Very niece scenario is given for the OP, but if we were to ride with that. Aren't there different levels of corruption? So if you do find a bot, and kill, you're not going to be instantly marked and given the worst type of corruption, meaning you can ride it out.
If it's genuinely one time due to a bot, it won't be that much of a problem imho
First, I am in know way a fan of non-consensual pvp. But, this does seem a little unfair to the criminals. At the very least the greenie should turn purple on attack so the criminal can at least fight back without gaining more corruption for simple defending. Now if the greenie should rid the world of this criminal element he should immediately and automatically turn back to green.
I feel the only time someone deserves to incur corruption is when they are attacking a player that refuses to engage in PvP. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupted they are making that conscious decision to engage in PvP. Retaliation from the corrupted should not result in them getting MORE corruption.
I agree with this sentiment. I think it is important to distinguish between who attacks who first. If the non-combatant player attacks a corrupted player first, then the non-combatant player should become a combatant player. If a corrupted player attacks a non-combatant player first, then the non-combatant player should be able to fight back against the corrupted player without flagging as a combatant.
This adds a complication to the system that isn't already there, which may be why the developers want to try this simpler system first.
If we get this garbage system at launch because the PvE heroes cried for months/years that they would die IRL if their character happened to get pked once in a while. I'll make sure to ruin some of these people's game experience without ever flagging red by abusing every loophole such an overprotective system presents. And I hope a good part of the pvp community will do it as well.
There is already more than enough penalties to the corruption system that it will deter people from PKing for no reason, there is no need to prevent the corrupted guy from fighting back in a self defense scenario on top of it. See it that way, if someone went so far as to even PK you despite all the penalties, then there is a very high chance you deserved it.
Plenty of games are good for people who wants to avoid pvp at all costs, ashes is not one of them. You'll have to do both pve and pvp.
If we get this garbage system at launch because the PvE heroes cried for months/years that they would die IRL if their character happened to get pked once in a while.
This system hasn't changed even one little bit from what Steven first started talking about three years ago.
If you are going to blame people, be sure and have your facts right about where to aim that blame.
First, I am in know way a fan of non-consensual pvp. But, this does seem a little unfair to the criminals. At the very least the greenie should turn purple on attack so the criminal can at least fight back without gaining more corruption for simple defending. Now if the greenie should rid the world of this criminal element he should immediately and automatically turn back to green.
I would disagree, why should the criminal player be given the option to fight back when they never gave the initial player or players they killed a chance? Either by them being too low level to fight back or had 0 interest in fighting?
It's a "reap what you sow" or "taste of your own medicine" scenario. Which is more than fair imho
First, I am in know way a fan of non-consensual pvp. But, this does seem a little unfair to the criminals. At the very least the greenie should turn purple on attack so the criminal can at least fight back without gaining more corruption for simple defending. Now if the greenie should rid the world of this criminal element he should immediately and automatically turn back to green.
I would disagree, why should the criminal player be given the option to fight back when they never gave the initial player or players they killed a chance to fight back?
They had a chance, they had a choice, they chose to be pussies just to give you corruption.
Steven already said you're not gonna go around one shot people unless you attack someone way lower level than you, in which case you wont gain anything anyway and still get screwed over by the penalties.
First, I am in know way a fan of non-consensual pvp. But, this does seem a little unfair to the criminals. At the very least the greenie should turn purple on attack so the criminal can at least fight back without gaining more corruption for simple defending. Now if the greenie should rid the world of this criminal element he should immediately and automatically turn back to green.
I would disagree, why should the criminal player be given the option to fight back when they never gave the initial player or players they killed a chance to fight back?
They had a chance, they had a choice, they chose to be pussies just to give you corruption.
Steven already said you're not gonna go around one shot people unless you attack someone way lower level than you, in which case you wont gain anything anyway and still get screwed over by the penalties.
So, the player being attacked has the choice to fight back or not, just as the attacker has the choice to attack or not.
So, everyone has a choice that determines both their own and the other persons path.
First, I am in know way a fan of non-consensual pvp. But, this does seem a little unfair to the criminals. At the very least the greenie should turn purple on attack so the criminal can at least fight back without gaining more corruption for simple defending. Now if the greenie should rid the world of this criminal element he should immediately and automatically turn back to green.
I would disagree, why should the criminal player be given the option to fight back when they never gave the initial player or players they killed a chance to fight back?
