(Added an EDIT to the original post to clarify, as some interpret the thread as a complaint to Corruption penalty.)
Perhaps a Green attacking a Red shouldn't become purple, but since Green is the aggressor, Red should be able to kill him without corruption bump, because Red is not griefing or going on a killing spree here (which the corruption system is supposed to prevent).
It's a problem with the system if it's more beneficial to unflag before going for a Red hunt.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
How do you "unflag"?
And...what is the more beneficial part?
How do you "unflag"?
And...what is the more beneficial part?
You go where you're allowed to switch from Purple to Green, and you do that.
Reds might hesitate to defend against a Green, as killing them will increase their corruption.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
What?
I think you don't understand how flagging works in Ashes.
What?
I think you don't understand how flagging works in Ashes.
I re-checked the wiki and it seems everyone is Green by default and only go Purple once they attack a non-Red player, and that expires after 90s since last attack. So you can't just be Purple 24/7 and appear to others that you're a PvPer (as in, "come at me if you will, I'll fight back"). That's terrible, PvP players are gonna need to attack Greens to figure out if they're PvPers?
Yet, the image describes a scenario when a Red kills a Purple. How does that scenario come to be? A Green attacks another non-Red, becomes Purple, then the Red kills him? Seems like an unlikely scenario.
Either way, the system is busted. A Red already has death penalty coming, why should it be increased further for trying to preserve his life?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
That scenario comes to be when there is a group of people fighting and the Corrupted player chooses to kill a nearby Combatant...probably a Combatant who is (or very recently was) fighting someone who was not Corrupted.
That scenario comes to be when there is a group of people fighting and the Corrupted player chooses to kill a nearby Combatant...probably a Combatant who is (or very recently was) fighting someone who was not Corrupted.
In other words, a very unlikely scenario. What's even the point of having different rules for Red vs Purple? If 2 guys fought it off, then a Red comes and kills a Purple who's not fighting back, that's still griefing.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
I dunno how you measure "unlikely", but, yes...
Since it's possible, the diagram covers it.
But...
I said when there is a group of people are fighting and the Corrupted player chooses to kill a nearby Combatant. I dunno what caused you to imagine that the Corrupted player was not part of the group.
"Then a Red comes along..." was not an aspect of my scenario.
Also...Purple who is not fighting back is a very odd example. Purple implies fighting back.
Expect a group to be more than 2 people.
But, sure, let's keep the numbers small.
2 Green PKers attack a PvPer and a Carebear. The 2 PKers become Purple.
The Carebear does not fight back. The PvPer does fight back and becomes Purple.
The Carebear is killed by a PKer. That PKer turns Red.
The PvPer kills the other PKer.
Now what we have left is a Red fighting a Purple. And the Red happens to win.
But why is Red not receiving corruption bump for killing Purple? The only difference between Purple and Green in this case is that the Purple guy attacked someone else. Red is still a murderer and is ought to be punished, but then he can freely kill Purple, but not Green, even if both Purple and Green have the exact same intention of killing Red?
"Green attacks someone and turns Purple, someone doesn't fight back and is left alone"
"Red comes and kills the Green-turned-Purple for the lulz"
Clearly the system hasn't been thought through. When it comes to Red vs anyone, it's irrelevant whether they're Green or Purple, yet the penalties are different...
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Because you gain Corruption for killing Non-Combatants.
The Red will still be punished upon death. The Red is a monster and becomes more of a monster when killing more Non-Combatants.
Red comes along and attacks a Combatant. The Combatant will fight back. What makes you think a Corrupted killing the Combatant will be lulz? Corrupted don't really just "freely" kill Combatants. They will be suffering stat degradation which is a significant disadvantage. Just, they will gain more Corruption as they kill more Non-Combatants.
Because you gain Corruption for killing Non-Combatants.
The Red will still be punished upon death. The Red is a monster and becomes more of a monster when killing more Non-Combatants.
