Combatant Opt-In

I've been really thinking about how the Corruption system is going to play out and it just seems like an annoyance from a group/guild pvp perspective. What I mean by this is, in the event there are mutual parties roaming for PvP it seems unfair or simply just out of place that the corruption system may play a part in this combat in a negative way. For example if two groups of 16 players are looking for combat and the first group stun locks a target or multiple and they die before they can "fight back" to initiate combatant mode this will cause corruption for 1 (or multiple) players in addition to added death penalties for the dead player(s) - all while it was the intention of all parties involved to engage in combat.

I would like to propose the option to OPT IN to combatant mode at any time to welcome PvP and avoid non-combatant death penalties due to stun lock, low health or other circumstances when being killed by another player.

I really can't see a downside to allowing players to opt-in at will for PvP content. I know for a fact I would likely prefer to be in combatant mode for almost all game play, though if for some reason I didn't want to be I could toggle it just like the heal mechanic to avoid the corruption thing.

Can anyone see a reason not to allow players to opt in to be flagged combatant at will? I would suggest it has the same "cool down" when toggling it as stepping out of normal combat would, what ever that ends up being (2 minutes, 5 minutes 1 hour etc).

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Tyrantor

So let me ask you this since you seem to be throwing out percentages as facts - where did you come up with 20% of players loot? While it's understandable that it won't be 100% could it be 50% or 80%? i mean unless you know definitively what the final game ready % is going to be can you stop making up percentages.

Secondly even if the Caravan is 100% loss, unless the Caravan is required to be 100% full then it's reasonable to consider a group or multiple groups of players (say raid party) come back from a dungeon run could easily be carrying more materials and drop more on death (risk more per your explanation) then a single Caravan.

For example if I start a Caravan with a single mat and even if the Caravan would then loose 100% of a single mat it's substantially less than (I'll use your random %) 20% of 100 of the same item(s) that a player or group could be carrying.

You might say "why would anyone start a caravan with 1 mat" simple to find PvP or maybe a guild wants to run a "fake/decoy" Caravan leading the way for their real loot to follow behind in a seperate one, "Let's see if X guild is honoring the alliance" or "If this Node is raiding our Caravans". Etc there will be plenty of reasons once the game launches, once the cost to build a caravan eventually becomes irrelevant which seems inevitable.

So now your Caravan has less risk - thank you for explaining the reason for it.

No the fact is Intrepid doesn't need to add a "cheesy" mechanic, simply letting players toggle into combatant mode removes the loss of player agency from your "coordinated group attack" and then your group and that player both have agency. If your group is only looking for "more loot" targets then you'll have to move on from the player who flags themselves that simple. Or do you believe that everyone will flag themselves and the toggle option makes non-combatant an after thought? Lastly how does your group know how much material someone is carrying? How are you justifying this coordinated attack for "more loot"?

Oh so players can't toggle to combatant mode while in CC now? I'm sure the development team doesn't want players to "stun lock" people in 1v1 scenarios but as your "coordinated group" points out it will be impossible to stop it from a GvG stand point which was my initial point in the OP so I'm glad you agree with me, however you're suggesting it should be allowed for griefing purposes by removing player agency if the group can kill you fast enough and I'm suggesting to let the player make the decision if they want to forfeit their safety for less penalty.

The mental barrier in the game is the current design of risk vs reward and it is only in relation to the corruption system. You're argument has no merit.

Caeryl

Can you please stop with trying to use extreme edge cases as justification for you to halve your losses at all times?

Caravans are currently 100% loss for all mats held within if they are successfully destroyed.

A group (no matter its size) will realistically never be at risk of losing more by running all their materials on foot, than if they all used a caravan. The major reason being they simply can’t carry as much on foot as they could with a caravan.

Not that this extremely niche case has any bearing on the fact that removing an aspect of risk and reward 100% of the time via a toggle goes against the design philosophy of this game.

You have already stated a reason people would use this toggle is to reduce their death penalties even in the face of them failing to fight back whether by choice or because they afk’d or because the attacker(s) had enough skill to kill them before they could flag.

That is not a healthy thing to introduce, no matter how much you would find it convenient. The same as we absolutely do not need a group finder, even though people swear up and down the convenience is worth the negative impact it has on the game.

Tyrantor

I'm only using extreme examples to prove that the example being presented doesn't equal fact in relation to risk being equal in all circumstances.

