if that is the truth then it makes no sense to allow people to kill greens at all, why not just make it so you can flag or not flag for pvp at that point?
Without the corruption system, people would be able to opt out of PvP.
That is not what Ashes is about.
...did you completely miss the entire point of my post?
if that is the truth then it makes no sense to allow people to kill greens at all, why not just make it so you can flag or not flag for pvp at that point?
Without the corruption system, people would be able to opt out of PvP.
That is not what Ashes is about.
...did you completely miss the entire point of my post?
Seemingly, yes.
If Ashes were to implement a system where people could flag up for PvP or not flag up for PvP (as you just suggested), then people would simply not flag up for PvP if they didn't want to PvP - thus opting out of it.
That is not what Ashes is about. The developers want players to be able to kill any other player at any point, if they are willing to take the potential penalty for doing so. If you are not willing to take that penalty, the idea is you don't attack the player.
This isn't a system that is designed to facilitate players with a ganking playstyle - but that is absolutely by design. They don't want that kind of player in the game, and have made that fairly clear.
if that is the truth then it makes no sense to allow people to kill greens at all, why not just make it so you can flag or not flag for pvp at that point?
Without the corruption system, people would be able to opt out of PvP.
That is not what Ashes is about.
...did you completely miss the entire point of my post?
Seemingly, yes.
If Ashes were to implement a system where people could flag up for PvP or not flag up for PvP (as you just suggested), then people would simply not flag up for PvP if they didn't want to PvP - thus opting out of it.
That is not what Ashes is about. The developers want players to be able to kill any other player at any point, if they are willing to take the potential penalty for doing so. If you are not willing to take that penalty, the idea is you don't attack the player.
This isn't a system that is designed to facilitate players with a ganking playstyle - but that is absolutely by design. They don't want that kind of player in the game, and have made that fairly clear.
i i'll add a bit, that you dont necessarily incurred any penalties as being corrupted if you can clear the corruption before anyone kills you. By becoming corrupt, you only risk at getting penalties.
if that is the truth then it makes no sense to allow people to kill greens at all, why not just make it so you can flag or not flag for pvp at that point?
Without the corruption system, people would be able to opt out of PvP.
That is not what Ashes is about.
...did you completely miss the entire point of my post?
Seemingly, yes.
If Ashes were to implement a system where people could flag up for PvP or not flag up for PvP (as you just suggested), then people would simply not flag up for PvP if they didn't want to PvP - thus opting out of it.
That is not what Ashes is about. The developers want players to be able to kill any other player at any point, if they are willing to take the potential penalty for doing so. If you are not willing to take that penalty, the idea is you don't attack the player.
This isn't a system that is designed to facilitate players with a ganking playstyle - but that is absolutely by design. They don't want that kind of player in the game, and have made that fairly clear.
i i'll add a bit, that you dont necessarily incurred any penalties as being corrupted if you can clear the corruption before anyone kills you. By becoming corrupt, you only risk at getting penalties.
This is absolutely true - and I would even go as far as to say it would be what happens most of the time - assuming you only have 1 or 2 kills worth of corruption.
Corruption is likely to only ever become a real issue when you have multiple kills worth of corruption stacked up, which is why it is an effective deterrent against gankers but is unlikely to stop people killing one or two annoying people.
1
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
From what I've heard as you gain proficiency as a bounty hunter your tracking skills and such get stronger, so I could see it going from a large circle down to a specific dot on the map according to your Bounty Hunter ranking.
As you gain proficiency, the range at which you can track a corrupt player increases.
At low levels, you will probably see them in the game world before you see them on the map. We do not know the range of the higher tiers.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that the intention of the corruption system is purely that of punishment.
There are supposed to be many negatives to being corrupt, and no positives.
if that is the truth then it makes no sense to allow people to kill greens at all, why not just make it so you can flag or not flag for pvp at that point? the goal of the corruption system is to make it so the game has danger/reds but that it isnt a giant gankfest where people are unable to play. so the deterrent (which is what it is, not a punishment) needs to be heavy enough that people dont think its generally worth doing. what I dont agree with is that those should be a direct nerf to the character. an indirect nerf like being fully looted would be a harsher penalty as it would mean that reds would need non red characters (and/or backup gear) to supply them gear with, dying several times would mean you wouldnt be able to pvp until you farmed new gear, and would thus be a bigger deterrent than the current system that simply requires you to burn off the murder counts before the stat loss gets too heavy or you start dropping gear. what im asking for is a system that allows reds to be reds without nerfing their ability to defend themselves.