Red comes along and attacks a Combatant. The Combatant will fight back. What makes you think a Corrupted killing the Combatant will be lulz? Corrupted don't really just "freely" kill Combatants. They will be suffering stat degradation which is a significant disadvantage. Just, they will gain more Corruption as they kill more Non-Combatants.
Clearly you're not getting it. Maybe because you're not a PvPer. But I'll ask a simple question. When you're Red, why do you think the penalty for killing a Purple who's attacking you, should be different than for killing a Green who's attacking you?
This is not to say that Red should gain corruption for killing Purples as well, there should be no corruption change if both parties willingly attack each other, but I'm curious to hear how you justify Red being allowed to kill a Purple with no additional penalty, but not a Green, even if Green is the aggressor.
This system just means if you go red there are consequences waiting for you if you willing to deal with those consequences, so think about it before you want to kill another player.
Just that simple at least to me, it's not a system that keep game fun, it's just a system for player don't have the mood to deal with the pvp things(or you in some situations makes you want to kill another player and you willing to take the consequences), I mean there are players no matter they are pvp players or pve players do what they do but I don't think everyone of them have mood to do what they usually do in every second without any chill break time and just trying to have fun you know.
The goal is to PUNISH players who kill non-combatants in order to DISCOURAGE killing people who don't want to fight.
If you kill people who don't want to fight, defined as people who don't fight back, you go red. All of the consequences of going red, including green players swarming you, are part of your punishment. The goal is to INCREASE game population by not having non-PvP players killed until they quit the game. This system results in a much higher game population and a healthier game.
This system is closely derived from the Lineage2 system, which many of the posters on this board played for years. The system worked, which is why so many people both support it and contend that you don't understand it.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Clearly you're not getting it. Maybe because you're not a PvPer. But I'll ask a simple question. When you're Red, why do you think the penalty for killing a Purple who's attacking you, should be different than for killing a Green who's attacking you?
This is not to say that Red should gain corruption for killing Purples as well, there should be no corruption change if both parties willingly attack each other, but I'm curious to hear how you justify Red being allowed to kill a Purple with no additional penalty, but not a Green, even if Green is the aggressor.
I think I'm getting it. I just don't agree with you.
The difference is that people gain Corruption from killing Non-Combatants.
If you become a monster by killing a Non-Combatant, one of the penalties is that Non-Combatants can kill you without becoming a Combatant because you are no longer a person.
Since you are already willing to become a monster, it's likely that you will kill more Non-Combatants. If you do so, you will gain more Corruption. Even if they attack you first. Which should motivate you to stay away from Non-Combatants.
Killing Combatants is not as heinous because they have already indicated to you that they enjoy PvP combat.
Corrupted will not gain Corruption from someone who indicates they enjoy PvP combat by flagging as a Combatant.
If you want to kill someone - kill a Combatant. That will not gain you (more) Corruption.
But, if you're Corrupted, there is a lot of incentive to stay away from Non-Combatants.
Alright, since the thread started from my own misinformation as to how PvP flagging works, and now we're discussing slightly different things, I think we can stop here. The "Non-Combatant staying Non-Combatant while attacking Corrupted" and "Corrupted killing Non-Combatant with penalty but Corrupted killing Combatant with no penalty" issues could probably get their own threads if I or anyone will feel like it.
I'll ask a simple question. When you're Red, why do you think the penalty for killing a Purple who's attacking you, should be different than for killing a Green who's attacking you?
Simple answer: because that's the consequence for going Red. If you're Red, you did something to be Red, you're the perpetrator in the equation. The corruption flagging system for Reds is part of the punishment.
I totally understand your arguments as to why you don't like it, but I kind of read those arguments as 'I want to kill anyone I want any time I want and this system doesn't let me,' and that's exactly why the corruption system exists.
I'll ask a simple question. When you're Red, why do you think the penalty for killing a Purple who's attacking you, should be different than for killing a Green who's attacking you?