What aspect of the risk and reward is being removed? Considering combatant is firmly entrenched in the current game aspect of risk and reward I do not understand what your thinking here?

I would never suggest people use this for AFK that makes no sense unless of course they view less death/item loss more important than flagging for combat so anyone can attack them. AFK the non-combatant would make the most sense because an attacker would most likely stop attacking them before killing if they're just sitting there afk and don't fight back unless that person doesn't care about going corrupt and in that case this person was going to get attacked regardless of how he flagged.

You and Noaani both make arguments as if everyone in the game is going to flag combatant is that how you see it? Everyone is going to do it?

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

I'm only using extreme examples to prove that the example being presented doesn't equal fact in relation to risk being equal in all circumstances.

What aspect of the risk and reward is being removed? Considering combatant is firmly entrenched in the current game aspect of risk and reward I do not understand what your thinking here?

I would never suggest people use someone uses this for AFK that makes no sense unless of course they view less death/item loss more important than flagging for combat so anyone can attack them. AFK the non-combatant would make the most sense because an attacker would most likely stop attacking them before killing if they're just sitting there afk and don't fight back unless that person doesn't care about going corrupt and in that case this person was going to get attacked regardless of how he flagged.

You and Noaani both make arguments as if everyone in the game is going to flag combatant is that how you see it? Everyone is going to do it?

You’ve implied it will be used by more than PvPers, specifically by gathers looking to reduce their potential penalties. You’ve also yet to say why it would be useful outside of protecting a portion of your materials.

In high contention areas, the majority of people will be combatants, making the toggle unneeded and functionally useless. And PvP zones everyone is a combatant while in them.

The first scenario you presented, a coordinated group 100-0’ing an enemy healer who has yet to enter PvP combat, is fully acceptable. In exchange for a significant advantage in the following fight, they accept a small amount of corruption.

Risk and reward does not stop at one player. Your toggle removes a choice of risk and reward from another player, which is the problem. Your toggle negates a portions of your risk at all times, which is also a problem. Citing psychological aspects of risk is meaningless in term of game mechanics. It’s no different than dyeing your armor red and calling that “accepting more risk“.

If you want to PvP a lot, attack people. Flag for combat the way you’re supposed to. You don’t need a toggle to show people that you want to PvP.

Edit: It’s strange you imply that people won’t be combatants if it’s not automatic. Ashes is a PvX game, with more benefit to fighting than not fighting. Of course people will be combatants in most cases where there’s something to be gained or lost. That’s exactly why this suggestion is pointless.

Tyrantor

Of course it would be used by more than pvpers - which is the whole reason they've added it into the game to begin with. If the Risk of death as a non combatant is substantial enough almost everyone would fight back right? If the theory is that everyone is going to fight back because the non-combatant death is substantial enough to justify fighting back instead of just causing corruption on people. By an example of this then those players would have a pre-meditated intention to flag for pvp upon being attacked, if that was the case then why not just allow them the option prior to being attacked? Why do you believe the attacker should be in position to force this option instead of the defender being allowed to flag themselves?

What do you believe the corruption system is in place for? Is it to limit griefing or to give the attacker more loot for killing non combatants? If other detail this please.

My toggle very simply makes risk/reward equal for all parties who agree to engage in pvp being that both the attacker and defender have the exact same risk/reward. Prove this wrong.

Caeryl wrote: »

If you want to PvP a lot, attack people. Flag for combat the way you’re supposed to. You don’t need a toggle to show people that you want to PvP.

Edit: It’s strange you imply that people won’t be combatants if it’s not automatic. Ashes is a PvX game, with more benefit to fighting than not fighting. Of course people will be combatants in most cases where there’s something to be gained or lost. That’s exactly why this suggestion is pointless.

That's exactly the point the current system is "attack people to flag" this is disruptive to the people who do not want to flag - why would a system that promotes attacking non combatants be better than allowing me to focus my attention (if combatants are available) on them instead? What I've stated is that it's more entertaining to attack people who are actively looking for a fight OR open to a fight versus attacking someone on a "wait and see" approach.

I've never once implied that people won't be combatants if it's not automatic - feel free to find a quote and relay that here. You seem to think it's pointless because everyone will fight back (or almost everyone) if that is the case why do we need the non-combatant in the first place? LOL you are actually helping my point.