They had a chance, they had a choice, they chose to be pussies just to give you corruption.
Steven already said you're not gonna go around one shot people unless you attack someone way lower level than you, in which case you wont gain anything anyway and still get screwed over by the penalties.
So, the player being attacked has the choice to fight back or not, just as the attacker has the choice to attack or not.
So, everyone has a choice that determines both their own and the other persons path.
Still not seeing the issue.
You don't see the issue because you're the kind of guy who would provoke people, let yourself get killed, and come back just to abuse the fact that now you can attack him without flagging.
Or the guy who has 2/3 pc and will grief you with an alt account to cheat his way through the system.
There is definitely an issue where combat against a Green will net a Corrupted Player more corruption IF the corrupted player kills the Green.
I do not see how making a Green turn Purple against a Red will change the facts however, a Green who turns Purple to Red will not mind not fighting back further and making the Red Player gain more corruption.
If a Green can turn Purple against a Red, they will exploit the situation and half the death penalties for dying against a Red. I do not think the Green Players who turn people Red deserve such a Boon. Why would you think a Red Player with 4x the punishments should be happy with a Green Player moving from 2x the punishment and reduce to 1x the punishment.
It is an issue when you fight a Green as a Red and win the fight. In terms of skill it is an atrocious setup. The Corrupted Player is always penalised in Combat except when fighting a Bounty Hunter.
Yet, the system is a punishment not a pleasure cruise. The system is flawed in other ways too but we are yet to test the systems in any substantial way.
First, I am in know way a fan of non-consensual pvp. But, this does seem a little unfair to the criminals. At the very least the greenie should turn purple on attack so the criminal can at least fight back without gaining more corruption for simple defending. Now if the greenie should rid the world of this criminal element he should immediately and automatically turn back to green.
I would disagree, why should the criminal player be given the option to fight back when they never gave the initial player or players they killed a chance to fight back?
They had a chance, they had a choice, they chose to be pussies just to give you corruption.
Steven already said you're not gonna go around one shot people unless you attack someone way lower level than you, in which case you wont gain anything anyway and still get screwed over by the penalties.
So, the player being attacked has the choice to fight back or not, just as the attacker has the choice to attack or not.
So, everyone has a choice that determines both their own and the other persons path.
Still not seeing the issue.
You don't see the issue because you're the kind of guy who would provoke people, let yourself get killed, and come back just to abuse the fact that now you can attack him without flagging.
Or the guy who has 2/3 pc and will grief you with an alt account to cheat his way through the system.
If the argument is "you attacked someone in the first place and made a decision there" what kind of saying is that, if a corrupted would loose 10lvls upon dying it's a "choice" as well, but what point would be there in making a choice. For me it's about balancing this stuff a little and NOT making killing everyone a viable thing.
What point is there to a decision that leaves you with the RNG of running into someone who can basically be 5 lvls lower than you, attack you without repercussions. No1 who is not a griefer would actually be willing to engage in any pk. Basically the same as if you'd have a 10 lvl death penalty. No difference.
First, I am in know way a fan of non-consensual pvp. But, this does seem a little unfair to the criminals. At the very least the greenie should turn purple on attack so the criminal can at least fight back without gaining more corruption for simple defending. Now if the greenie should rid the world of this criminal element he should immediately and automatically turn back to green.
I would disagree, why should the criminal player be given the option to fight back when they never gave the initial player or players they killed a chance to fight back?
They had a chance, they had a choice, they chose to be pussies just to give you corruption.
Steven already said you're not gonna go around one shot people unless you attack someone way lower level than you, in which case you wont gain anything anyway and still get screwed over by the penalties.
Not really, you only get it if you kill the player, not by attacking them.
I would agree there may be a scenario of player harassing others to get them to kill them, but I think that's a different discussion to look at and I don't think it should be changed for that, something else should be looked into
Back to the main scenario, the argument still doesn't change, you choose to kill the player or players. Why should you be given the chance if you decided to rampantly kill low levels or players who were minding their own business?
Basically, you can't ask for a fair fight when the tables are turned, when you were never looking for a fair fight, to begin with.
If the argument is "you attacked someone in the first place and made a decision there" what kind of saying is that, if a corrupted would loose 10lvls upon dying it's a "choice" as well, but what point would be there in making a choice. For me it's about balancing this stuff a little and NOT making killing everyone a viable thing.
