I think non-pvpers have been throwing the word punishment around a bit. I don't think corruption is a punishment at all, and even listening to the developers talk about it they don't give off that impression either. It's more like a deterrence to absolute chaos, yet still allowing a means to an end for people to deal with pve'ers who like to run their mouths.
Corruption is a punishment...
.... that comes from the developers.
It is specifically designed to stop the world from becoming a gank box, without taking away player agency of being able to kill anyone at any time.
The way the current system is set up, I doubt there will be many corrupted players at all. In order to become corrupted you have to kill a non-combatant, but there's really no benefit to being a non-combatant over being a combatant due to the death penalties. So if everyone is a combatant, nobody will become corrupted. Maybe I'm missing something here....
Some players won’t fight back on principal.
Some players will take the loss of some resources so they can have an instant port back to a safe-ish area.
Some players will be caught afk and die.
Some groups will have the coordination to 100-0 a player before they can flag.
Some players will let themselves die when they have no resources to lose.
There’s not much incentive to die green, but there are a few reasons someone might.
Even if a player has no interest in doing any PvP whatsoever, they are still better off flagging themselves as a combatant (which you can do manually afaik) because the death penalties are the same for both PvP and PvE deaths. Now, if Intrepid change it so that the death penalties for PvE are different to PvP, then that's a whole different situation. But then again if they do that they are opening up a a huge can of worms when it comes to deciding whether a death was caused by PvP or PvE.
Did you... read what you quoted from me?
Because I clearly stated the game gives no incentive the staying green, but personal motives (or a sufficient skill gap) can be reason enough for someone to be green when they die.
Right, let's go through your list:
Some players won’t fight back on principal. Even if you have no intention of fighting back you won't benefit from being a non-combatant.
Some players will take the loss of some resources so they can have an instant port back to a safe-ish area. You still get exp debt, which will be less on a combatant than a non-combatant.
Some players will be caught afk and die. If you manually flag yourself as a combatant this argument is meaningless.
Some groups will have the coordination to 100-0 a player before they can flag. Again, if you are always flagged as a combatant, this means nothing.
Some players will let themselves die when they have no resources to lose. Right but you can let yourself die as a combatant just as easily as a non-combatant. Being a combatant doesn't magically make you harder to kill. Plus it's not just about the resource drop, but the exp debt too.
There’s not much incentive to die green, but there are a few reasons someone might. Right but in a world where you can manually flag yourself as a combatant, there's no reason why you would ever choose to be a non-combatant.
There isn’t any manual combatant flagging, unless you’ve got an announcement from Steven to the contrary.
And again, personal motivations exist outside the scope of the game. Some people, like Dygz will not fight back just because they don’t want to. Spite is a powerful force.
An afk player shouldn’t ever get a free pass on their death penalties.
A team killing someone efficiently enough to prevent them flagging deserves to get the full payout.
Regardless, you said people won’t be dying green enough for corruption to even be a significant aspect of gameplay, which going by Steven’s comments on it (and the feature designed around it), is both factually untrue and contrary to the intent of the developer.
People will die green, they will die green often enough for bounty hunters to be an attractive profession, they will die green often enough for military nodes’ lessened corruption feature to have an impact on local PvP.
They’ll die green because they got one shot by a max level, because they just wanted to give corruption out of spite, because the exp debt is minimal and they just don’t care, because they’re afk and weren’t there to fight back, because they’ve set some weird passivism challenge for themselves, because they wanted to lower their stats for some reason.
The game doesn’t have to incentivize something in order for people to do it.
I don’t make a point to try parkouring to the highest point in any given city because I’m rewarded for it. And even if I fall to my death a few times and eat all the associates penalties, it’s not gonna stop me, because I personally think it’s fun to get to the top of the building and waste my time spamming some emotes up there. Not all actions taken in a game are done because it’s a good idea. Hell, there’s a reason emergent gameplay can be such a hot topic. Just look at Nuzlocke, or ARAM, or speed runs.
