But no one is talking about the green guy gaining corruption. We're talking about the corrupted guy not having the possibility of self defense if attacked by a green else he'd worsen his corruption even more.
It's not my fault you are trying to have the wrong conversation.
There is no situation at all in which the story begins with a player being corrupted - if that is where you are starting your narrative, you are purposefully ignoring the start of that story.
If you start your narrative at the actual start, then there is a completely different story to tell.
Good thing I wrote an entire post and you cherry picked one small part because you know that the rest completely defeats your argumentation.
But no one is talking about the green guy gaining corruption. We're talking about the corrupted guy not having the possibility of self defense if attacked by a green else he'd worsen his corruption even more.
It's not my fault you are trying to have the wrong conversation.
There is no situation at all in which the story begins with a player being corrupted - if that is where you are starting your narrative, you are purposefully ignoring the start of that story.
If you start your narrative at the actual start, then there is a completely different story to tell.
Good thing I wrote an entire post and you cherry picked one small part because you know that the rest completely defeats your argumentation.
Edit; as to your two examples, in the first one, go and do something else, or kill him and take the consequences like an adult.
In the second one, we have no reason to assume this will be possible.
So first: Get griefed or grief yourself? Is that your solution? XDDD
Second: You only gain corruption if you kill someone apparently, so why would it be impossible?
Edit; as to your two examples, in the first one, go and do something else, or kill him and take the consequences like an adult.
In the second one, we have no reason to assume this will be possible.
So first: Get griefed or grief yourself? Is that your solution? XDDD
Second: You only gain corruption if you kill someone apparently, so why would it be impossible?
Consequences are not getting griefed. I'm not sure how you could make that connection. You are in a situation, you have choices, the consequences of which are laid out clearly.
If I were in that first situation, I probably would kill the player. Then I would have corruption, and that was my choice. Should someone come along and kill attack me - as is their right to do - I can't complain about anything as the corruption I have was my chosing. When I am thus attacked, I have another choice to make, and the decision I make here will also impact the next choice I have to make.
If the suggestions in this thread were put in game, there wouldn't really be a choice. You would attack that player without even thinking about it.
In fact, if you were farming an area and another player simply came in to view, the thought of attacking and killing them would be right at the front of your mind - which should never be the first thought you have when seeing a player in a game.
As to the second, there will be small revisions made to the system for things like this. Intrepid have said this before - they want to see what kind of behavior we come up with in alpha, and then they will implement systems to prevent the parts of that behavior that they do not want. Attacking a player and leaving them for a mob to finish off absolutely fits in to that.
So, while we don't have specific systems in place to deal with it, we have no reason to assume that it will be possible by the time the game goes live.
Attacking a player and leaving them for a mob to finish off absolutely fits in to that.
But then, if they fix it, how do you not gain corruption if you poke someone to try to initiate a fight and he removes all his gear and jump inside a pack of mobs to screw you over, despite you having no intention to PK in the first place?
This is where the line starts getting really blurry and fixing some abuse will create other abuses. This is why an overprotective system is not good.
Attacking a player and leaving them for a mob to finish off absolutely fits in to that.
But then, if they fix it, how do you not gain corruption if you poke someone to try to initiate a fight and he removes all his gear and jump inside a pack of mobs to screw you over
This is why they haven't said anything about a possible system just yet - because they want to actually see how player behavior goes and then see what needs to be done.
But, if there was a 5 second timer from when you attack until you are still able to gain corruption if the target dies - then if you are going to pick a fight with them you want to do so at a point where they are more than 5 seconds away from the nearest mob.
Again, it's all on you as to how things go - which is the makings of a good system.
To the OP many of the systems and flaws you described are things that have been mentioned multiple times by us over the past years. However, we in A1 will be testing the corruption system and giving direct feedback as steven stated in live streams.
However, you will not get a PVP server with lighter corruption, there are many opportunities to free flag on players such as caravans, sieges etc.. Intrepid does not want to have those servers, they want to create conflict amongst players by having all of the systems and players from different backgrounds collide. That's why they won't have specific servers such as PVP/PVE/RP servers its part of their game philosophy.