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

Of course it would be used by more than pvpers - which is the whole reason they've added it into the game to begin with. If the Risk of death as a non combatant is substantial enough almost everyone would fight back right? If the theory is that everyone is going to fight back because the non-combatant death is substantial enough to justify fighting back instead of just causing corruption on people. By an example of this then those players would have a pre-meditated intention to flag for pvp upon being attacked, if that was the case then why not just allow them the option prior to being attacked? Why do you believe the attacker should be in position to force this option instead of the defender being allowed to flag themselves?

What do you believe the corruption system is in place for? Is it to limit griefing or to give the attacker more loot for killing non combatants? If other detail this please.

My toggle very simply makes risk/reward equal for all parties who agree to engage in pvp being that both the attacker and defender have the exact same risk/reward. Prove this wrong.

Caeryl wrote: »

If you want to PvP a lot, attack people. Flag for combat the way you’re supposed to. You don’t need a toggle to show people that you want to PvP.

Edit: It’s strange you imply that people won’t be combatants if it’s not automatic. Ashes is a PvX game, with more benefit to fighting than not fighting. Of course people will be combatants in most cases where there’s something to be gained or lost. That’s exactly why this suggestion is pointless.

That's exactly the point the current system is "attack people to flag" this is disruptive to the people who do not want to flag - why would a system that promotes attacking non combatants be better than allowing me to focus my attention (if combatants are available) on them instead? What I've stated is that it's more entertaining to attack people who are actively looking for a fight OR open to a fight versus attacking someone on a "wait and see" approach.

I've never once implied that people won't be combatants if it's not automatic - feel free to find a quote and relay that here. You seem to think it's pointless because everyone will fight back (or almost everyone) if that is the case why do we need the non-combatant in the first place? LOL you are actually helping my point.

Non-combatant state is there for people who really just refuse to fight on principal. Or for people who have nothing of significance to lose and find that giving corruption is more valuable to them than the resources they would lose by dying. It’s there for people who believe it will deter attackers or for those who simply don’t care to start fights.

It seems to me that you’ve already convinced yourself that anyone disagreeing with you is just here to rain on your one-man parade. You want a PvP toggle, others want a no-PvP toggle. Neither fit into the vision of Ashes.

Noaani

Caeryl wrote: »

It seems to me that you’ve already convinced yourself that anyone disagreeing with you is just here to rain on your one-man parade.

It does seem to me that this is the point he is at, which means it is now time to bring in "The Quote".

So, to be clear, everyone in the world exists as a non-combatant by default. You're all out in the world, players, and you're not flagged for combat. Umm, if you as a player, go to another player, who is either flagged for combat or a non-combatant, and you attack them, or even if you heal them - ah, excuse me if you heal a combatant - you will become a combatant, you'll be flagged for PvP, your name color will change, you'll become, umm, probably purple, umm, and you will remain flagged for a period of time after which you have struck another character or aided another flagged character.

So, combatants are people who either aid other combatants, or attack other combatants or non-combatants. Ahh, so those are combatants, those are flagged players.

That very last sentence is key, it was said as a definitive, as in, this is how you become a combatant, and is the only way that will be possible.

Tyrantor

Caeryl wrote: »

Non-combatant state is there for people who really just refuse to fight on principal. Or for people who have nothing of significance to lose and find that giving corruption is more valuable to them than the resources they would lose by dying. It’s there for people who believe it will deter attackers or for those who simply don’t care to start fights.

It seems to me that you’ve already convinced yourself that anyone disagreeing with you is just here to rain on your one-man parade. You want a PvP toggle, others want a no-PvP toggle. Neither fit into the vision of Ashes.

Ok so by your own theory on what non-combatant is for, I can see you put a lot of thought into this - it sounds like it's their for the a small(er) percentage of the overall game population? So then let me ask you this. Would it make more sense to start as combatant and have the option to toggle to non combatant versus the other way around? Does the flagging not seem backward based on your own reasons for someone to be non-combatant?

Well seeing as the thread has essentially dwindled down to Noaani and myself replying in bulk there was plenty of support so you can call it a one man parade all you want or you're welcome to scroll back through the thread and count support vs not. It's fairly obviously they've essentially copied from L2 corruption system and while the system worked fine there it wasn't perfect - I believe the toggle would perfect the system.

You and Noaani both failed to counter any arguments from a player agency perspective other than "If we want to kill non combatants we deserve that option" and that argument is fine if my suggestion in the very least was saying to do away with non combatants. All my suggestion says is "give us the choice" instead of forcing it on us. You know again the player agency thing which is actual a core philosophical component to the game play design.