Can you link the source of this, because I have yet to see any evidence of it being a feature for release. It’s existence in Alpha is necessary when the corruption system isn’t implemented, but it’s easy to see how it’d absolutely warp the game for the worse if it ended up in live launch.
So do you get corruption just for killing non-combatants? or for attacking them. Because if it's just killing them, what's to stop me from hitting them a few times while they're in a pve fight and walking away to let the monster do the job?
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2020
@Pannath as you explained can likely happen. From my experience of similar mechanics in a different game, the main issue becomes:
a) making sure you can calculate how much to hit without killing the player yourself. Accidently miscalculate and/or a crit attack and it can become your own kill and
b) taking the limited risk of being flagged for a duration after your attack.
From experience, failed more times than succeeding doing this unless training a group of mobs onto a player and stunning them as well.
It's anybody`s guess how the mechanics will play out in AoC, just speculation.
So may end up being applicable here.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Can you link the source of this, because I have yet to see any evidence of it being a feature for release. It’s existence in Alpha is necessary when the corruption system isn’t implemented, but it’s easy to see how it’d absolutely warp the game for the worse if it ended up in live launch.
You have a toggle to say whether your aoe abilities affect other players, which I assume would flag you as a combatant in the process. It would be rather odd if you could have your aoe's affect other players and still be a non-combatant.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So do you get corruption just for killing non-combatants? or for attacking them. Because if it's just killing them, what's to stop me from hitting them a few times while they're in a pve fight and walking away to let the monster do the job?
It's a gamble whether the blow you do actually is the killing blow. You may accidentally kill them, and now you have corruption.
Also, if you don't kill them, then you don't get to loot them when they die, so what is the point of attacking them?
But anyway, the whole point of this thread is based on a misconception. Corruption is 100% bad, there is nothing good about it and there is not supposed to be anything good about it. If you don't like the term punishment, then instead think of it as the trade-off, the negative consequence you choose to take on in order to be able to kill people not flagged for PvP.
If you smash your hand with a hammer, the pain isn't punishment. Nobody is inflicting it on you except yourself. It's just the negative consequence of your actions.
The developers have no interest in giving support to players with corruption, or giving it any sort of upside at all. If they did that, it would no longer have any meaning, it would lose its entire purpose. And that purpose is to be the bad result of engaging in non-consensual PvP.
ETA: I should mention that there is one actual tangible benefit to behavior that results in corruption. If you kill someone who is green, they suffer double the usual death penalty. That means they take on double the XP debt, but it also means they drop double the resources. Resources that go to you as loot. So in theory, I suppose that could be an incentive to engage in that behavior; you might end up profiting from it. It will remain to be seen if that profit comes anywhere close to justifying taking on corruption. We haven't had a chance to actually test anything yet, so we have to wait to find out.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2020
With the amount of quoting, miss quoting, re-quoting, misinterpreting, sides taken, counter-arguments, contradicting and polar opposite views; I think we have just the right ingredients for some awesome pvp & politics carried from the forums to the game! Nothing like a bit of passion in-game... Keep it up!
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Can you link the source of this, because I have yet to see any evidence of it being a feature for release. It’s existence in Alpha is necessary when the corruption system isn’t implemented, but it’s easy to see how it’d absolutely warp the game for the worse if it ended up in live launch.
You can opt into PvP with combatants via a checkbox. If you want a purple name all the time, I am not sure that will happen.
"Players will be able to opt-in (via a checkbox) to allow their beneficial or non-beneficial AoEs to hit flagged players."
So do you get corruption just for killing non-combatants? or for attacking them.
Currently, it is for the killing blow.
"If a combatant (purple) player kills a non-combatant (green) player in PvP, they will be flagged as corrupt (red).[2]" https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
Because if it's just killing them, what's to stop me from hitting them a few times while they're in a pve fight and walking away to let the monster do the job?