What point is there to a decision that leaves you with the RNG of running into someone who can basically be 5 lvls lower than you, attack you without repercussions. No1 who is not a griefer would actually be willing to engage in any pk. Basically the same as if you'd have a 10 lvl death penalty. No difference.
I'm curious as to how you know it isn't balanced.
How much corruption will you gain for killing an equal level player?
How much stat loss does that amount of corruption equate to?
How much corruption do you need before you start to lose items when killed?
I mean, if you are so sure it isn't balanced, you must have answers to these questions, as these questions are where the balance in the system lies.
If you don't have answers to these questions, whay is it you are actually arguing?
How much corruption will you gain for killing an equal level player?
How much stat loss does that amount of corruption equate to?
How much corruption do you need before you start to lose items when killed?
I mean, if you are so sure it isn't balanced, you must have answers to these questions, as these questions are where the balance in the system lies.
If you don't have answers to these questions, whay is it you are actually arguing?
1. Of all the post is about green attacks red.
2. How much corruption you gain is irrelevant in this case because you gain corruption and become red and corruption rules apply for the first kill anyways.
3. How would math change any of that? For this whole reasoning the fact that you are red is enough with the information we have. If you want to talk wether 400% death penalty is enough it's the wrong post.
Edit: oh and it's not about stat corruption as stated in the post
How much corruption will you gain for killing an equal level player?
How much stat loss does that amount of corruption equate to?
How much corruption do you need before you start to lose items when killed?
I mean, if you are so sure it isn't balanced, you must have answers to these questions, as these questions are where the balance in the system lies.
If you don't have answers to these questions, whay is it you are actually arguing?
1. Of all the post is about green attacks red.
2. How much corruption you gain is irrelevant in this case because you gain corruption and become red and corruption rules apply for the first kill anyways.
3. How would math change any of that? For this whole reasoning the fact that you are red is enough with the information we have. If you want to talk wether 400% death penalty is enough it's the wrong post.
Edit: oh and it's not about stat corruption as stated in the post
You said that to you it was all about balanicng this stuff.
Those three things are where the entire corruption system is balanced (along with how much corruption is lost when killed, and how much more corruption you gain for killing lower level characters).
You can't talk about wanting a system to be balanced, and then blatantly ignore the specific adjustable points the developers have built in to the system in order to be able to balance it.
It may well be that there are no stat penalties or chance of item drop for the first three or four kills - in which case killing a single person that is annoying you is not a big deal. Work the corruption off via just regular activities (gaining experience), and all is fine.
On the other hand, it may be that you have massive stat loss penalties after one kill, in which case you would never want to kill anyone at all if it would give you corruption.
You said that to you it was all about balanicng this stuff.
Those three things are where the entire corruption system is balanced (along with how much corruption is lost when killed, and how much more corruption you gain for killing lower level characters).
You can't talk about wanting a system to be balanced, and then blatantly ignore the specific adjustable points the developers have built in to the system in order to be able to balance it.
Lol. Just lol. Why do you think any corruption system exists in the first place?
To allow open world pking with repercussions while simultaneously punishing griefers.
A griefer would be punished regardless of if you allow green attacks red or not.
Now to your point. What sense is in allowing pks if every green, regardless of level attacks you afterwards and you are bound to get death penalty. A death penalty should be avoidable in a general sense, that's the whole idea behind a death penalty. That's also the reason you don't get instant punishments.
For this whole reasoning I truly don't need math. Only common sense. Just like ppl argue about enchanting without having math.
There isn't RNG in running into Greens, you will always run into Greens, if Green on Green fight then both would be purple. The deterrent for killing Green, after Green, after Green, after Green etc is the corruption you will gain.
You could just not kill Greens and only kill Purples.
There isn't RNG in running into Greens, you will always run into Greens, if Green on Green fight then both would be purple. The deterrent for killing Green, after Green, after Green, after Green etc is the corruption you will gain.
You could just not kill Greens and only kill Purples.
So you're saying if you meet the ninjalooter that took your legendary. You shall not kill him if he doesn't flag?
Because as you say:"you will always run into greens". And it's totally ok to have no chance of surviving that because you're not allowed to attack ppl that decide to attack you in the first place while keeping running and praying? And then you don't ask yourself why the fuck there is a corruption system based on death penalty ?
Personally, I'm against the Corruption System at all. I'm a Hardcore PvPer. If we remove the Corruption System then thousands of players (PvE Players), won't play Ashes and the game will flop.