And don't worry Noaani it's not a quote I haven't heard before hence the reason for my post. If you keep listening you will notice that he explains "Generally we want to incentivize consensual pvp by offering less death penalty".

Songcaller

There will be no toggle to enter purple state or no toggle to enter green state. The system is automatic dependant upon action. It is an active condition related to risk/reward, not a passive condition based on desire.

Desire does actuate whether you engage or not but desire is not the ultimate condition, action is the ultimate condition.

The Caravan System doesnt even use the Hunting Ground flags. Adding a toggle to the caravan system would push the caravan system into the hunting ground flags.

There are limited spheres of action where hunting ground flags aren't applied and I do not want the caravan system to change.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

And don't worry Noaani it's not a quote I haven't heard before hence the reason for my post. If you keep listening you will notice that he explains "Generally we want to incentivize consensual pvp by offering less death penalty".

Yes, he does.

After specifically outlining exactly how to become a combatant.

Sangramoire

When you attack someone that is not red you will immediately become a combatant. If as a green player or a combatant you attack a red player, your status does not change. That's part of the punishment for being red. This is important and I'll explain why.

How is it detrimental to be able to opt in to a combatant stage?
If a player attacks a green with just the intention of turning purple, in a way the same thing as opting in, there are various scenarios. Either the green player will not fight back and you would turn purple and be flagged for combat giving you the chance to just be on your way now flagged for combat like you wanted. You could also continue to attack the green player and turn red yourself if you kill the green. Also, the green player may fight back, himself turning purple, and potentially kill you. There is also a chance someone near by might see you attacking a green and decide to attack you back.

Being able to just opt in gets rid of the risks you have to take and leaves the game with just one scenario. You are flagged for combat without any risk to you. The risks you take to get flagged is part of the game and being able to just opt in takes those risks away.

Now the reason it's also important to not just have an opt in feature is because it will essentially mean that there's going to be more green players around that might have used the opt in feature but since there won't be an opt in feature, they may not want to take the risk right now to turn purple. But those green players that would have turned purple that are looking for fights might see a red player and they can now engage in combat with that red player that might not suspect an attack from a green as much as an attack from a purple. Basically having more greens around that will potentially attack red players makes it more dangerous to be red. Having that opt in feature could potentially make it so that it is very unlikely that a red player would be attacked by a green since they may be able to safely assume that if that green really wanted to fight, they would be flagged for combat if they could opt in.

The question now is, would being able to opt in really reduce the risks of attacking someone without the intent of killing them and would it significantly impact the risks red players have?

There's no real way to know that but if I had to guess, the red player risks wouldn't be impacted much but the risks of attacking someone just to turn purple would, which is why I personally do not agree with having an opt in system.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

And don't worry Noaani it's not a quote I haven't heard before hence the reason for my post. If you keep listening you will notice that he explains "Generally we want to incentivize consensual pvp by offering less death penalty".

Yes, he does.

After specifically outlining exactly how to become a combatant.

Ah so you don't mind context when you think it proves your point? LOL Is this more or less reason for me to make the post?

Sangramoire wrote: »

Being able to just opt in gets rid of the risks you have to take and leaves the game with just one scenario. You are flagged for combat without any risk to you. The risks you take to get flagged is part of the game and being able to just opt in takes those risks away.

So I'm just pulling this out of your text because it read like it ran on a bit and was a little confusing outside of this.

You're suggesting that a player that opts to become purple has less risk because they did not have to attack a green to do this? While every green player including any they would or could attack, or the group of green who you suggested would see this player become purple - all of these players could attack this character with no risk to themselves of the corruption system. I'm not sure how that is less risk.

In general it seems like consensus against it is suggestive that everyone will be choosing to opt into combatant due to "less risk" which I think is hilarious because it does nothing but support the fact that the flagging system is backwards. If everyone should want to be a combatant because of "less risk" then it should be the default setting and we should actively have to opt out of that for the corruption system to protect or punish us.

Songcaller

There is no opposition except those stating how the game design does not match your requests. It is not a case of risk verses reward, it is a case of wanting equal footing for all involved.

PvP is an integral part of Ashes and has various modes like I have mentioned before. A toggle is not needed because there will be no variation in server designations, no variation in outcomes and no variation in consistencies.