Right. That and several other exploits have been brought up many times. IS is very aware and it will be subject to change in testing.
So do you get corruption just for killing non-combatants? or for attacking them. Because if it's just killing them, what's to stop me from hitting them a few times while they're in a pve fight and walking away to let the monster do the job?
You have a toggle to say whether your aoe abilities affect other players, which I assume would flag you as a combatant in the process. It would be rather odd if you could have your aoe's affect other players and still be a non-combatant.
I read that as a "You're still a green, BUT if your AoE hits someone, you'll flag purple", rather than it being a "you'll always be purple" kind of thing.
You have a toggle to say whether your aoe abilities affect other players, which I assume would flag you as a combatant in the process. It would be rather odd if you could have your aoe's affect other players and still be a non-combatant.
I read that as a "You're still a green, BUT if your AoE hits someone, you'll flag purple", rather than it being a "you'll always be purple" kind of thing.
Exactly what davey said. Enabling the force attack option is not going to flag you Combatant in and of itself. It simply means you will flag Combatant if other players walk through your AoEs, rather than only through direct targeted attacks on other players.
I hope the Devs take the question about the toggle next week so we can stop the back and forth over a toggle... The topic seems to pop up frequently.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Either that means if you are someone who runs your mouth a lot as a player, and you're not into pvp... you're going to have a rough time in this game unless you learn to reign back what you say.
Anyone with extremely strong opinions who thinks they can sit back and just harvest and lip people off are going to get killed, or trained, or attacked by other players just enough to let the monster kill them OVER AND OVER again. That fills me with joy thinking about it. And at the very least someone who we especially thinks needs a lesson, we can take turns dealing with them to spread corruption over a larger group of people.
So you pve'ers who are about to rage out against what I just said, please actually read it again and think about it before opening your mouth.
2
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Either that means if you are someone who runs your mouth a lot as a player, and you're not into pvp... you're going to have a rough time in this game unless you learn to reign back what you say.
Anyone with extremely strong opinions who thinks they can sit back and just harvest and lip people off are going to get killed, or trained, or attacked by other players just enough to let the monster kill them OVER AND OVER again. That fills me with joy thinking about it. And at the very least someone who we especially thinks needs a lesson, we can take turns dealing with them to spread corruption over a larger group of people.
So you pve'ers who are about to rage out against what I just said, please actually read it again and think about it before opening your mouth.
2 things...
Firstly, you are correct in that open PvP does give people the freedom in many cases to just off someone who irritates them. There may be consequences such as dealing with corruption, or the person's friends/allies may attack you, or you might even be attacked by guard NPCs depending on where you are at (I am just speculating on that last part). But yes, nobody's "safe" here.
But secondly, getting all huffy about people "opening their mouths" makes you come off like a real jackass. People have opinions and this forum is the place to express them. Acting like an internet tough guy on a forum by threatening to maybe some day attack them in game if you ever someday run into them is really, really sad and pathetic. Up until now you seemed like a legitimate poster.
But secondly, getting all huffy about people "opening their mouths" makes you come off like a real jackass. People have opinions and this forum is the place to express them. Acting like an internet tough guy on a forum by threatening to maybe some day attack them in game if you ever someday run into them is really, really sad and pathetic. Up until now you seemed like a legitimate poster.
I never threatened to attack anyone, nor am I going to. But some people may. What I said was a legitimate warning that people may not have considered. With this system in place there will be people who take note of people saying things they don't like and will attack them in game. I personally like pvp, so I'm not worried about people coming to gank me if I run my mouth. But there are people here who likely didn't consider this.
But you decided to jump to the conclusion that instead of offering helpful advise that I was personally threatening people.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I understand with what a lot of people are saying in that being corrupted is a deterrent/punishment. However, I think having corrupted nodes (especially those close or on the seas) would add a level of danger or challenge to those people looking to take longer trade journey's. Would also populated the sea more for those who wish to do cross ocean trade and make it more enjoyable. Also there's going to be people that want to be corrupted no matter what so having a place of there own would be really good for those types of players.