But no one is talking about the green guy gaining corruption. We're talking about the corrupted guy not having the possibility of self defense if attacked by a green else he'd worsen his corruption even more.
It's not my fault you are trying to have the wrong conversation.
There is no situation at all in which the story begins with a player being corrupted - if that is where you are starting your narrative, you are purposefully ignoring the start of that story.
If you start your narrative at the actual start, then there is a completely different story to tell.
Good thing I wrote an entire post and you cherry picked one small part because you know that the rest completely defeats your argumentation.
He does that, is has ONE view and it is that he is right and u are wrong. I assume it is a he, shoot me lol.
I do not want to speak on your behalf and I do not want to assume but I feel like I have an idea that might branch off. So... let's forget how you became a corrupted player, doesn't matter you are corrupted and you want to better your life, but now people want to completely put you down and harass you. You now can't do anything but take it and take and take until finally, you become uncorrupted. Much like our real-life system, there are innocent people who become a convict or someone is put in a situation where they are pushed into it and those people have a very hard time trying to get back to being normal. In this game you are saying it is too hard to get back to normal because you an open target, you can't keep gear on you and you can be exploited. Now I do not know enough to comment on this but hopefully, this explains where you are coming from.
I could also take it in the direction that you chose to become corrupted for whatever reason and you like it, you like being "red" or "flagged", how yes that first few kills most likely were done vs an unwilling person, maybe it was a set up as you stated above but lets assume you are now corrupted because you chose the hard life path. you can now fight off waves of bounty hunters and that is VERY fun, you can now have a completely new way to play this game without killing a single new unwilling person ever, you only kill other like-minded individuals BUT not you can also be target by "green" or "non-flagged" because you are their opponents and there is more risk involved like the potential to gain further corruption even if you never intended to kill a single unwilling participant ever again you someone get flagged to one and now you are even more corrupted and you are literally easier to kill per the rules of the system and it gets worse and worse for you even though you went out of your way to not kill unwilling participants you accidentally do. That will be a hard thing to balance and maybe it isn't worth it but that is a secondary way to look at it and as much as someone people will say "you chose that life" we have to admit that it is true, however, there should be a way to become less further corrupted by people exploiting a system set up to protect unwilling participants. I agree this particular situation is a stretch but it exists and is thankfully being addressed as a topic openly by the devs.
@khana I see your point of view after coming from BDO myself.
There is a huge difference between AoC and BDO. If you kill someone in BDO they incur no penalty . If you kill someone in AoC they lose exp even more so if they do not defend on top of that you get a % of their loot.
There is no risk for someone to grind over top and grief your rotation in BDO (originally they lost EXP but that was removed and karma was never reworked). There is a Risk for them to grind over top of you in AoC and there is a reward for you to punish them for doing so. There is also risk for you in doing so. Will you be able to clear your corruption before someone has time to collect on your bounty.
cant wait for the non pvp griefer, cant wait for you to ENJOY it. Lets see how happy your pve gameplay will be then. In case people basically are forced not to kill someone they will just follow the guy and hit all the mobs hes gonna try to hit if he has more dmg it will be no problem to destroy his gameplay until he stops.
exactly this, people will find a way, that's why u give people a path to being bad, so truly degenerate gameplay doesn't evolve lol, u contain the chaos by letting it think it is winning a little ;D
cant wait for the non pvp griefer, cant wait for you to ENJOY it. Lets see how happy your pve gameplay will be then. In case people basically are forced not to kill someone they will just follow the guy and hit all the mobs hes gonna try to hit if he has more dmg it will be no problem to destroy his gameplay until he stops.
exactly this, people will find a way, that's why u give people a path to being bad, so truly degenerate gameplay doesn't evolve lol, u contain the chaos by letting it think it is winning a little ;D
Exactly, create a way for those interested to do so without bothering the others. That is worth discussing without input from people clearly not interest or will not be involved. Nobody is promoting griefing here, we are looking for constructive ways to be good vs bad and bad vs good. There way already, we know but we are exploring more ways.