This just keeps coming up, so I'm going copy my response from another thread.
You can kill as many people as you want to. If you kill players that are reasonably around your level, you probably won't go red. If you hit an occasional player that won't fight back, you can just wait a short time to let the corruption go away and continue.
Steven has said that the intended balance is that players should be able to overcome up to 10 level difference by skilled play. 15 levels may be possible but very difficult. Attacked players are essentially paid to fight back due to half penalty for losing or gaining drops from the attacker for winning. Combine the potential for level difference to be overcome and being paid to fight should result in most players around your level will fight and not give you corruption.
Go nuts. PvP everywhere against players that stand a chance is virtually unrestricted by the game.
If you have gone red with a large drop in stats, you have murdered many people that did not fight back.
If your playstyle is to murder low levels endlessly, you are not being catered to; and, hopefully your stats will drop enough that those low levels will be able to solo you.
If you get corrupted enough, you are gonna get hunted. There have been games with bounty systems that only required someone to post a currency reward and you were fair game. Parties are gonna kill soloers. Make friends.
@Gankez before trying to fix bounty hunters we should see if there will be corrupted players at all.
Your idea could have been a solution with multiple add that may generate others issues.
The means issue with your idea would be the range of this none debuff effect... Bounty hunters just have to stay out range to let their friends start the fight.
The other issue is the corrupted players can have a BH buddy that stay with him so he can kill without the debuff...
Fine solution for this and it maybe a thing.
Btw why do I think there may not be red players or at least not enough to make BH meaningful is because you don't choose to be corrupted, the victims choose for you ... You cannot decide for him if he will fight back or not.
Or you are killing in group and you are stupid...
The victims will have to choose between losing 25% (stay green) or 12.5% ( become purple) of his loots ( I chose those numbers base on the 300% to 400% death penalty for red players, that would make 75 to 100% loot drop).
So those 12.5% will influence the victims on his choice , if he has not chance of winning.
And there is not much to win to make the enemy red
It is perhaps worth pointing out that the intention of the corruption system is purely that of punishment.
There are supposed to be many negatives to being corrupt, and no positives.
Well this is kinda not true.
Intrepid have stated that they have no intention of introducing any positives to gaining corruption.
Additionally, they have said that if you gain corruption, your world has changed - it is not going to be a very benefitial place to be (their exact words).
A system that has no benefits and many negatives, that is designed to incentivize players to restrict undesired behavior - that sounds to me like punishment.
[
Intrepid have stated that they have no intention of introducing any positives to gaining corruption.
Additionally, they have said that if you gain corruption, your world has changed - it is not going to be a very benefitial place to be (their exact words).
A system that has no benefits and many negatives, that is designed to incentivize players to restrict undesired behavior - that sounds to me like punishment.
do you... not know what you get when you kill a non-combatant?
[
Intrepid have stated that they have no intention of introducing any positives to gaining corruption.
Additionally, they have said that if you gain corruption, your world has changed - it is not going to be a very benefitial place to be (their exact words).
A system that has no benefits and many negatives, that is designed to incentivize players to restrict undesired behavior - that sounds to me like punishment.
do you... not know what you get when you kill a non-combatant?
I didn't say there was no reason to kill other players - combatant or non-combatant - I said there was no upside to corruption.
Potentially gaining raw materials and/or certificates is the upside of killing players if they refuse to fight back - corruption is the punishment.
ofc after thinking about it a bit more.. theres no reason that a bounty hunter couldnt just tell his friends over voip where to go.. could even screenshare his map and with multiple monitors any non bounty hunter in his discord would know where to go. soo.. ya the stat nerfing is a stupid idea.. no way around it..nm scrap the whole idea.. the aura is a waste of time/coding
Not necessarily, you would just need to incentivise the bounty hunter actually being present. One way would be to have the tracking increase in accuracy the closer they got. Without going themselves their screen sniping friends only get a large vague location. If they move into the circle, they are given smaller and smaller circles.