1
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2020
Corrupted nodes as a raiding node to attack caravans (including those on the sea) are not necessary as all players in such a node are free to carry out those attacks without being corrupted. In the case of caravans, corruption does not apply.
In the case of raiding any other target that is around the raiders level, the raiders probably won't gain corruption as the defenders will probably protect themselves due to the benefits of fighting back.
If the defenders do not fight back due to being greatly outnumbered and result in causing corruption, then under the current corruption system each raider will probably only get corruption from 0-2 players (since the corruption is spread among the much greater number of raiders) and that corruption should fade pretty quickly. Essentially, corruption is not designed to prevent such raiding against players within 10-15 levels of the raiders.
On the other hand, if you create any form of reward system (which can include a society of corrupted even if it has no in game benefit) for corruption then you encourage players to pursue corruption which is the exact opposite of the purpose of having corruption. Essentially, making a reward system of corruption results in more of murdering lowbies rather than less.
@Atama whether you like it or not, it's open world pvp. Anything that is said on a forum is gonna stay here out in the open and some people might decide to do something about it. I never said I was going to be one of those people. It was quite obvious to me that I might get attacked in game if someone didn't like what I had to say, I'm surprised you didn't realize this. Perhaps you are just so upset because you realize this isn't as safe of a space as you thought it might be.
This has nothing to do with my being hyper aggressive. Pointing out the reality of a situation isn't aggressive. But as I said, I'm pro pvp, I thrive off of it. So if when you called me a jackass you were of the impression that I was the sort of person that would attack in retaliation to that, then bravo to you for inviting that onto yourself.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I understand with what a lot of people are saying in that being corrupted is a deterrent/punishment. However, I think having corrupted nodes (especially those close or on the seas) would add a level of danger or challenge to those people looking to take longer trade journey's. Would also populated the sea more for those who wish to do cross ocean trade and make it more enjoyable. Also there's going to be people that want to be corrupted no matter what so having a place of there own would be really good for those types of players.
I would imagine the Thieves Guild areas, whether they be large hideouts or small, will be corruption-neutral. Similarly, any evil faction probably will not treat you differently if you have corruption.
That being said, corruption-neutral towns will likely not exist, and any safe spaces for corrupted players will likely not be numerous nor easy to retreat to. Corruption exists as a deterrent to random PK'ing, so creating areas in which that deterrent no longer functions as such is counter-intuitive from a design perspective.
If you really want a corruption-neutral town though, I highly recommend gathering some like-minded people and setting one up with freeholds. It wouldn't be quite the massive cityscape quest-hub with all the niche features, but I think if everyone coordinated on getting particular freehold buildings set up, you'd have something damn close to a proper safe haven for corrupted players.
Can you link the source of this, because I have yet to see any evidence of it being a feature for release. It’s existence in Alpha is necessary when the corruption system isn’t implemented, but it’s easy to see how it’d absolutely warp the game for the worse if it ended up in live launch.
You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[13] – Steven Sharif
Can you link the source of this, because I have yet to see any evidence of it being a feature for release. It’s existence in Alpha is necessary when the corruption system isn’t implemented, but it’s easy to see how it’d absolutely warp the game for the worse if it ended up in live launch.
You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[13] – Steven Sharif
Maybe it wasn’t clear, but I asked you for the source of the Combatant toggle you said exists. I already know the AoC flagging mechanics.
Manual flagging, which would let a player flag Combatant without being involved in any combat, does not exist. Automatic flagging which occurs only upon entering combat with another player, does exist.
You replied that manual flagging will exist, which is what I asked for a source for.
Comments
Corruption is a punishment...
.... that comes from the developers.
It is specifically designed to stop the world from becoming a gank box, without taking away player agency of being able to kill anyone at any time.