cant wait for the non pvp griefer, cant wait for you to ENJOY it. Lets see how happy your pve gameplay will be then. In case people basically are forced not to kill someone they will just follow the guy and hit all the mobs hes gonna try to hit if he has more dmg it will be no problem to destroy his gameplay until he stops.
exactly this, people will find a way, that's why u give people a path to being bad, so truly degenerate gameplay doesn't evolve lol, u contain the chaos by letting it think it is winning a little ;D
Exactly, create a way for those interested to do so without bothering the others. That is worth discussing without input from people clearly not interest or will not be involved. Nobody is promoting griefing here, we are looking for constructive ways to be good vs bad and bad vs good. There way already, we know but we are exploring more ways.
But killing non combatant players is not being bad.
All I hear is basically "I want to do whatever I want without any consequences".
Choices matter. So if you chose to kill someone next to you, and that person is clearly NOT interested in fighting you back, and you KEEP hitting that person for 30 to 60 seconds until they die, you get corrupted.
Now... did you have a chance, a time to re-evaluate your decision? Hell yeah.
Did you choose to kill the player nonetheless? If you did, why are you complaining? That player who clearly didn't want to engage in PvP took a harsher dead penalty, lost half of resources and now needs to come back to the place where he died to keep farming or just go somewhere else.
Could he come back to kill you? Yes. Are you corrupted? Yes. So he has every right to kill you now that you're red.
Are you still on the same spot you killed him? Well, that was your choice. If you took the risk to become corrupted, now assume the risk to be killed by people and get even more corrupted yourself if you killed them.
Why is this allowed? Because the game doesn't want you to engage in non consensual PvP.
The system is copy and pasted directly from Lineage 2. In Lineage 2 world pvp was a huge part of the game. It was an event in itself just to stop some players from ravaging an entire town by themselves. Despite similar drawbacks. I'm pretty sure Lineage 2 probably had a higher chance to drop gear than this game probably will.
None of the systems are finalized yet. So this is a vague guideline at best. This is more how they hope it is going to work. The reality might be a little different. Lineage 2 didn't really have a node system and polished combat.
cant wait for the non pvp griefer, cant wait for you to ENJOY it. Lets see how happy your pve gameplay will be then. In case people basically are forced not to kill someone they will just follow the guy and hit all the mobs hes gonna try to hit if he has more dmg it will be no problem to destroy his gameplay until he stops.
exactly this, people will find a way, that's why u give people a path to being bad, so truly degenerate gameplay doesn't evolve lol, u contain the chaos by letting it think it is winning a little ;D
Exactly, create a way for those interested to do so without bothering the others. That is worth discussing without input from people clearly not interest or will not be involved. Nobody is promoting griefing here, we are looking for constructive ways to be good vs bad and bad vs good. There way already, we know but we are exploring more ways.
But killing non combatant players is not being bad.
All I hear is basically "I want to do whatever I want without any consequences".
Choices matter. So if you chose to kill someone next to you, and that person is clearly NOT interested in fighting you back, and you KEEP hitting that person for 30 to 60 seconds until they die, you get corrupted.
Now... did you have a chance, a time to re-evaluate your decision? Hell yeah.
Did you choose to kill the player nonetheless? If you did, why are you complaining? That player who clearly didn't want to engage in PvP took a harsher dead penalty, lost half of resources and now needs to come back to the place where he died to keep farming or just go somewhere else.
Could he come back to kill you? Yes. Are you corrupted? Yes. So he has every right to kill you now that you're red.
Are you still on the same spot you killed him? Well, that was your choice. If you took the risk to become corrupted, now assume the risk to be killed by people and get even more corrupted yourself if you killed them.
Why is this allowed? Because the game doesn't want you to engage in non consensual PvP.