I just want to add my 2 cents whilst we're here on the subject. Recently in some youtube content, people aren't grasping the SIZE of this game just yet. The Bounty Hunter system must be realistic in terms of location, so anyone in the immediate area who is hostile will be subject to being hunted for a reward from that outpost.
I assume this will be a very profitable system later for players who acquire it. Players that want to craft and process are going to need bodyguards who can indefinitely make an earning. From what I take away from it, it looks like there will actually be constant war in some areas for larger guilds. That makes me really happy!
I didn't say there was no reason to kill other players - combatant or non-combatant - I said there was no upside to corruption.
Potentially gaining raw materials and/or certificates is the upside of killing players if they refuse to fight back - corruption is the punishment.
... This is just dancing around the actual content of what corruption is for. You gain corruption by killing no-combatant players which drop more loot than a combatant player. Meaning In the process of gaining corruption you also gain more loot from your victims.
It is a risk/reward system that eventually stops rewarding you because what you are doing is bad behavior. If it was purely a punishment then non-combatants would not drop extra loot.
I didn't say there was no reason to kill other players - combatant or non-combatant - I said there was no upside to corruption.
Potentially gaining raw materials and/or certificates is the upside of killing players if they refuse to fight back - corruption is the punishment.
... This is just dancing around the actual content of what corruption is for. You gain corruption by killing no-combatant players which drop more loot than a combatant player. Meaning In the process of gaining corruption you also gain more loot from your victims.
It is a risk/reward system that eventually stops rewarding you because what you are doing is bad behavior. If it was purely a punishment then non-combatants would not drop extra loot.
I'm not arguing against any of what you are saying here, not st all.
What I am saying is that corruption is not supposed to have an up side to it. Sure, you had a reason for gaining it when you got it, but actually *having* it is not supposed to have any benefits - and I said that in reply to a request for adding in a benefit to being corrupt.
i mean tomatoe tomato at this point. I guess im seeing this as a glass half full and you two are seeing it as a half empty. There is a benefit for gaining corruption, and thats the loot you get from killing players as well as removing them from a zone such as a grinding spot or gathering area to take it for you or your party.
That's the last time ill try explaining that to you since this is pretty much derailed at this point.
i mean tomatoe tomato at this point. I guess im seeing this as a glass half full and you two are seeing it as a half empty. There is a benefit for gaining corruption, and thats the loot you get from killing players as well as removing them from a zone such as a grinding spot or gathering area to take it for you or your party.
That loot is the benefit you gain from killing the players in question, not from gaining corruption.
The act you are performing is killing the player, and this act results in three distinct things happening.
The first is that the player in question suffers death penalties.
The second is that you are able to loot a portion of materials that player had on them.
The third is that you can corruption.
Each of these are distinct and discrete events.
It is possible to kill a non-combatant player, who then takes the death penalty in full and you gain corruption, and then not loot the materials they drop.
As such, when someone says there are many benefits to being corrupt and no positives, the argument that the loot you gained from killing a player isn't a direct result of being corrupt, and so is not a valid point to make against such a statement.
It is a valid point to state that it is one of several reasons to gain that corruption, but it is not a benefit of having that corruption.
This is not an argument on semantics as you are suggesting, it is a point of mechanics.
That loot is the benefit you gain from killing the players in question, not from gaining corruption.
The act you are performing is killing the player, and this act results in three distinct things happening.
The first is that the player in question suffers death penalties.
The second is that you are able to loot a portion of materials that player had on them.
The third is that you can corruption.
Each of these are distinct and discrete events.
It is possible to kill a non-combatant player, who then takes the death penalty in full and you gain corruption, and then not loot the materials they drop.
As such, when someone says there are many benefits to being corrupt and no positives, the argument that the loot you gained from killing a player isn't a direct result of being corrupt, and so is not a valid point to make against such a statement.
It is a valid point to state that it is one of several reasons to gain that corruption, but it is not a benefit of having that corruption.
This is not an argument on semantics as you are suggesting, it is a point of mechanics.
Alright heres a series of questions ill ask you. answer them in order.
How do you gain corruption?
What scenarios would incentivize a player to attack another player?
