants is not double. It is the normal death penalty.
    The death penalty for combatants is half normal.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Dygz wrote: »
    You are correct - it is not arguable.
    The death penalty for non-combatants is not double. It is the normal death penalty.
    The death penalty for combatants is half normal.
    What is normal? To someone who engages in consensual PvP frequently, the purple penalty is normal. Again this splitting hairs with semantics is ridiculous and wrong. “The glass isn’t half empty, it’s half full and never half empty!” That’s an ignorant statement.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • Dygz wrote: »
    You are correct - it is not arguable.
    The death penalty for non-combatants is not double. It is the normal death penalty.
    The death penalty for combatants is half normal.

    Green is double purple. Purple is half of green.

    Either both of those statements are true or neither are. You’re being ridiculous.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited October 2019
    I will admit that if a player engages almost exclusively in PvE and runs around “green” all of the time, if he gets ganked the death penalty will feel normal. It would be no different than what that player experiences and should not feel like an extra penalty.

    But the PvP system that IS has set up discourages non-consensual ganking through an increasingly harsh corruption system. Because of that, you should expect most of the PvP to be consensual; “purple on purple” action. Therefore from the PvP perspective, the “half penalty” should feel normal, meaning the “dying in PvP while green” penalty would seem like double the usual.

    In a discussion on PvP death penalties if you start from the perspective of what is typical in PvE you are making a flawed argument. That’s like talking about minor league baseball team salaries and using the salaries of MLB teams as the “normal” salary amount, and then talking about how a particular player isn’t being paid very much even if he’s making double what anyone else on his team makes. You’re using the wrong perspective and confusing the subject.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • Some of the planned corruption penalties sounds quite harsh, not sure though, because any testing have not done yet. I personally like open world PvP action, but I have still being okay with the set rules from the beginning. There is two reasons; I get that same preventive protection of this system like others, so I am going to be less ganked. I have also stopped to worry about the harsh system and I have tried to think of ways how I can still enjoy the open world PvP. I know some people will hate me after these upcoming comments, but hey, at least I am trying to stay within the rules. ;)

    Bountyhunting is one of the features, which I am excited to see in practise and maybe something I am going to focus with open world PvP, nothing special there though. I am going to use mainly alts for ganking so I do not need to worry about my reputation. I wear only gear what I am afford to loose. I can take more corruption and still be in safe, if I am wandering around in a group. I will select my targets wisely and attack mostly gatherers with mules (most profitable target). With a group (or 1 friend is enough, or skilled players can solo) I can do baiting and provoke people to attack me, and then fight back without getting any corruption. Cribbling down the road as combatant/corrupted and with my fat and juicy donkey is my favorite. Easy and desirable target for most people, but who would know about my friends in the bushes. B)

    As a protection for my plans, my main goal with open OWPvP is profit, and I am trying to do that as fun way as I can. If possible, I am going to gank players who are from a different town/city and who has different ZOI. Can I slow down the progression of other towns/cities if I distract their gathering activities for example? I would like to see here a political aspect as well.

    Does anyone have more tips and tricks for the open world PvP? Any loop holes? ;)
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited October 2019
    Atama wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    You are correct - it is not arguable.
    The death penalty for non-combatants is not double. It is the normal death penalty.
    The death penalty for combatants is half normal.
    What is normal? To someone who engages in consensual PvP frequently, the purple penalty is normal. Again this splitting hairs with semantics is ridiculous and wrong. “The glass isn’t half empty, it’s half full and never half empty!” That’s an ignorant statement.

    Normal is the base death penalty. Same death penalty you get when killed by mobs. As defined by the devs.
    It's not semantics.
    Doesn't matter what it "feels" like. What it feels like is subjective.
    Objectively, greens get the normal death penalty. Purples get half the normal death penalty.

    It's not even an argument. It's just plain facts:
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_death
    "A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties.
    A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant."

    https://youtu.be/eCvcB4S-tZM?t=2700
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Okay, I understand, you’re unable to get it. I’m moving on. Luckily others can reason so they’ve gotten my point.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Dygz wrote: »
    It's not semantics.
    You guys are arguing whether 1 vs 0.5 is the same as 2 vs 1.

    That is literally the definition of semantics.
Sign In or Register to comment.