I think you are getting lost in a point you are making.... I may also be getting threads mixed up here but I never said corruption is bad so remove it, and I never said I wanted to kill someone unwillingly and I should be able to. I strongly get the feeling you are cheery picking things and that is just lazy conversation.
Please follow along with the entire thread and also please keep the conversation moving, keep ideas flowing and present different options or views not just right and wrong or you don't like this type of stuff. This is supposed to be a conversation, not an argument.
The system is copy and pasted directly from Lineage 2. In Lineage 2 world pvp was a huge part of the game. It was an event in itself just to stop some players from ravaging an entire town by themselves. Despite similar drawbacks. I'm pretty sure Lineage 2 probably had a higher chance to drop gear than this game probably will.
None of the systems are finalized yet. So this is a vague guideline at best. This is more how they hope it is going to work. The reality might be a little different. Lineage 2 didn't really have a node system and polished combat.
Very good points! I would assume that you played L2 then and know what it was like first hand, we all know Steven took a lot of damn content from L2 so it will be much like it which isn't bad but can be better. Each time the devs get on a site or stream and talk to us, they reveal more and more and we get tiny leaks of what is being tested. This thread and many others are just discussions and a means to ask some questions and get some dialog going. Truly there is no right or wrong, it is all speculative even if a dev directly said something, the game isn't finished and subject to change based on many factors. So keep up the good responses and keep the forum moving forward in conversation and present some ideas for everything to expand on!
If your pissed because I'm picking "your flowers", maybe try asking nicely if I wouldn't mind moving someplace else before slapping me upside the head. I would move, I have done it before in other games...no big deal. If I continues to pick "your flowers" that you are so connected to then slap him a couple times to show that your serious. If I continue to pick your precious flowers then go ahead beat the crap out of me, but if you do the crime, you gotta do the time.
If your pissed because I'm picking "your flowers", maybe try asking nicely if I wouldn't mind moving someplace else before slapping me upside the head. I would move, I have done it before in other games...no big deal. If I continues to pick "your flowers" that you are so connected to then slap him a couple times to show that your serious. If I continue to pick your precious flowers then go ahead beat the crap out of me, but if you do the crime, you gotta do the time.
I picture some simple low-level farm boy roleplaying as he says this to some guy decked out in raid gear. LoL
He does that, is has ONE view and it is that he is right and u are wrong.
If I quote a small portion of a post, and only reply to it, it is because either I don't care about the rest, or (more often) because the whole post is so wrong either factually or logically that I simply can't be bothered replying to the whole thing.
If there are parts of a post I agree with and parts I don't, I make a point of pointing that out.
I could (and sometimes do) completely rip longer posts to shreads, individually going over each point made and explaining why it is either factually wrong, or a weak opinion to have based on the persons other stated opinions. Although I won't usually do this until I have been in a debate with that person on a number of topics, in order to gain an insight in to their opinion on more than one thing.
Why don't we just settle feuds with words . Lol jk.
But FR, people will PK regardless of the drawbacks of the corruption system. The system is set up as it is to discourage griefing - which, clearly from this thread, many people would part take in. IMO the system is fine and makes the game playable/enjoyable from both accounts. Lighter corruption is no-no for me because then you'll have server imbalance.
You seem to mistake Open world PvP with competitive PvP? (Going on your first point); as @noaani mentioned, there will be a plethora of viable PvP content to choose from. All hold their set of consequences. If you kill some noob because they've pissed you off, get ready to be smacked down from a bounty hunt. I find it silly to want relaxed rules for the same actions - but maybe that's just me .
If you kill some noob because they've pissed you off, get ready to be smacked down from a bounty hunt. I find it silly to want relaxed rules for the same actions - but maybe that's just me .
Godspeed friend!
Regardless if the guy is a noob or no, because that's not the point here and that's once again trying to justify this BS by assuming that the guy who got killed couldn't retaliate, I don't mind being chased around by bounty hunters, that's part of the fun, the issue here is the bunch of non flagged players that will jump on you just because they can since you can't retaliate without worsening your corruption.