Do you gain anything from killing other players?
Do you believe that your average non-combatant player would be scared if they saw a corrupted player, or happy?
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited October 2020
I'm confused but it seems like the argument stems from Noaani saying that there is supposed to be no benefit to corruption and they don't intend to add a positive to gaining corruption, which is true.
They don't want to encourage you to kill for the sake of killing. If you go outside your town and see a random player sitting there, they don't want to encourage you to kill them just because you can.
They don't want you to want to gain corruption.
As was posted, corruption is supposed to be a risk, it's not supposed to have a benefit. They want players to balance this risk vs whatever they stand to gain from a kill.
Yes, you can gain resources by killing someone and the kill could result in corruption but these rewards aren't guaranteed. You only get these things if they have them. If the opponent has no resources, you aren't getting anything.
Alright heres a series of questions ill ask you. answer them in order.
How do you gain corruption?
What scenarios would incentivize a player to attack another player?
Do you gain anything from killing other players?
Do you believe that your average non-combatant player would be scared if they saw a corrupted player, or happy?
I'm not sure what the point of this is, but I'll play along.
Killing a player while that player is in the non-combatant state.
The main scenario in game that I can see will be that the player in question pisses you off. Resources and encounters will also likely be fought over, though in reality I don't expect players to consider it worth fighting against a random player for these most of the time.
You gain a small amount resources and certificates if the player has any on them. If you are fighting over resource spawns or encounters, you gain non-exclusive access to them for a short duration. Most importantly, you gain the satisfaction in having killed the player that pissed you off.
The average player will be wary, neither scared nor happy. You can test this out in game - gain a small amount of corruption and walk around a sparsely populated area (though one that does actually have people). Don't act threatening towards other players at all, and observe their behavior. Most players will keep an eye on you, but if you do not get too close to them or do not target them, they will likely ignore you (these players are wary). A small number of players may leave the area (these players are scared), and eventually a player will attack you (this player is happy).
You will likely see a half dozen other players before you come across the player that attacks you.
I played your game, now I want you to answer those same questions.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This system is pretty closely based on the L2 model which served well for a variety of situation not just regular conflict
The early L2 model was very harsh with large amount of drops by the corrupted player when killed but later this was softened a little with a lesser number of drops.
Botting
I recall in L2, occasionally finding botting players and having a team player either risk their own drop or sacrifice their alt for killing that bot. And when it was a botted party that had an rez enabled botted party member they would kill over and over as the ressurect the player resumed active play.
I remember one particular instance where the player that was botting was multi delevelled by other players and not a damn was given as few tolerated botting.
Perhaps griefing, I would consider player exercised justice.
Contesting Areas
I also remember having other player parties that were pve, come and just start playing in a primary xp spot over the top of our team.. the area did not generate sufficent xp for both groups.. the pve team would rely on the fact that not many would be prepared to go red/corrupted. So it would come down to stamina, which ever group would be prepared last out a period of low xp gain.. then a team would break and enter either into pvp or sometimes go red.. and sometimes that letting a team go red on one team was a ploy by the other who had another group on standby nearby to take them out and enjoy the pickings.
Corrupted shouldn't have the odds stacked in their favour. Maybe make the debuff less against combatants and harsher when corrupted attack non combatants, but if you have 6 bounty hunters, you should need about 8 corrupted to kill them.
This makes people who want to be corrupted have to face the consequences. In saying that give more reward for corrupted players, but keep the risk level or even increase the level of risk and consequences for corrupted players.
More consequences and risks than reward though, when fighting non combatants.
When corrupted players fight other corrupted and combatants, then the reward should be greater for corrupted players fighting combatants, compared to combatants fighting corrupted or other combatants, but with added risk and consequences for corrupted players compared to combatants.
And the consequences and risk corrupted players face when fighting non combatants should be significantly higher than when corrupted players fight combatants or other corrupted players, and with less reward for killing non combatants compared to when corrupted players fight combatants and other corrupted players, to prevent abuse of the PvP system.
well reason bounty hunter will not work is because toons will probably not wait for bounty hunter to come and kill him most likely will want to get debuff off and get green as soon as possible.