Simple answer: because that's the consequence for going Red. If you're Red, you did something to be Red, you're the perpetrator in the equation. The corruption flagging system for Reds is part of the punishment.
I totally understand your arguments as to why you don't like it, but I kind of read those arguments as 'I want to kill anyone I want any time I want and this system doesn't let me,' and that's exactly why the corruption system exists.
No, you completely misunderstood me. I never asked why Red gets a punishment.
The question was why, in certain conditions, there's a specific punishment, while in other seemingly similar conditions, there isn't.
The other thing was me disagreeing with how a Non-Combatant who engages in PvP remains Non-Combatant, as it is my belief that a player, regardless if they're Corrupted or not, should be able to defend themselves (which is not griefing) if they're being attacked, without suffering additional penalties for it.
The question was why, in certain conditions, there's a specific punishment, while in other seemingly similar conditions, there isn't. .
... and I'm saying that inconsistency is part of the punishment.
Are you really saying that, though? Because the Purple guy being killed by Red means that Red gets no additional penalty, which is bad for the Purple guy, not the Red one.
IMO if you're a combatant you know what you signed up for, even when losing to a Red. If you're a Red and get ganked by Greens you likewise know what you signed up for when you killed that original Green (or Greens) to become Red in the first place.
Keeping in mind that being killed by Greens also reduces your overall corruption, so while it's part of the punishment, it also clears your guilt.
IMO if you're a combatant you know what you signed up for, even when losing to a Red. If you're a Red and get ganked by Greens you likewise know what you signed up for when you killed that original Green (or Greens) to become Red in the first place.
Keeping in mind that being killed by Greens also reduces your overall corruption, so while it's part of the punishment, it also clears your guilt.
Your post doesn't address my post in any way. First you mention a Combatant who knows what he's signed up for, then about Red who knows what he's done, but what about the Non-Combatant, who also knows what he's signed up for when attacking the Red?
Purple attacks Red, gets killed, nothing happens
Green attacks Red, gets killed, Red gains more corruption
The situations are identical, both are attacking Red, both know what they signed up for, yet there's a difference. What purpose does that difference serve? The Purple's "Combatant" status has nothing to do with the Red player, yet he's treated differently when going against said Red player? Why?
(It's not even that important of a sub-topic, just saying that you're not addressing my question and just saying general things.)
You don't see what I wrote as addressing your post precisely because you see these situations as identical. They aren't. The Red is Red because they murdered Greens. Thus as part of the Red's punishment, they are a pinata for revenge by any Greens. If you kill the Green you get further corruption because you're resisting Karma's preference for balance.
The Purple is just in it for the fight, there's no Karma produced either way by a win or loss.
If you're Red (not you, but the generic you), and you see these situations as identical, that's part of the reason you're Red in the first place, and part of the reason you'll remain Red for some time.
How do you determine that? He's only Purple because he fought someone else (maybe somebody who attacked him first), and is still on his 90 second cooldown before he reverts to Green. Again, nothing to do with the Red player. You can't be flagged 24/7 to show everyone "yeah I'm a PvPer".
And the Green player, how do you determine he's not there for PvP? Green doesn't indicate a PvE player, only that he hasn't PvP'd in the last 90 seconds.
The Green could very well be there to become a Red. But if there's already a Red, why not exact some revenge for free. That has nothing to do with the Green, and everything to do with the Red. In fact, from a karmic perspective the Green is helping the Red.
LMAO. This is beginning to head toward catechism. What's my intent v. what did I do? In general, the flagging system only lives in the moment, it doesn't care about your intent beyond your actions. If you're there to mine and not fight other players, but kill the player that attacked you (Moving a Green from Purple), you're now a combatant for however long. The world will interact with you accordingly, independent of your intent, so be prepared. If the Green chose to die making the attacker Red, then intent and actions aligned, and karma's been distributed via corruption accordingly.