Stop twisting the facts the same way the 10 or so ppl before you tried to do, it's getting boring to have to repeat the same things over and over because people always assume that: 1/ the guy who got killed is the poor victim who did nothing wrong and had no chance to fight, and 2/ the killer is the evil chaos loving madman who's gonna slaughter lowbies all day and camp them with a zerg.
I personally think that they should make gear drop corruption state only activate if you kill a player that is 5-10 levels lower than you. Anything else is fair game. You get kills, get corruption, bounty on your head and that's it.
2
Options
VolgaireMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In the first place if you don't go around killing non-combatants then you won't get corrupted or am I missing something? If you want to randomly kill players then just be prepared that they might not fight back or they are low hp so you can get flagged, the consequence of that is getting corrupted.
The system has not been tested properly yet so guessing what will or will not go wrong and getting all worked up about it is pointless.
I personally think that they should make gear drop corruption state only activate if you kill a player that is 5-10 levels lower than you. Anything else is fair game. You get kills, get corruption, bounty on your head and that's it.
I do find myself liking your idea more but I fear it is because I know I will most likely have a few characters dedicated to a bad guy role. I like heavily penalizing the most negative aspects of open pvp like camping and big level gap pk'ing. I do not feel if you and I are the same level that I should be punished as much but yes to balance the game and keep it as user friendly but still allowing open pvp then the current system as is, really isn't bad at all.
The sad part is that I like the system and I actually want them to go deeper with it. I absolutely love the idea of being corrupted and fighting off bounty hunters and making a name for yourself as that bounty that made it up to so many days without being captured, and no I am not saying that I'd be running around ganking people as a purple/red. I'd be fighting other purps/reds and those greens whos balls drop and they want to square off against someone who makes it their way of gaming to be a purp/red. Then you have players who choose to take a bounty, like a questline option that makes you maybe a different color to us bad guys and we have cat and mouse chases and fights and these bounty hunters deserve a reward for killing us bad guys and I feel like successfully defending off bounty hunters should lead to something.
Not asking to reward people ganking or griefing innocent players.
And before another person says corruption is a deterrent, we frigging know. This is hypothetical talk in a thread that promotes discussion on such topics.
Comments
Good thing I wrote an entire post and you cherry picked one small part because you know that the rest completely defeats your argumentation.
Check the edit.
So first: Get griefed or grief yourself? Is that your solution? XDDD
Second: You only gain corruption if you kill someone apparently, so why would it be impossible?
Consequences are not getting griefed. I'm not sure how you could make that connection. You are in a situation, you have choices, the consequences of which are laid out clearly.
If I were in that first situation, I probably would kill the player. Then I would have corruption, and that was my choice. Should someone come along and kill attack me - as is their right to do - I can't complain about anything as the corruption I have was my chosing. When I am thus attacked, I have another choice to make, and the decision I make here will also impact the next choice I have to make.
If the suggestions in this thread were put in game, there wouldn't really be a choice. You would attack that player without even thinking about it.
In fact, if you were farming an area and another player simply came in to view, the thought of attacking and killing them would be right at the front of your mind - which should never be the first thought you have when seeing a player in a game.
As to the second, there will be small revisions made to the system for things like this. Intrepid have said this before - they want to see what kind of behavior we come up with in alpha, and then they will implement systems to prevent the parts of that behavior that they do not want. Attacking a player and leaving them for a mob to finish off absolutely fits in to that.
So, while we don't have specific systems in place to deal with it, we have no reason to assume that it will be possible by the time the game goes live.
But then, if they fix it, how do you not gain corruption if you poke someone to try to initiate a fight and he removes all his gear and jump inside a pack of mobs to screw you over, despite you having no intention to PK in the first place?
This is where the line starts getting really blurry and fixing some abuse will create other abuses. This is why an overprotective system is not good.
But, if there was a 5 second timer from when you attack until you are still able to gain corruption if the target dies - then if you are going to pick a fight with them you want to do so at a point where they are more than 5 seconds away from the nearest mob.