Bounty Hunter system serves as punishment for curroption zone pvp. So does not have to be necessarily fair or 1v1
well reason bounty hunter will not work is because toons will probably not wait for bounty hunter to come and kill him most likely will want to get debuff off and get green as soon as possible.
Bounty Hunter system serves as punishment for curroption zone pvp. So does not have to be necessarily fair or 1v1
Dat's why dey camp. What Bounty Hunter doesn't want to wait on their prey? I mean you have to take in consideration there will certainly be designated "Hotspots" in Verra people will migrate to for fun and sport.
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Corrupted shouldn't have the odds stacked in their favour. Maybe make the debuff less against combatants and harsher when corrupted attack non combatants, but if you have 6 bounty hunters, you should need about 8 corrupted to kill them.
This makes people who want to be corrupted have to face the consequences. In saying that give more reward for corrupted players, but keep the risk level or even increase the level of risk and consequences for corrupted players.
More consequences and risks than reward though, when fighting non combatants.
When corrupted players fight other corrupted and combatants, then the reward should be greater for corrupted players fighting combatants, compared to combatants fighting corrupted or other combatants, but with added risk and consequences for corrupted players compared to combatants.
And the consequences and risk corrupted players face when fighting non combatants should be significantly higher than when corrupted players fight combatants or other corrupted players, and with less reward for killing non combatants compared to when corrupted players fight combatants and other corrupted players, to prevent abuse of the PvP system.
You seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings of the corruption system. The only way to gain corruption is to kill a non-combatant. Therefore, killing non-combatants does already equal more corruption and risk.
Your point about about abusing the PvP system is opposite of Ashes vision to increase consensual PvP. You suggest reducing the reward of killing non-combatants. However, this encourages non-combatants to refuse to fight in order to avoid dropping their stuff. Ashes encourages PvP by reducing the amount lost if the non-combatant chooses to fight. Combined with the potential to loot the attackers corpse, non-combatants are effectively paid to fight an attacker. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
The corrupted stat penalty does not apply to fighting bounty hunters. Therefore, a theoretical equal stat and skill corrupted vs. bounty hunter results in equal chances to win. It does not require something like 8 corrupted to beat 6 bounty hunters. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Bounty_hunters
There is no reward for being corrupted because the only way to become corrupted is to kill non-combatants and killing non-combatants is discouraged in Ashes.
In an earlier post in this thread, I explained why you should rarely gain corruption as long as your killing players within 10 levels lower than you. This means that you can generally kill all you want to as long as you kill those who stand a chance in a fight.
Comments
...did you completely miss the entire point of my post?
Seemingly, yes.
If Ashes were to implement a system where people could flag up for PvP or not flag up for PvP (as you just suggested), then people would simply not flag up for PvP if they didn't want to PvP - thus opting out of it.
That is not what Ashes is about. The developers want players to be able to kill any other player at any point, if they are willing to take the potential penalty for doing so. If you are not willing to take that penalty, the idea is you don't attack the player.
This isn't a system that is designed to facilitate players with a ganking playstyle - but that is absolutely by design. They don't want that kind of player in the game, and have made that fairly clear.
i i'll add a bit, that you dont necessarily incurred any penalties as being corrupted if you can clear the corruption before anyone kills you. By becoming corrupt, you only risk at getting penalties.
This is absolutely true - and I would even go as far as to say it would be what happens most of the time - assuming you only have 1 or 2 kills worth of corruption.
Corruption is likely to only ever become a real issue when you have multiple kills worth of corruption stacked up, which is why it is an effective deterrent against gankers but is unlikely to stop people killing one or two annoying people.
This just keeps coming up, so I'm going copy my response from another thread.
You can kill as many people as you want to. If you kill players that are reasonably around your level, you probably won't go red. If you hit an occasional player that won't fight back, you can just wait a short time to let the corruption go away and continue.
Steven has said that the intended balance is that players should be able to overcome up to 10 level difference by skilled play. 15 levels may be possible but very difficult. Attacked players are essentially paid to fight back due to half penalty for losing or gaining drops from the attacker for winning. Combine the potential for level difference to be overcome and being paid to fight should result in most players around your level will fight and not give you corruption.
Go nuts. PvP everywhere against players that stand a chance is virtually unrestricted by the game.