It seems to me that you are scared of the current system and wish to invite PvP to you through unofficial methods so you dont risk corruption. There is no gain from a toggle and only a loss of freedom in the grand scheme.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

And don't worry Noaani it's not a quote I haven't heard before hence the reason for my post. If you keep listening you will notice that he explains "Generally we want to incentivize consensual pvp by offering less death penalty".

Yes, he does.

After specifically outlining exactly how to become a combatant.

Ah so you don't mind context when you think it proves your point? LOL Is this more or less reason for me to make the post?

Context is always good, but only when it isn't factitious.

We have been told how to flag as a combatant. Now, I am all for asking for changes to the way the game has been stated to be designed (the combat tracker thread is a good example of this, my desire to see instanced raids is not an example of this, as they have been stated to be a thing). However, if you are asking for a change to the developers intentions, you need to provide far better reasoning than anything I have seen you pull off in any thread.

You have not yet provided a reason as to why that should change - let alone a convincing reason. Why it should be easier to flag as a combatant, which would mean more combatants in the game world, which would mean less PvP that is susceptable to corruption, that would mean the bounty hunter system is less viable - these are all things that need to be addressed.

What change will an increased number of combatants in the game world have on players, both those looking for PvP and those not looking for PvP. You've not addressed this at all, all you have said can basically amount to "herp derp, moar pvp is gud".

What change would this have on the amount of corruption being gained in the game, and what effect would that have on the bounty hunter system? Again, this NEEDS to be addressed if you want to ask Intrepid to change a system. You've not even acknowledged this yet, let alone attempted to answer it.

Sangramoire

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

And don't worry Noaani it's not a quote I haven't heard before hence the reason for my post. If you keep listening you will notice that he explains "Generally we want to incentivize consensual pvp by offering less death penalty".

Yes, he does.

After specifically outlining exactly how to become a combatant.

Ah so you don't mind context when you think it proves your point? LOL Is this more or less reason for me to make the post?

Sangramoire wrote: »

Being able to just opt in gets rid of the risks you have to take and leaves the game with just one scenario. You are flagged for combat without any risk to you. The risks you take to get flagged is part of the game and being able to just opt in takes those risks away.

So I'm just pulling this out of your text because it read like it ran on a bit and was a little confusing outside of this.

You're suggesting that a player that opts to become purple has less risk because they did not have to attack a green to do this? While every green player including any they would or could attack, or the group of green who you suggested would see this player become purple - all of these players could attack this character with no risk to themselves of the corruption system. I'm not sure how that is less risk.

In general it seems like consensus against it is suggestive that everyone will be choosing to opt into combatant due to "less risk" which I think is hilarious because it does nothing but support the fact that the flagging system is backwards. If everyone should want to be a combatant because of "less risk" then it should be the default setting and we should actively have to opt out of that for the corruption system to protect or punish us.

I think you're misunderstanding the goal of the corruption system. It is not meant to be a primary pvp system for open world pvp but rather as a deterrent for people to grief players in open world pvp without consequences. And no it does not support the flagging system being backwards because this isn't really a game that aims to have open world pvp everywhere, it actually discourages that but still leaves it possible for those that want it. And to answer your question one why it should NOT be a default setting to be combatant is because then being a red player will not be as big of a deal. Again minimizing risks which I still do not agree with. If you want to fight people in open pvp then there should be consequences.

You're essentially wanting to take all risk from being a combatant away from yourself to make the game easier for you. I do not agree with such a system. If you want to be flagged as a combatant but you don't want the possibility of someone fighting you back then isn't that a little contradictory?

I still don't understand or have really found an argument saying why opting in is beneficial other than people saying "it doesn't hurt". But we've clearly stated possible problems that come with opting in but there isn't really any benefit that I see from having it in the first place so why bother with such a useless system that can only hurt the game or not make any meaningful changes at best?

edit: just to clarify a bit on why it is less risk. You claim to not see how it is less risky for someone to opt in to combatant as opposed to having to attack someone to turn into a combatant because you believe the same people that you would have attacked or would have attacked you while you were trying to turn into combatant could still attack you. The reason that's not really true is first off, if you no longer have to initiate combat with someone then they will have less of a reason to attack you which means less risk, and second, if you can opt in to combatant mode there literally does not have to be anyone else around you for you to do so meaning those people that would have attacked you, would not be there in the first place.

Sangramoire

Neurath wrote: »

There is no opposition except those stating how the game design does not match your requests. It is not a case of risk verses reward, it is a case of wanting equal footing for all involved.