Hardcore PvP Games are very niche. Hardcore PvPers are very niche.
I wouldn't kill the ninja looter unless the ninja looter happens to be Red, because, I won't be able to take the Legendary Weapon, but, the Ninja Looter can make me Red and then I could potentially lose my current gear.
I do not see how letting a Ninja Looter potentially take ALL of my loot is a wise move.
There isn't RNG in running into Greens, you will always run into Greens, if Green on Green fight then both would be purple. The deterrent for killing Green, after Green, after Green, after Green etc is the corruption you will gain.
You could just not kill Greens and only kill Purples.
That's beyond the point. It's easy to say "you could just not kill greens" if they're chasing after you because you're red, then you can't really not "kill green after green after green" because if you don't fight back you just die.
We already said that there are various valid reasons for why you would want to PK a non combatant, but this whole system in its current state will just deter any PK completely, even if you have good reasons to kill someone. And sadly that's hardly something you can figure out with a beta because in the beta people won't give a sh*t about ruining their characters so there will be way more PK in the beta, especially towards the end.
Personally, I'm against the Corruption System at all. I'm a Hardcore PvPer. If we remove the Corruption System then thousands of players (PvE Players), won't play Ashes and the game will flop.
Hardcore PvP Games are very niche. Hardcore PvPers are very niche.
I wouldn't kill the ninja looter unless the ninja looter happens to be Red, because, I won't be able to take the Legendary Weapon, but, the Ninja Looter can make me Red and then I could potentially lose my current gear.
I do not see how letting a Ninja Looter potentially take ALL of my loot is a wise move.
While I also qualify as an hardcore pvp player, I don't think being against the corruption system is a good idea, even if you ignore the fact that pve only players will ragequit faster, the game would be unplayeable if it would be a giant brawl the moment you go outside the city. There is a need for a system to keep the players from behaving like animals.
Personally, I'm against the Corruption System at all. I'm a Hardcore PvPer. If we remove the Corruption System then thousands of players (PvE Players), won't play Ashes and the game will flop.
Hardcore PvP Games are very niche. Hardcore PvPers are very niche.
I wouldn't kill the ninja looter unless the ninja looter happens to be Red, because, I won't be able to take the Legendary Weapon, but, the Ninja Looter can make me Red and then I could potentially lose my current gear.
I do not see how letting a Ninja Looter potentially take ALL of my loot is a wise move.
You know that the ninjalooter gets a death penalty right? That'd be one reason to kill that guy. But that is the whole point. The risk vs reward system is a system where risk should be balanced to reward, ofc the risk should be higher. But if it's not a risk but a definitive punishment because suddenly 98% of the server population turn into bounty Hunter ( that can't track you). Where is the fkin risk part if it's 99% safe that I get the death penalty as you say
If it comes to big beef, I'd just Guild War my foes and kill them wherever I see them with no flags. I wouldn't even risk Corruption, because, Corruption means you will be getting Beef from Bounty Hunters, higher levelled Greens and anyone who just fancies a real Gank against an incapacitated foe.
You are taking the stance that you will be Red, but, to become Red you have to kill a Green. If you only kill Purples you will never become Red...I don't understand your static position. There are better ways to level scores (Caravan Raids, Naval Raids, Guild Wars) and such avenues are more appealing to me anyway.
I'm not one to kill lower levels, I prefer a challenge in a fight. Furthermore, due to Hard Counters, some players will only attack what they are a Hard Counter to.
0
Options
Undead CanuckMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Do you know what testing is? We will be asked to test certain systems. One of them will be Corruption. I assume that there will be days where Intrepid tells us all to kill each other over and over. And to make sure some turn red and attack and be attacked by greens.
They want the best game out there, and there will be extensive testing of these systems.
During those tests, they will be tweaking the numbers to make sure it aligns with their pillar of 'Risk vs. Reward'.
While I also qualify as an hardcore pvp player, I don't think being against the corruption system is a good idea, even if you ignore the fact that pve only players will ragequit faster, the game would be unplayeable if it would be a giant brawl the moment you go outside the city. There is a need for a system to keep the players from behaving like animals.
All I've played is PvP Servers and RP-PvP Servers. It isn't true it would be a giant brawl and I'll tell you why, because, the game has no PvP Experience and no PvP Armour to get. PvP Servers are quite functional places, you don't fuck with the Biggest Guilds, you don't fuck with the Biggest Alliances and you certainly only get Res Camped if you are a Ninja Looter or some doosh bag.