If you have gone red with a large drop in stats, you have murdered many people that did not fight back.
If your playstyle is to murder low levels endlessly, you are not being catered to; and, hopefully your stats will drop enough that those low levels will be able to solo you.
Well this is kinda not true.
I think you mean this:
(from the references here)
EDIT: NVM, it might just me me it's not showing for...
Your idea could have been a solution with multiple add that may generate others issues.
The means issue with your idea would be the range of this none debuff effect... Bounty hunters just have to stay out range to let their friends start the fight.
The other issue is the corrupted players can have a BH buddy that stay with him so he can kill without the debuff...
Fine solution for this and it maybe a thing.
Btw why do I think there may not be red players or at least not enough to make BH meaningful is because you don't choose to be corrupted, the victims choose for you ... You cannot decide for him if he will fight back or not.
Or you are killing in group and you are stupid...
The victims will have to choose between losing 25% (stay green) or 12.5% ( become purple) of his loots ( I chose those numbers base on the 300% to 400% death penalty for red players, that would make 75 to 100% loot drop).
So those 12.5% will influence the victims on his choice , if he has not chance of winning.
And there is not much to win to make the enemy red
But testing will show the true.
Intrepid have stated that they have no intention of introducing any positives to gaining corruption.
Additionally, they have said that if you gain corruption, your world has changed - it is not going to be a very benefitial place to be (their exact words).
A system that has no benefits and many negatives, that is designed to incentivize players to restrict undesired behavior - that sounds to me like punishment.
do you... not know what you get when you kill a non-combatant?
I didn't say there was no reason to kill other players - combatant or non-combatant - I said there was no upside to corruption.
Potentially gaining raw materials and/or certificates is the upside of killing players if they refuse to fight back - corruption is the punishment.
Not necessarily, you would just need to incentivise the bounty hunter actually being present. One way would be to have the tracking increase in accuracy the closer they got. Without going themselves their screen sniping friends only get a large vague location. If they move into the circle, they are given smaller and smaller circles.
I assume this will be a very profitable system later for players who acquire it. Players that want to craft and process are going to need bodyguards who can indefinitely make an earning. From what I take away from it, it looks like there will actually be constant war in some areas for larger guilds. That makes me really happy!
... This is just dancing around the actual content of what corruption is for. You gain corruption by killing no-combatant players which drop more loot than a combatant player. Meaning In the process of gaining corruption you also gain more loot from your victims.
It is a risk/reward system that eventually stops rewarding you because what you are doing is bad behavior. If it was purely a punishment then non-combatants would not drop extra loot.
In a game there is no reason not to PvP. Its not like you will die in real life if you die in game.
What I am saying is that corruption is not supposed to have an up side to it. Sure, you had a reason for gaining it when you got it, but actually *having* it is not supposed to have any benefits - and I said that in reply to a request for adding in a benefit to being corrupt.
That's the last time ill try explaining that to you since this is pretty much derailed at this point.
The act you are performing is killing the player, and this act results in three distinct things happening.
The first is that the player in question suffers death penalties.
The second is that you are able to loot a portion of materials that player had on them.
The third is that you can corruption.
Each of these are distinct and discrete events.
It is possible to kill a non-combatant player, who then takes the death penalty in full and you gain corruption, and then not loot the materials they drop.
As such, when someone says there are many benefits to being corrupt and no positives, the argument that the loot you gained from killing a player isn't a direct result of being corrupt, and so is not a valid point to make against such a statement.
It is a valid point to state that it is one of several reasons to gain that corruption, but it is not a benefit of having that corruption.
This is not an argument on semantics as you are suggesting, it is a point of mechanics.
Alright heres a series of questions ill ask you. answer them in order.
How do you gain corruption?
What scenarios would incentivize a player to attack another player?
Do you gain anything from killing other players?
Do you believe that your average non-combatant player would be scared if they saw a corrupted player, or happy?
They don't want to encourage you to kill for the sake of killing. If you go outside your town and see a random player sitting there, they don't want to encourage you to kill them just because you can.
They don't want you to want to gain corruption.
As was posted, corruption is supposed to be a risk, it's not supposed to have a benefit. They want players to balance this risk vs whatever they stand to gain from a kill.