Again, it's all on you as to how things go - which is the makings of a good system.
However, you will not get a PVP server with lighter corruption, there are many opportunities to free flag on players such as caravans, sieges etc.. Intrepid does not want to have those servers, they want to create conflict amongst players by having all of the systems and players from different backgrounds collide. That's why they won't have specific servers such as PVP/PVE/RP servers its part of their game philosophy.
He does that, is has ONE view and it is that he is right and u are wrong. I assume it is a he, shoot me lol.
I do not want to speak on your behalf and I do not want to assume but I feel like I have an idea that might branch off. So... let's forget how you became a corrupted player, doesn't matter you are corrupted and you want to better your life, but now people want to completely put you down and harass you. You now can't do anything but take it and take and take until finally, you become uncorrupted. Much like our real-life system, there are innocent people who become a convict or someone is put in a situation where they are pushed into it and those people have a very hard time trying to get back to being normal. In this game you are saying it is too hard to get back to normal because you an open target, you can't keep gear on you and you can be exploited. Now I do not know enough to comment on this but hopefully, this explains where you are coming from.
I could also take it in the direction that you chose to become corrupted for whatever reason and you like it, you like being "red" or "flagged", how yes that first few kills most likely were done vs an unwilling person, maybe it was a set up as you stated above but lets assume you are now corrupted because you chose the hard life path. you can now fight off waves of bounty hunters and that is VERY fun, you can now have a completely new way to play this game without killing a single new unwilling person ever, you only kill other like-minded individuals BUT not you can also be target by "green" or "non-flagged" because you are their opponents and there is more risk involved like the potential to gain further corruption even if you never intended to kill a single unwilling participant ever again you someone get flagged to one and now you are even more corrupted and you are literally easier to kill per the rules of the system and it gets worse and worse for you even though you went out of your way to not kill unwilling participants you accidentally do. That will be a hard thing to balance and maybe it isn't worth it but that is a secondary way to look at it and as much as someone people will say "you chose that life" we have to admit that it is true, however, there should be a way to become less further corrupted by people exploiting a system set up to protect unwilling participants. I agree this particular situation is a stretch but it exists and is thankfully being addressed as a topic openly by the devs.
There is a huge difference between AoC and BDO. If you kill someone in BDO they incur no penalty . If you kill someone in AoC they lose exp even more so if they do not defend on top of that you get a % of their loot.
There is no risk for someone to grind over top and grief your rotation in BDO (originally they lost EXP but that was removed and karma was never reworked). There is a Risk for them to grind over top of you in AoC and there is a reward for you to punish them for doing so. There is also risk for you in doing so. Will you be able to clear your corruption before someone has time to collect on your bounty.
exactly this, people will find a way, that's why u give people a path to being bad, so truly degenerate gameplay doesn't evolve lol, u contain the chaos by letting it think it is winning a little ;D
Exactly, create a way for those interested to do so without bothering the others. That is worth discussing without input from people clearly not interest or will not be involved. Nobody is promoting griefing here, we are looking for constructive ways to be good vs bad and bad vs good. There way already, we know but we are exploring more ways.
But killing non combatant players is not being bad.
All I hear is basically "I want to do whatever I want without any consequences".
Choices matter. So if you chose to kill someone next to you, and that person is clearly NOT interested in fighting you back, and you KEEP hitting that person for 30 to 60 seconds until they die, you get corrupted.
Now... did you have a chance, a time to re-evaluate your decision? Hell yeah.
Did you choose to kill the player nonetheless? If you did, why are you complaining? That player who clearly didn't want to engage in PvP took a harsher dead penalty, lost half of resources and now needs to come back to the place where he died to keep farming or just go somewhere else.
Could he come back to kill you? Yes. Are you corrupted? Yes. So he has every right to kill you now that you're red.
Are you still on the same spot you killed him? Well, that was your choice. If you took the risk to become corrupted, now assume the risk to be killed by people and get even more corrupted yourself if you killed them.