You have been told that the corruption system is copy paste from another mmo and that over there nobody complaint about the things you mention. Why do you further this conversation?
NOTE: This does not address Bounty Hunters, whom Corrupted can kill without further repercussions.
With the way it's described in the wiki, players attacking a Corrupted don't get flagged as Combatants. This means that if the Corrupted fights back and kills the attacker, their corruption increases.
Do you agree that Corrupted cannot defend themselves without risking extra corruption gain? Even if the Corrupted is no longer the aggressor, should they just let themselves be killed?
Do you think that this maybe compromises the PvP aspect if one party is penalized for fighting back and winning?
Would you, as a PvP player, prefer the Corrupted to stand down, or have them fight back for extra challenge?
Comments
Perhaps a Green attacking a Red shouldn't become purple, but since Green is the aggressor, Red should be able to kill him without corruption bump, because Red is not griefing or going on a killing spree here (which the corruption system is supposed to prevent).
It's a problem with the system if it's more beneficial to unflag before going for a Red hunt.
And...what is the more beneficial part?
Reds might hesitate to defend against a Green, as killing them will increase their corruption.
I think you don't understand how flagging works in Ashes.
Yet, the image describes a scenario when a Red kills a Purple. How does that scenario come to be? A Green attacks another non-Red, becomes Purple, then the Red kills him? Seems like an unlikely scenario.
Either way, the system is busted. A Red already has death penalty coming, why should it be increased further for trying to preserve his life?
Since it's possible, the diagram covers it.
But...
I said when there is a group of people are fighting and the Corrupted player chooses to kill a nearby Combatant. I dunno what caused you to imagine that the Corrupted player was not part of the group.
"Then a Red comes along..." was not an aspect of my scenario.
Also...Purple who is not fighting back is a very odd example. Purple implies fighting back.
Expect a group to be more than 2 people.
But, sure, let's keep the numbers small.
2 Green PKers attack a PvPer and a Carebear. The 2 PKers become Purple.
The Carebear does not fight back. The PvPer does fight back and becomes Purple.
The Carebear is killed by a PKer. That PKer turns Red.
The PvPer kills the other PKer.
Now what we have left is a Red fighting a Purple. And the Red happens to win.
"Green attacks someone and turns Purple, someone doesn't fight back and is left alone"
"Red comes and kills the Green-turned-Purple for the lulz"
Clearly the system hasn't been thought through. When it comes to Red vs anyone, it's irrelevant whether they're Green or Purple, yet the penalties are different...
The Red will still be punished upon death. The Red is a monster and becomes more of a monster when killing more Non-Combatants.
Red comes along and attacks a Combatant. The Combatant will fight back. What makes you think a Corrupted killing the Combatant will be lulz? Corrupted don't really just "freely" kill Combatants. They will be suffering stat degradation which is a significant disadvantage. Just, they will gain more Corruption as they kill more Non-Combatants.
This is not to say that Red should gain corruption for killing Purples as well, there should be no corruption change if both parties willingly attack each other, but I'm curious to hear how you justify Red being allowed to kill a Purple with no additional penalty, but not a Green, even if Green is the aggressor.
Just that simple at least to me, it's not a system that keep game fun, it's just a system for player don't have the mood to deal with the pvp things(or you in some situations makes you want to kill another player and you willing to take the consequences), I mean there are players no matter they are pvp players or pve players do what they do but I don't think everyone of them have mood to do what they usually do in every second without any chill break time and just trying to have fun you know.
The goal is to PUNISH players who kill non-combatants in order to DISCOURAGE killing people who don't want to fight.
If you kill people who don't want to fight, defined as people who don't fight back, you go red. All of the consequences of going red, including green players swarming you, are part of your punishment. The goal is to INCREASE game population by not having non-PvP players killed until they quit the game. This system results in a much higher game population and a healthier game.
