Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
I don't think greens not flagging against reds was decided for the specific purpose of not even allowing reds to kill in self-defense.
I also don't think that poor greens being unable to flag against reds in order to lessen their own death penalty, is the real intention.
I think the reason it IS like that, is:
- to allow greens to freely attack the corrupted without becoming combatant and risk getting killed by any other combatants (a perfectly valid reason);
- because it was like that or similar in L2 and was copied without too much thought.
The intention is good, but it causes problems, which I don't think were intended. Nothing to me indicates that they were definitely intended, and in my opinion they're just bad consequences of designing it like that.It's not okay to strip the greens of choice to flag up against red, just like it's not okay to penalize reds for mere self-defense against greens while somehow allowing them to freely murder combatants/BHs without penalties. Greens that are attacking reds are not a "different breed" of player than combatants or BHs are, they're attacking because of convenience that purples/BHs for some reason don't have.
And yes i admit that you should be able to defend against green.
But simply : you get red if you kill a green who didnt fight back.
Probably corruption is given only for each kill of a green who didnt fight back.
So if a green jump on you and you kill him... he fought => no corruption added.
I see no problem to have green people being agressiv without risk. the red did chose to get red and knew the rules. If he didnt want to become a prey for far more people than only few random purple he would see... he just wouldn't kill a green (you can jump on a green, strike him and if you see he doesnt defend himself... just don't kill him, no problem so... ... hit him until he is dead while he doesnt answer, you deserve such situation)
But with all that being said, the cases where a single red was "griefed" by a single green were almost non-existent. Because you'd either go red when you were in a party and wanted to push away another party that didn't flag back up, or you were a fucking dick who was murdering lowbies. In either case there'd always be several people who then hunted the red.
Your whole "issue" is built on an imaginary situation that will most likely never happen. And if you're trying to defend high lvl PKers who want to keep killing lowbies w/o any escalation of punishment just because the lowbies started fighting back after the killer turned red - the only thing I can say to that is "fuck that".
Greens get normal death penalty.
Purples get half normal death penalty.
I can't see why greens initiate on reds is because of convenience that purples/BHs for some reason don't have.
To me become a BH to hunt reds is the best way to kill red in stead of being a green or purple because if you die as a green the death penalty is higher than purple and BH have pathfinding ability to track red down than purple has nothing and we don't know the death penalty difference between purple and BH so I just assume purple=BH.
That's why I said that the problem is should consider that BH system be able to access or not no matter where players are, to me I think players should be able to access BH system no matter where they are.
If greens can access BH system any where then BH is the solution for green want to participate pvp with out green death penalty.
If the thing is green try to abuse corruption system through the role, just make the death penalty higher as red and the penalty will stack if still not balance enough make reds may clean some corruption score when kill greens initiate fight on them, in short a green initiate fight equals to a red to me.
If the thing is you don't want encounter situations like other greens initiate on you just because you're a red then you should plan your way out all the way to your own safe farming spot before you commit the kill.
To me, corruption system is not made to make pvp fun, but BH is.
edit: Ah, I think this works. Death penalties were the same for flagged people https://legacy-lineage2.com/guide/guides_pvp1.html
So realistically, the situation of a green attacking a red in Ashes will be even rarer than in L2, because most greens would think thrice before risking their loot against an aggressive player. Or they'd just attack together with other greens, at which point your suggestion changes nothing (except for the lowbies attacking a high lvl red).
Reds deserve punishment, greens don't. Part of the punishment for going red is all the world coming after you.
In our world, if someone kills an innocent citizen and other citizens attempt to apprehend him and he kills one of them, he is a double murderer. The second murder, of the person trying to apprehend him, is an additional crime. Just like in AoC, the killing of a green makes you red. The killing of a green coming after a red is a second murder worthy of additional punishment. You give up your self-defense right when you commit the first murder, just like a red does killing the first green.
If you don't like it, don't go red. Or don't play AoC, it isn't for everyone.
Being able to access map hacks at any time sounds pretty much just fully cheating at that point.
@tautau just a heads up in case you were expecting a response from me in particular, that you're in my ignore list (along with a few others), as you've proven yourself incapable of comprehending the topic.
And a fight against a red is not pvp. It was that way in L2 it is that way in Ashes and I like it that way. The greens might not attack them to not risk their loot, which means that BHs have higher chances to catch a red, which supports the BH system. And at the same time, the red is being punished for fighting back and refusing to be punished.
The system works perfectly imo and should not be changed. I have a few opinions on the BH part of the system, but we need to at least see it work in some way before saying anything about it.
Quoting you since @NiKr liked your comment, so the response is meant to him, as I wouldn't expect you to understand. Though I do start to doubt NiKr's capability to understand as well if he agrees with such a dumb comment.