There isn’t any manual combatant flagging, unless you’ve got an announcement from Steven to the contrary.
And again, personal motivations exist outside the scope of the game. Some people, like Dygz will not fight back just because they don’t want to. Spite is a powerful force.
An afk player shouldn’t ever get a free pass on their death penalties.
A team killing someone efficiently enough to prevent them flagging deserves to get the full payout.
Regardless, you said people won’t be dying green enough for corruption to even be a significant aspect of gameplay, which going by Steven’s comments on it (and the feature designed around it), is both factually untrue and contrary to the intent of the developer.
People will die green, they will die green often enough for bounty hunters to be an attractive profession, they will die green often enough for military nodes’ lessened corruption feature to have an impact on local PvP.
They’ll die green because they got one shot by a max level, because they just wanted to give corruption out of spite, because the exp debt is minimal and they just don’t care, because they’re afk and weren’t there to fight back, because they’ve set some weird passivism challenge for themselves, because they wanted to lower their stats for some reason.
The game doesn’t have to incentivize something in order for people to do it.
I don’t make a point to try parkouring to the highest point in any given city because I’m rewarded for it. And even if I fall to my death a few times and eat all the associates penalties, it’s not gonna stop me, because I personally think it’s fun to get to the top of the building and waste my time spamming some emotes up there. Not all actions taken in a game are done because it’s a good idea. Hell, there’s a reason emergent gameplay can be such a hot topic. Just look at Nuzlocke, or ARAM, or speed runs.
Yes there is
@Caeryl
Can you link the source of this, because I have yet to see any evidence of it being a feature for release. It’s existence in Alpha is necessary when the corruption system isn’t implemented, but it’s easy to see how it’d absolutely warp the game for the worse if it ended up in live launch.
a) making sure you can calculate how much to hit without killing the player yourself. Accidently miscalculate and/or a crit attack and it can become your own kill and
b) taking the limited risk of being flagged for a duration after your attack.
From experience, failed more times than succeeding doing this unless training a group of mobs onto a player and stunning them as well.
It's anybody`s guess how the mechanics will play out in AoC, just speculation.
So may end up being applicable here.
You have a toggle to say whether your aoe abilities affect other players, which I assume would flag you as a combatant in the process. It would be rather odd if you could have your aoe's affect other players and still be a non-combatant.
Also, if you don't kill them, then you don't get to loot them when they die, so what is the point of attacking them?
But anyway, the whole point of this thread is based on a misconception. Corruption is 100% bad, there is nothing good about it and there is not supposed to be anything good about it. If you don't like the term punishment, then instead think of it as the trade-off, the negative consequence you choose to take on in order to be able to kill people not flagged for PvP.
If you smash your hand with a hammer, the pain isn't punishment. Nobody is inflicting it on you except yourself. It's just the negative consequence of your actions.
The developers have no interest in giving support to players with corruption, or giving it any sort of upside at all. If they did that, it would no longer have any meaning, it would lose its entire purpose. And that purpose is to be the bad result of engaging in non-consensual PvP.
ETA: I should mention that there is one actual tangible benefit to behavior that results in corruption. If you kill someone who is green, they suffer double the usual death penalty. That means they take on double the XP debt, but it also means they drop double the resources. Resources that go to you as loot. So in theory, I suppose that could be an incentive to engage in that behavior; you might end up profiting from it. It will remain to be seen if that profit comes anywhere close to justifying taking on corruption. We haven't had a chance to actually test anything yet, so we have to wait to find out.
"Players will be able to opt-in (via a checkbox) to allow their beneficial or non-beneficial AoEs to hit flagged players."
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging
"If a combatant (purple) player kills a non-combatant (green) player in PvP, they will be flagged as corrupt (red).[2]"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption Right. That and several other exploits have been brought up many times. IS is very aware and it will be subject to change in testing.
This might help to clear it up for you.
I read that as a "You're still a green, BUT if your AoE hits someone, you'll flag purple", rather than it being a "you'll always be purple" kind of thing.