If it comes to big beef, I'd just Guild War my foes and kill them wherever I see them with no flags. I wouldn't even risk Corruption, because, Corruption means you will be getting Beef from Bounty Hunters, higher levelled Greens and anyone who just fancies a real Gank against an incapacitated foe.
So every PvP player should be a guild leader? That's your solution?
+ I highly doubt you can declare a guild war just like that on a whim.
Comments
If it's genuinely one time due to a bot, it won't be that much of a problem imho
I agree with this sentiment. I think it is important to distinguish between who attacks who first. If the non-combatant player attacks a corrupted player first, then the non-combatant player should become a combatant player. If a corrupted player attacks a non-combatant player first, then the non-combatant player should be able to fight back against the corrupted player without flagging as a combatant.
This adds a complication to the system that isn't already there, which may be why the developers want to try this simpler system first.
There is already more than enough penalties to the corruption system that it will deter people from PKing for no reason, there is no need to prevent the corrupted guy from fighting back in a self defense scenario on top of it. See it that way, if someone went so far as to even PK you despite all the penalties, then there is a very high chance you deserved it.
Plenty of games are good for people who wants to avoid pvp at all costs, ashes is not one of them. You'll have to do both pve and pvp.
If you are going to blame people, be sure and have your facts right about where to aim that blame.
I would disagree, why should the criminal player be given the option to fight back when they never gave the initial player or players they killed a chance? Either by them being too low level to fight back or had 0 interest in fighting?
It's a "reap what you sow" or "taste of your own medicine" scenario. Which is more than fair imho
They had a chance, they had a choice, they chose to be pussies just to give you corruption.
Steven already said you're not gonna go around one shot people unless you attack someone way lower level than you, in which case you wont gain anything anyway and still get screwed over by the penalties.
So, the player being attacked has the choice to fight back or not, just as the attacker has the choice to attack or not.
So, everyone has a choice that determines both their own and the other persons path.
Still not seeing the issue.
You don't see the issue because you're the kind of guy who would provoke people, let yourself get killed, and come back just to abuse the fact that now you can attack him without flagging.
Or the guy who has 2/3 pc and will grief you with an alt account to cheat his way through the system.
I do not see how making a Green turn Purple against a Red will change the facts however, a Green who turns Purple to Red will not mind not fighting back further and making the Red Player gain more corruption.
If a Green can turn Purple against a Red, they will exploit the situation and half the death penalties for dying against a Red. I do not think the Green Players who turn people Red deserve such a Boon. Why would you think a Red Player with 4x the punishments should be happy with a Green Player moving from 2x the punishment and reduce to 1x the punishment.
It is an issue when you fight a Green as a Red and win the fight. In terms of skill it is an atrocious setup. The Corrupted Player is always penalised in Combat except when fighting a Bounty Hunter.
Yet, the system is a punishment not a pleasure cruise. The system is flawed in other ways too but we are yet to test the systems in any substantial way.
I can't see how this system can be cheated.
You are in control of you. Aren't you?
What point is there to a decision that leaves you with the RNG of running into someone who can basically be 5 lvls lower than you, attack you without repercussions. No1 who is not a griefer would actually be willing to engage in any pk. Basically the same as if you'd have a 10 lvl death penalty. No difference.
Not really, you only get it if you kill the player, not by attacking them.
I would agree there may be a scenario of player harassing others to get them to kill them, but I think that's a different discussion to look at and I don't think it should be changed for that, something else should be looked into
Back to the main scenario, the argument still doesn't change, you choose to kill the player or players. Why should you be given the chance if you decided to rampantly kill low levels or players who were minding their own business?
Basically, you can't ask for a fair fight when the tables are turned, when you were never looking for a fair fight, to begin with.
How much corruption will you gain for killing an equal level player?
How much stat loss does that amount of corruption equate to?
How much corruption do you need before you start to lose items when killed?
I mean, if you are so sure it isn't balanced, you must have answers to these questions, as these questions are where the balance in the system lies.
If you don't have answers to these questions, whay is it you are actually arguing?
1. Of all the post is about green attacks red.
2. How much corruption you gain is irrelevant in this case because you gain corruption and become red and corruption rules apply for the first kill anyways.