Flagging as BH means reds can freely attack you and not be penalized for that. PvE-focused players are not going to do that. Therefore they stay green, and are removed the choice of flagging up to half their death penalty against a red player (but not purple, go figure).
And here I disagree, I think the system is not in a perfect state, and could be improved, to solve:
1) Greens being unable to halve their death penalty against reds;
2) Reds growing their death penalty for consensual PvP (a perfectly acceptable thing in AoC), after already having acquired increased death penalty for the very act of becoming red.
I consider 1) and 2) to be side-effects of the system trying to HELP greens, but not necessarily succeeding as well as the devs would like.
I also very much disagree that a player fighting a criminal player is not PvP. In fact I think that statement is outright stupid.
Also, as have been said before, a high lvl red can just annihilate countless lowbies w/o ever gaining more corruption because it'd take a single attack from the lowbie for the red to be able to kill him w/o any repercussions. And yet it's the game's lore.
Such issue arise because players are given the option to fight back and lose less? Aren't you overthinking it here? Do you want to protect innocent players and their interests, or do you just hate PKers and want them to be punished, even if at the expense of innocent players?
I don't think the lore knows what a "player" is, and becoming a criminal (call it "monster" if you will), doesn't make them an NPC.
Becoming a Bounty Hunter is that player's choice rather than someone else's choice.
If they stay Green, that, by definition, is their choice to stay Green. They can choose to become a Bounty Hunter if they wish to turn Purple against Reds.
Greens don't get half-normal death penalties aginst Reds because Reds gain Courrption when they kill Greens. That is a fair trade-off. And it deters Reds from killing more Greens.
But no, anyone cannot in fact just become a BH out of nowhere. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Bounty_hunters
So you're not only suggesting to change the corruption system, but pretty much completely make the BH system pointless because everyone would just punish reds instead of only those who really want to help people out in their node. In a way you're literally making red's lives harder with this suggestion. I'm not overthinking it. I've lived this, because I have been a high lvl Red in the lowbie location before and had several lowbies trying to fight me and completely losing. Except L2's system worked in their favor and I got huge amounts of corruption because of my actions. And when they did manage to kill me, they looted items from me because I had a ton of corruption on me, which was, yet again, making their life better.
And I've been on the other side of that situation as well and have benefited from it myself. I've made a ton of money for my lvl multiple times exactly because some dumb red decided to kill some lowbies a few too many times. The lore explains why the greens can fight against red w/o flagging up. So from the system's pov the red is in fact an "npc".
I don't like the player = monster lore either, no matter what their color is.
And the corruption mechanic feels artificial. But I have no better idea to both allow and deny the PvP at the same time.
The way how it is now, it creates a curve which will eventually punish the one who is too optimistic and doesn't run when it should.
The red can kill the green? -> the green should run
The green can kill the red? -> the red should run
Running is healthy. Makes you live longer.
Either way, I certainly won't insist on "free BH flagging" or anything, was an example because you insist on me providing solutions to issues, as only pointing them out isn't enough apparently. I'd rather leave it to devs, if they ever decided that those issues are worth addressing.
But you are overthinking the part where "everything breaks because players are suddenly allowed to consent to PvP".
And we are to assume that PvE greens will consider fighting a red a PvE activity?
Yep, the issues we're talking about might not even "get in the way" if escape strategy is viable. But we can't really know.
The pvpers would most likely either be BHs already and would easily flag against reds or they'd be just flagged through other means and wouldn't be fighting a red as a green.
You whole assumption stands on the shakiest of legs because the game is balanced around party play with all the other content most likely being taken up by pvers and carebears, so even if some reds do go out and find some straggling solo players to snipe - everyone around that location would just be a pve green and would never agro on a red. With only BHs hunting the red afterwards.
If being green is benefitial enough, PvPers won't necessarily be BHs. Also becoming purple against a red is very situational and requires a 3rd player.
I'm not gonna take your word for it, but sure, it could very well be that situations where my described issues even affect anything will be rare. But at the same time, they seem abusable, so the concerns are not invalidated: reds cause full death penalty to greens, and reds can't fight greens without being penalized.
BHs flag themselves up against reds. You don't need a 3rd person. And from what they've said, it seems that BHs are flagged only against Reds (just as your suggestion of greens being flagged like that), so there won't be any green benefit to it, because they'll be green to anyone else while purple for the red.
So as I said, any pvper who, for some reason, is not running around with a party will probably be a BH, because it'd be beneficial for them (both the social organization rewards and the red loots). And as you said yourself, any non-pvper green won't even fight a red.
So again, your whole "issue" is non-existent and has been addressed within the current system.
There will be green benefit if they decide it's better than being a BH.
Or they won't be BH, if it's more beneficial to stay green and scare reds into not fighting back.
Yes, and a PvPer green will.
Nope, countered everything you wrote.