Yes, you can gain resources by killing someone and the kill could result in corruption but these rewards aren't guaranteed. You only get these things if they have them. If the opponent has no resources, you aren't getting anything.
Killing a player while that player is in the non-combatant state.
The main scenario in game that I can see will be that the player in question pisses you off. Resources and encounters will also likely be fought over, though in reality I don't expect players to consider it worth fighting against a random player for these most of the time.
You gain a small amount resources and certificates if the player has any on them. If you are fighting over resource spawns or encounters, you gain non-exclusive access to them for a short duration. Most importantly, you gain the satisfaction in having killed the player that pissed you off.
The average player will be wary, neither scared nor happy. You can test this out in game - gain a small amount of corruption and walk around a sparsely populated area (though one that does actually have people). Don't act threatening towards other players at all, and observe their behavior. Most players will keep an eye on you, but if you do not get too close to them or do not target them, they will likely ignore you (these players are wary). A small number of players may leave the area (these players are scared), and eventually a player will attack you (this player is happy).
You will likely see a half dozen other players before you come across the player that attacks you.
I played your game, now I want you to answer those same questions.
The early L2 model was very harsh with large amount of drops by the corrupted player when killed but later this was softened a little with a lesser number of drops.
Botting
I recall in L2, occasionally finding botting players and having a team player either risk their own drop or sacrifice their alt for killing that bot. And when it was a botted party that had an rez enabled botted party member they would kill over and over as the ressurect the player resumed active play.
I remember one particular instance where the player that was botting was multi delevelled by other players and not a damn was given as few tolerated botting.
Perhaps griefing, I would consider player exercised justice.
Contesting Areas
I also remember having other player parties that were pve, come and just start playing in a primary xp spot over the top of our team.. the area did not generate sufficent xp for both groups.. the pve team would rely on the fact that not many would be prepared to go red/corrupted. So it would come down to stamina, which ever group would be prepared last out a period of low xp gain.. then a team would break and enter either into pvp or sometimes go red.. and sometimes that letting a team go red on one team was a ploy by the other who had another group on standby nearby to take them out and enjoy the pickings.
So not always clear cut and simple!
System sounds fine as is.
This makes people who want to be corrupted have to face the consequences. In saying that give more reward for corrupted players, but keep the risk level or even increase the level of risk and consequences for corrupted players.
More consequences and risks than reward though, when fighting non combatants.
When corrupted players fight other corrupted and combatants, then the reward should be greater for corrupted players fighting combatants, compared to combatants fighting corrupted or other combatants, but with added risk and consequences for corrupted players compared to combatants.
And the consequences and risk corrupted players face when fighting non combatants should be significantly higher than when corrupted players fight combatants or other corrupted players, and with less reward for killing non combatants compared to when corrupted players fight combatants and other corrupted players, to prevent abuse of the PvP system.
Bounty Hunter system serves as punishment for curroption zone pvp. So does not have to be necessarily fair or 1v1
Dat's why dey camp. What Bounty Hunter doesn't want to wait on their prey? I mean you have to take in consideration there will certainly be designated "Hotspots" in Verra people will migrate to for fun and sport.
You seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings of the corruption system. The only way to gain corruption is to kill a non-combatant. Therefore, killing non-combatants does already equal more corruption and risk.
Your point about about abusing the PvP system is opposite of Ashes vision to increase consensual PvP. You suggest reducing the reward of killing non-combatants. However, this encourages non-combatants to refuse to fight in order to avoid dropping their stuff. Ashes encourages PvP by reducing the amount lost if the non-combatant chooses to fight. Combined with the potential to loot the attackers corpse, non-combatants are effectively paid to fight an attacker.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
The corrupted stat penalty does not apply to fighting bounty hunters. Therefore, a theoretical equal stat and skill corrupted vs. bounty hunter results in equal chances to win. It does not require something like 8 corrupted to beat 6 bounty hunters.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Bounty_hunters
There is no reward for being corrupted because the only way to become corrupted is to kill non-combatants and killing non-combatants is discouraged in Ashes.
In an earlier post in this thread, I explained why you should rarely gain corruption as long as your killing players within 10 levels lower than you. This means that you can generally kill all you want to as long as you kill those who stand a chance in a fight.