PvP is an integral part of Ashes and has various modes like I have mentioned before. A toggle is not needed because there will be no variation in server designations, no variation in outcomes and no variation in consistencies.

It seems to me that you are scared of the current system and wish to invite PvP to you through unofficial methods so you dont risk corruption. There is no gain from a toggle and only a loss of freedom in the grand scheme.

This is exactly it, and the only reason I see anyone having for the option of opting into combatant is because they want a more fair fight or something along those lines but in that case, wouldn't it just be better to have a fight arena instead?

CROW3

Practicality will break this tie. Players are going to just hit each other once to flag purple then go out into the world. When the flag timer wears off they'll do it again.

I appreciate the philosophical stance of 'you shouldn't be able to halve your risk,' but it's going to happen anyway. The core idea laid out here just makes it less awkward.

If you want to try and blend the two, maybe this will get some % of folks not to game the system:

Combatant Flag Duration Timer [ 10 min, 30 min, 1 hour, until I log off ]

daveywavey

CROW3 wrote: »

Practicality will break this tie. Players are going to just hit each other once to flag purple then go out into the world. When the flag timer wears off they'll do it again.

Yeah, and this just seems like a rather inelegant "solution". A system that encourages players to walk around swiping at one another once just feels like it hasn't been thoroughly thought through.

That's a lot of "th" words! Try saying that fast... "Thoroughly thought thoooo, thoroughy thlought through, th...."

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Practicality will break this tie. Players are going to just hit each other once to flag purple then go out into the world. When the flag timer wears off they'll do it again.

I really don't see people doing this.

There isn't a big enough incentive to flagging pre-combat to want to piss off other players - especially not in a game where local reputation actually will matter.

If, and this is a fairly big *if* that did happen, I would expect Intrepid to implement something along the lines of not being able to ride mounts while flagged as a combatant - since that is intended to be a fairly temporary state to be in.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Practicality will break this tie. Players are going to just hit each other once to flag purple then go out into the world. When the flag timer wears off they'll do it again.

I really don't see people doing this.

There isn't a big enough incentive to flagging pre-combat to want to piss off other players - especially not in a game where local reputation actually will matter.

If, and this is a fairly big *if* that did happen, I would expect Intrepid to implement something along the lines of not being able to ride mounts while flagged as a combatant - since that is intended to be a fairly temporary state to be in.

Lol so you're solution is then to punish anyone who is flagged combatant? For someone who claims to be standing up for "core" values of the game you sure are quick to disincentivize combatant flagging.

Neurath wrote: »

There is no opposition except those stating how the game design does not match your requests. It is not a case of risk verses reward, it is a case of wanting equal footing for all involved.

PvP is an integral part of Ashes and has various modes like I have mentioned before. A toggle is not needed because there will be no variation in server designations, no variation in outcomes and no variation in consistencies.

It seems to me that you are scared of the current system and wish to invite PvP to you through unofficial methods so you dont risk corruption. There is no gain from a toggle and only a loss of freedom in the grand scheme.

The game design that can change because it doesn't exist in a final version? A game design aspect that was copied from another game? There is no room for improvement on a system that as it stands currently would punish solo/low level players the most which is the exact opposite of what it should be doing. Since it'll be fairly easy to avoid "risk" by attacking low hanging fruit to flag for combat. Say leaving the city and you see the low level fighting a level 5 mob, or the solo player while you've got a group of 8? Is the design of the system to promote this to flag for combatant? It seems odd that people think being combatant is "less risk" and this would never happen. Do you not agree?

So you think that the guy arguing to flag into combat is scared of going corrupt? No, I wouldn't use the word scared, but if that is how you want me to be then I'm scared of having to flag corrupt for the wrong reasons. I plan to do a lot of group pvp and find it absolutely scary that we would flag corrupt for any reason outside of griefing and attacking players that have no intention to fight back. I have no issue with going corrupt under the circumstances it's designed for. Unlike @Noaani I do not see the added benefit to coordinate a group attack to kill a non combatant before they can fight back for "more loot" - sure I get that there could be more loot but going corrupt for it would seem like a bad decision especially if it ends up flagging the entire group with corruption. If it only flags the character who got the "kill shot" then that person forfeits the loot anyway right? I mean if they're going to be flagged corrupt they won't be going back into town to bank, and they would drop "more loot" when they get killed too so frankly it seems like a backwards argument (again).

Child Item