3. How would math change any of that? For this whole reasoning the fact that you are red is enough with the information we have. If you want to talk wether 400% death penalty is enough it's the wrong post.
Edit: oh and it's not about stat corruption as stated in the post
You said that to you it was all about balanicng this stuff.
Those three things are where the entire corruption system is balanced (along with how much corruption is lost when killed, and how much more corruption you gain for killing lower level characters).
You can't talk about wanting a system to be balanced, and then blatantly ignore the specific adjustable points the developers have built in to the system in order to be able to balance it.
It may well be that there are no stat penalties or chance of item drop for the first three or four kills - in which case killing a single person that is annoying you is not a big deal. Work the corruption off via just regular activities (gaining experience), and all is fine.
On the other hand, it may be that you have massive stat loss penalties after one kill, in which case you would never want to kill anyone at all if it would give you corruption.
Lol. Just lol. Why do you think any corruption system exists in the first place?
To allow open world pking with repercussions while simultaneously punishing griefers.
A griefer would be punished regardless of if you allow green attacks red or not.
Now to your point. What sense is in allowing pks if every green, regardless of level attacks you afterwards and you are bound to get death penalty. A death penalty should be avoidable in a general sense, that's the whole idea behind a death penalty. That's also the reason you don't get instant punishments.
For this whole reasoning I truly don't need math. Only common sense. Just like ppl argue about enchanting without having math.
Yes it's decided by the RNG of running into greens. And that's my problem.
You could just not kill Greens and only kill Purples.
So you're saying if you meet the ninjalooter that took your legendary. You shall not kill him if he doesn't flag?
Because as you say:"you will always run into greens". And it's totally ok to have no chance of surviving that because you're not allowed to attack ppl that decide to attack you in the first place while keeping running and praying? And then you don't ask yourself why the fuck there is a corruption system based on death penalty ?
Hardcore PvP Games are very niche. Hardcore PvPers are very niche.
I wouldn't kill the ninja looter unless the ninja looter happens to be Red, because, I won't be able to take the Legendary Weapon, but, the Ninja Looter can make me Red and then I could potentially lose my current gear.
I do not see how letting a Ninja Looter potentially take ALL of my loot is a wise move.
That's beyond the point. It's easy to say "you could just not kill greens" if they're chasing after you because you're red, then you can't really not "kill green after green after green" because if you don't fight back you just die.
We already said that there are various valid reasons for why you would want to PK a non combatant, but this whole system in its current state will just deter any PK completely, even if you have good reasons to kill someone. And sadly that's hardly something you can figure out with a beta because in the beta people won't give a sh*t about ruining their characters so there will be way more PK in the beta, especially towards the end.
While I also qualify as an hardcore pvp player, I don't think being against the corruption system is a good idea, even if you ignore the fact that pve only players will ragequit faster, the game would be unplayeable if it would be a giant brawl the moment you go outside the city. There is a need for a system to keep the players from behaving like animals.
You know that the ninjalooter gets a death penalty right? That'd be one reason to kill that guy. But that is the whole point. The risk vs reward system is a system where risk should be balanced to reward, ofc the risk should be higher. But if it's not a risk but a definitive punishment because suddenly 98% of the server population turn into bounty Hunter ( that can't track you). Where is the fkin risk part if it's 99% safe that I get the death penalty as you say
You are taking the stance that you will be Red, but, to become Red you have to kill a Green. If you only kill Purples you will never become Red...I don't understand your static position. There are better ways to level scores (Caravan Raids, Naval Raids, Guild Wars) and such avenues are more appealing to me anyway.
I'm not one to kill lower levels, I prefer a challenge in a fight. Furthermore, due to Hard Counters, some players will only attack what they are a Hard Counter to.
They want the best game out there, and there will be extensive testing of these systems.
During those tests, they will be tweaking the numbers to make sure it aligns with their pillar of 'Risk vs. Reward'.
All I've played is PvP Servers and RP-PvP Servers. It isn't true it would be a giant brawl and I'll tell you why, because, the game has no PvP Experience and no PvP Armour to get. PvP Servers are quite functional places, you don't fuck with the Biggest Guilds, you don't fuck with the Biggest Alliances and you certainly only get Res Camped if you are a Ninja Looter or some doosh bag.
So every PvP player should be a guild leader? That's your solution?
+ I highly doubt you can declare a guild war just like that on a whim.
No it isn't.
There are two other ways that have been talked about of getting rid of corruption.