Question about corruption

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Wololo

you will both become a combatant but not gain additional corruption

Damokles

He will become a combatant, the second he hits a single target attack on you i believe. (Not 100% shure though)

Atama

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.

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.

unknownsystemerror

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.

Undead Canuck

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.

Dygz

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 Canuck

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.

Noaani

UndeadCanadianGamer wrote: »

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.

Atama

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.

unknownsystemerror

(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.

Damokles

UndeadCanadianGamer wrote: »

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

Joseline

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`?

Damokles

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!

Undead Canuck

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

(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.

Azathoth

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.

leamese

Thanks for all the replies, I get it now!

leamese

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 Canuck

So if everyone fights back 'which is how IS wants to encourage more PVP', nobody will get corruption and the gankers win.

Caeryl

UndeadCanadianGamer wrote: »

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.

unknownsystemerror

Child Item