Why is this allowed? Because the game doesn't want you to engage in non consensual PvP.
None of the systems are finalized yet. So this is a vague guideline at best. This is more how they hope it is going to work. The reality might be a little different. Lineage 2 didn't really have a node system and polished combat.
U.S. East
I think you are getting lost in a point you are making.... I may also be getting threads mixed up here but I never said corruption is bad so remove it, and I never said I wanted to kill someone unwillingly and I should be able to. I strongly get the feeling you are cheery picking things and that is just lazy conversation.
Please follow along with the entire thread and also please keep the conversation moving, keep ideas flowing and present different options or views not just right and wrong or you don't like this type of stuff. This is supposed to be a conversation, not an argument.
Very good points! I would assume that you played L2 then and know what it was like first hand, we all know Steven took a lot of damn content from L2 so it will be much like it which isn't bad but can be better. Each time the devs get on a site or stream and talk to us, they reveal more and more and we get tiny leaks of what is being tested. This thread and many others are just discussions and a means to ask some questions and get some dialog going. Truly there is no right or wrong, it is all speculative even if a dev directly said something, the game isn't finished and subject to change based on many factors. So keep up the good responses and keep the forum moving forward in conversation and present some ideas for everything to expand on!
I picture some simple low-level farm boy roleplaying as he says this to some guy decked out in raid gear. LoL
Return of the offhand Dildo Slap!
U.S. East
If there are parts of a post I agree with and parts I don't, I make a point of pointing that out.
I could (and sometimes do) completely rip longer posts to shreads, individually going over each point made and explaining why it is either factually wrong, or a weak opinion to have based on the persons other stated opinions. Although I won't usually do this until I have been in a debate with that person on a number of topics, in order to gain an insight in to their opinion on more than one thing.
Something to look forward to, perhaps.
But FR, people will PK regardless of the drawbacks of the corruption system. The system is set up as it is to discourage griefing - which, clearly from this thread, many people would part take in. IMO the system is fine and makes the game playable/enjoyable from both accounts. Lighter corruption is no-no for me because then you'll have server imbalance.
You seem to mistake Open world PvP with competitive PvP? (Going on your first point); as @noaani mentioned, there will be a plethora of viable PvP content to choose from. All hold their set of consequences. If you kill some noob because they've pissed you off, get ready to be smacked down from a bounty hunt. I find it silly to want relaxed rules for the same actions - but maybe that's just me
Godspeed friend!
Stop twisting the facts the same way the 10 or so ppl before you tried to do, it's getting boring to have to repeat the same things over and over because people always assume that: 1/ the guy who got killed is the poor victim who did nothing wrong and had no chance to fight, and 2/ the killer is the evil chaos loving madman who's gonna slaughter lowbies all day and camp them with a zerg.
The system has not been tested properly yet so guessing what will or will not go wrong and getting all worked up about it is pointless.
I do find myself liking your idea more but I fear it is because I know I will most likely have a few characters dedicated to a bad guy role. I like heavily penalizing the most negative aspects of open pvp like camping and big level gap pk'ing. I do not feel if you and I are the same level that I should be punished as much but yes to balance the game and keep it as user friendly but still allowing open pvp then the current system as is, really isn't bad at all.
The sad part is that I like the system and I actually want them to go deeper with it. I absolutely love the idea of being corrupted and fighting off bounty hunters and making a name for yourself as that bounty that made it up to so many days without being captured, and no I am not saying that I'd be running around ganking people as a purple/red. I'd be fighting other purps/reds and those greens whos balls drop and they want to square off against someone who makes it their way of gaming to be a purp/red. Then you have players who choose to take a bounty, like a questline option that makes you maybe a different color to us bad guys and we have cat and mouse chases and fights and these bounty hunters deserve a reward for killing us bad guys and I feel like successfully defending off bounty hunters should lead to something.
Not asking to reward people ganking or griefing innocent players.
And before another person says corruption is a deterrent, we frigging know. This is hypothetical talk in a thread that promotes discussion on such topics.