Exactly what davey said. Enabling the force attack option is not going to flag you Combatant in and of itself. It simply means you will flag Combatant if other players walk through your AoEs, rather than only through direct targeted attacks on other players.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Anyone with extremely strong opinions who thinks they can sit back and just harvest and lip people off are going to get killed, or trained, or attacked by other players just enough to let the monster kill them OVER AND OVER again. That fills me with joy thinking about it. And at the very least someone who we especially thinks needs a lesson, we can take turns dealing with them to spread corruption over a larger group of people.
So you pve'ers who are about to rage out against what I just said, please actually read it again and think about it before opening your mouth.
Firstly, you are correct in that open PvP does give people the freedom in many cases to just off someone who irritates them. There may be consequences such as dealing with corruption, or the person's friends/allies may attack you, or you might even be attacked by guard NPCs depending on where you are at (I am just speculating on that last part). But yes, nobody's "safe" here.
But secondly, getting all huffy about people "opening their mouths" makes you come off like a real jackass. People have opinions and this forum is the place to express them. Acting like an internet tough guy on a forum by threatening to maybe some day attack them in game if you ever someday run into them is really, really sad and pathetic. Up until now you seemed like a legitimate poster.
I never threatened to attack anyone, nor am I going to. But some people may. What I said was a legitimate warning that people may not have considered. With this system in place there will be people who take note of people saying things they don't like and will attack them in game. I personally like pvp, so I'm not worried about people coming to gank me if I run my mouth. But there are people here who likely didn't consider this.
But you decided to jump to the conclusion that instead of offering helpful advise that I was personally threatening people.
If you didn’t mean to be a jerk. then you seriously want to restate what you’re saying so that you’re not telling people on the forums to shut up.
In the case of raiding any other target that is around the raiders level, the raiders probably won't gain corruption as the defenders will probably protect themselves due to the benefits of fighting back.
If the defenders do not fight back due to being greatly outnumbered and result in causing corruption, then under the current corruption system each raider will probably only get corruption from 0-2 players (since the corruption is spread among the much greater number of raiders) and that corruption should fade pretty quickly. Essentially, corruption is not designed to prevent such raiding against players within 10-15 levels of the raiders.
On the other hand, if you create any form of reward system (which can include a society of corrupted even if it has no in game benefit) for corruption then you encourage players to pursue corruption which is the exact opposite of the purpose of having corruption. Essentially, making a reward system of corruption results in more of murdering lowbies rather than less.
This has nothing to do with my being hyper aggressive. Pointing out the reality of a situation isn't aggressive. But as I said, I'm pro pvp, I thrive off of it. So if when you called me a jackass you were of the impression that I was the sort of person that would attack in retaliation to that, then bravo to you for inviting that onto yourself.
I would imagine the Thieves Guild areas, whether they be large hideouts or small, will be corruption-neutral. Similarly, any evil faction probably will not treat you differently if you have corruption.
That being said, corruption-neutral towns will likely not exist, and any safe spaces for corrupted players will likely not be numerous nor easy to retreat to. Corruption exists as a deterrent to random PK'ing, so creating areas in which that deterrent no longer functions as such is counter-intuitive from a design perspective.
If you really want a corruption-neutral town though, I highly recommend gathering some like-minded people and setting one up with freeholds. It wouldn't be quite the massive cityscape quest-hub with all the niche features, but I think if everyone coordinated on getting particular freehold buildings set up, you'd have something damn close to a proper safe haven for corrupted players.
You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[13] – Steven Sharif
Maybe it wasn’t clear, but I asked you for the source of the Combatant toggle you said exists. I already know the AoC flagging mechanics.
Manual flagging, which would let a player flag Combatant without being involved in any combat, does not exist. Automatic flagging which occurs only upon entering combat with another player, does exist.
You replied that manual flagging will exist, which is what I asked for a source for.