This system is closely derived from the Lineage2 system, which many of the posters on this board played for years. The system worked, which is why so many people both support it and contend that you don't understand it.
The difference is that people gain Corruption from killing Non-Combatants.
If you become a monster by killing a Non-Combatant, one of the penalties is that Non-Combatants can kill you without becoming a Combatant because you are no longer a person.
Since you are already willing to become a monster, it's likely that you will kill more Non-Combatants. If you do so, you will gain more Corruption. Even if they attack you first. Which should motivate you to stay away from Non-Combatants.
Killing Combatants is not as heinous because they have already indicated to you that they enjoy PvP combat.
Corrupted will not gain Corruption from someone who indicates they enjoy PvP combat by flagging as a Combatant.
If you want to kill someone - kill a Combatant. That will not gain you (more) Corruption.
But, if you're Corrupted, there is a lot of incentive to stay away from Non-Combatants.
Simple answer: because that's the consequence for going Red. If you're Red, you did something to be Red, you're the perpetrator in the equation. The corruption flagging system for Reds is part of the punishment.
I totally understand your arguments as to why you don't like it, but I kind of read those arguments as 'I want to kill anyone I want any time I want and this system doesn't let me,' and that's exactly why the corruption system exists.
The question was why, in certain conditions, there's a specific punishment, while in other seemingly similar conditions, there isn't.
The other thing was me disagreeing with how a Non-Combatant who engages in PvP remains Non-Combatant, as it is my belief that a player, regardless if they're Corrupted or not, should be able to defend themselves (which is not griefing) if they're being attacked, without suffering additional penalties for it.
... and I'm saying that inconsistency is part of the punishment.
Keeping in mind that being killed by Greens also reduces your overall corruption, so while it's part of the punishment, it also clears your guilt.
Back in L2 we used to say that reds had the best drops in the game.
well, not if you simply let a friend kill you to circumvent that.
The situations are identical, both are attacking Red, both know what they signed up for, yet there's a difference. What purpose does that difference serve? The Purple's "Combatant" status has nothing to do with the Red player, yet he's treated differently when going against said Red player? Why?
(It's not even that important of a sub-topic, just saying that you're not addressing my question and just saying general things.)
You don't see what I wrote as addressing your post precisely because you see these situations as identical. They aren't. The Red is Red because they murdered Greens. Thus as part of the Red's punishment, they are a pinata for revenge by any Greens. If you kill the Green you get further corruption because you're resisting Karma's preference for balance.
The Purple is just in it for the fight, there's no Karma produced either way by a win or loss.
If you're Red (not you, but the generic you), and you see these situations as identical, that's part of the reason you're Red in the first place, and part of the reason you'll remain Red for some time.
And the Green player, how do you determine he's not there for PvP? Green doesn't indicate a PvE player, only that he hasn't PvP'd in the last 90 seconds.
LMAO. This is beginning to head toward catechism. What's my intent v. what did I do? In general, the flagging system only lives in the moment, it doesn't care about your intent beyond your actions. If you're there to mine and not fight other players, but kill the player that attacked you (Moving a Green from Purple), you're now a combatant for however long. The world will interact with you accordingly, independent of your intent, so be prepared. If the Green chose to die making the attacker Red, then intent and actions aligned, and karma's been distributed via corruption accordingly.
NOTE: This does not address Bounty Hunters, whom Corrupted can kill without further repercussions.
With the way it's described in the wiki, players attacking a Corrupted don't get flagged as Combatants. This means that if the Corrupted fights back and kills the attacker, their corruption increases.
Do you agree that Corrupted cannot defend themselves without risking extra corruption gain? Even if the Corrupted is no longer the aggressor, should they just let themselves be killed?
Do you think that this maybe compromises the PvP aspect if one party is penalized for fighting back and winning?
Would you, as a PvP player, prefer the Corrupted to stand down, or have them fight back for extra challenge?