I'm trying to think of a way where two players might try to game the system if they were working together. So, what if it wasn't two random players engaging in PVP?
Let's assume they just wanted to have friendly PVP, like for a stream or something. As long as both players go combatant (purple), they can continue PKing each other with minimal death penalties because the PVP is consensual. No one suffers corruption. There might be a quest that requires a certain number of PVP kills, as well, so this all seems plausible.
But the issue here is why would a combatant (purple) player suffer less of a penalty than a non-combatant (green) player? Well if a purple kills a green, that's considered the worst possible scenario of all, and heavy penalties exist on both sides. If player A goes purple and player B goes purple, then PVP is consensual and only the player that loses gains a death penalty and that's just 50%. But if player A is purple and player B stays green, like I said, that's the worst case scenario, and player A gets corrupted with 400% penalty and player B stays green at 100% penalty. Overall, everyone is getting punished, but at the very least the corrupted player is suffering a MUCH much higher penalty than the green player.
But again, the question, why?
Well... in general, I think the idea is to punish situations where PVP is simply not wanted. Player A gets punished for killing player B, and player B gets punished for not fighting back.
It's clear why player A should get punished. But not so much player B. But everyone is claiming player B is completely innocent.
What if player B is hopping around in the middle of a PVP fight? What if player A and player B are working together to farm corruption, or quests or something? What if player B is somehow trying to trick or goad other players into attacking them by griefing and staying non-combatant? For example, what if player B is following player A around and gathering resources a split second before player A, or attacking the same mobs as A and intentionally slowing down player A's leveling, or trying to steal loot, whatever.
Bah! I ran out of time, I have to run. I'm just trying to point out that maybe player B (green) isn't ALWAYS innocent in these situations. And maybe the extra death penalty to player B (green) is simply there to help prevent gaming the system in some way or maybe it's extra incentive for player B to remove themselves from the situation?
So non pvp will still be upset because the death penalty and pvpers are complaining about the corruption. Is it less of a middle ground and more the worst of both sides?
Corruption does not affect pvp zones (siege's, guild wars, arena's, node wars, etc.). The corruption system is designed to encourage pvp, but prevent griefing.
If you're gathering resources and a greedy player attacks you you can just attack back and kill him. What's the issue here? That's pretty self explanatory, am I missing something you're not understanding about that?
If you're gathering resources and a greedy player attacks you you can just attack back and kill him. What's the issue here? That's pretty self explanatory, am I missing something you're not understanding about that?
If he attacks you he knows he will win. If he thinks you have a chance, or gets a fuzzy felling in his tummy about your skill. he will move to the next target. Hence really no point in fighting back unless it makes you feel better.
okay i need a bit more infos on this though as i dont quite understand it.
So if i were to gather, and someone attacks me they willl get flagged, then i will get flagged if i choose to fight back (self-defense), but if i die i get less punished than if i didnt do anything (or die running away) right?
that doesnt make sense whatsoever. Is there a way where i do NOT get punished if i didnt initiate anything? seems weird.
I don't understand this question. "Combatant" is a temporary state, it goes away after a small amount of time with no further input needed from you. If you win, you got drops from your attacker, and you keep your spot. If you die, you take only half the penalty you would've gotten from a PvE death (a "green" death).
If you're asking to be totally risk-free when out in the world, that's not how Ashes is designed to be played. It's a PvX game, fighting over resources is going to happen and you need to decide if that's a deal breaker for you or not.
Another thing to keep in mind is AoC is meant to be a social game. If you are out farming mobs / resources with a few buds the odds of you losing in consensual pvp diminish greatly.
AoC isn't a farming simulator, actions have consequences and sometimes the consequence of venturing out into the wild by yourself will be death and along with that death a loss potential loss of resources / progression.
Just so if anyone is still wondering how the corruption system currently works. Video above is same as what there's currently planned for AoC. Explained in video format with different situations.
White name = green name obviously.
Also this game seems to strive for group contect mostly so you are rarely alone. Discussion like this often revolves around 1 guy killing 1 guy. That's rarely the situation when you reach higher level.
So I guess it would be most effective to just continue doing wht you ever did and don't fight back. Then if your Hp are droping low that attacker needs to decide if its worth getting corrupted and potentially drop a lot of equipment or just move on.
Comments
Let's assume they just wanted to have friendly PVP, like for a stream or something. As long as both players go combatant (purple), they can continue PKing each other with minimal death penalties because the PVP is consensual. No one suffers corruption. There might be a quest that requires a certain number of PVP kills, as well, so this all seems plausible.
But the issue here is why would a combatant (purple) player suffer less of a penalty than a non-combatant (green) player? Well if a purple kills a green, that's considered the worst possible scenario of all, and heavy penalties exist on both sides. If player A goes purple and player B goes purple, then PVP is consensual and only the player that loses gains a death penalty and that's just 50%. But if player A is purple and player B stays green, like I said, that's the worst case scenario, and player A gets corrupted with 400% penalty and player B stays green at 100% penalty. Overall, everyone is getting punished, but at the very least the corrupted player is suffering a MUCH much higher penalty than the green player.
But again, the question, why?
Well... in general, I think the idea is to punish situations where PVP is simply not wanted. Player A gets punished for killing player B, and player B gets punished for not fighting back.
It's clear why player A should get punished. But not so much player B. But everyone is claiming player B is completely innocent.
What if player B is hopping around in the middle of a PVP fight? What if player A and player B are working together to farm corruption, or quests or something? What if player B is somehow trying to trick or goad other players into attacking them by griefing and staying non-combatant? For example, what if player B is following player A around and gathering resources a split second before player A, or attacking the same mobs as A and intentionally slowing down player A's leveling, or trying to steal loot, whatever.
Bah! I ran out of time, I have to run. I'm just trying to point out that maybe player B (green) isn't ALWAYS innocent in these situations. And maybe the extra death penalty to player B (green) is simply there to help prevent gaming the system in some way or maybe it's extra incentive for player B to remove themselves from the situation?
If he attacks you he knows he will win. If he thinks you have a chance, or gets a fuzzy felling in his tummy about your skill. he will move to the next target. Hence really no point in fighting back unless it makes you feel better.
I don't understand this question. "Combatant" is a temporary state, it goes away after a small amount of time with no further input needed from you. If you win, you got drops from your attacker, and you keep your spot. If you die, you take only half the penalty you would've gotten from a PvE death (a "green" death).
If you're asking to be totally risk-free when out in the world, that's not how Ashes is designed to be played. It's a PvX game, fighting over resources is going to happen and you need to decide if that's a deal breaker for you or not.
I guess the right choice depends how good you are at PvP.
But for you I'd say option 3 always!
AoC isn't a farming simulator, actions have consequences and sometimes the consequence of venturing out into the wild by yourself will be death and along with that death a loss potential loss of resources / progression.
Sounds like a very fun system to me
Just so if anyone is still wondering how the corruption system currently works. Video above is same as what there's currently planned for AoC. Explained in video format with different situations.
White name = green name obviously.
Also this game seems to strive for group contect mostly so you are rarely alone. Discussion like this often revolves around 1 guy killing 1 guy. That's rarely the situation when you reach higher level.
So I guess it would be most effective to just continue doing wht you ever did and don't fight back. Then if your Hp are droping low that attacker needs to decide if its worth getting corrupted and potentially drop a lot of equipment or just move on.