Yes. Corrupted should occur extra corruption points for defending themselves against attacking greens. Otherwise the whole system would be one breath away from being pointless.
Why are you defending PKers? You were the aggressor.
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.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't see the answer to my question in your text: since another player's combat status (Combatant, Non-Combatant) does not depend on the Red player at all and therefore does not indicate whether they seek PvP or something else, then why is the Red player only penalized for killing one but not the other? What is the purpose of this separation? It sure as hell doesn't do any harm to the Corrupted if he's free to fight back the Purple one.
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?
You don't have to participate in this discussion if you have nothing of relevance to say.
@hleV
I understand the complaint you’re making, but I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding just how bad going red is. It literally turns you into a corrupted monster. While corrupted, you are no longer considered an acceptable member of society. There is no punishment for killing monsters. If a green player kills a red player, the red player deserves it, and the green player did not, by the rules and lore of the game, commit an act of war or sign up for PvP. They killed a monster.
Killing monsters is not PvP. In this game, if you are red, you are a monster. It’s almost on par with doing a monster coin event and controlling a giant world boss attacking a city. Is there a human behind the monster? Yes. Is it still a monster in the game? Yes. Does killing it constitute an act of PvP? Maybe from an outside technical point of view, yes, but not within the game world.
Kill a non-combatant, become a monster. Killing monsters isn’t PvP, it’s a public service. The end.
Otherwise the whole system would be one breath away from being pointless.
Can you elaborate? When the Corrupted dies, they receive a more severe penalty. How is that pointless?
I don’t think this thread needed to be split. When a corrupted dies, their corruption is lowered. Sometimes altogether upon the first death, but a while longer if they killed multiple greens before their first death. The corrupted player doesn’t receive a more severe penalty when they die, in fact their debuffs are mitigated because in a way, they’ve met some degree of justice for their actions. Will they drop more items upon death? Yes. But that’s the punishment you get for killing greens.
In order to get corrupted you have to have already afflicted quite a few kills is my initial assumption.
Corruption as a system is supposed to deter people from ganking. If we protect the gankers then it's doing the very opposite. I see this as one of the first big punishments for achieving enough negative points to *get* corrupted -> you are now vulnerable and you will be frowned upon in society for your actions.
And to others, attacking you is considered risk-free on account of your reputation.
The game is designed more for consensual pvp - ganking is just being a stain on society and putting limitations on corrupted players is the way to stop it getting out of hand.
@hleV
I understand the complaint you’re making, but I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding just how bad going red is. It literally turns you into a corrupted monster. While corrupted, you are no longer considered an acceptable member of society. There is no punishment for killing monsters. If a green player kills a red player, the red player deserves it, and the green player did not, by the rules and lore of the game, commit an act of war or sign up for PvP. They killed a monster.
Killing monsters is not PvP. In this game, if you are red, you are a monster. It’s almost on par with doing a monster coin event and controlling a giant world boss attacking a city. Is there a human behind the monster? Yes. Is it still a monster in the game? Yes. Does killing it constitute an act of PvP? Maybe from an outside technical point of view, yes, but not within the game world.
Kill a non-combatant, become a monster. Killing monsters isn’t PvP, it’s a public service. The end.
Are you addressing the original post of this thread? That was based on my misinformation, as I had originally thought that you can flag up to always be a Combatant, in which case it wouldn't make sense for anyone to attack a Corrupted without first unflagging, as killing unflagged players would cause the Corrupted to gain additional corruption, so they might just give up without a fight.
The other 2 sub-topics are:
1. The unlikely scenario that a Corrupted will meet a Combatant (remember that you only remain a Combatant for 90s since the last PvP attack), in which case the Corrupted for some reason can freely kill them, but can't do the same to Non-Combatants who are attacking him.
2. Should Corrupted be punished further for fighting back, but I made a new thread for that.
I can go down one line of thought and come to the conclusion, of course corrupted shouldn't get additional corruption when they kill greens who attacked them first.
I can go down a separate line of thought and come to the conclusion that of course they should get additional corruption.
I defer to Intrepid. Glad to be of help for the thread, I'll be here all week.
The corrupted player doesn’t receive a more severe penalty when they die
Corrupted do get a more severe penalty when they die than they would if they weren't Corrupted, which was my point.
The way I see it, Corruption is there to prevent griefing, and defending your own life is not griefing, therefore the Corrupted player's corruption shouldn't go up if he's not the aggressor, but only defending himself.
To illustrate, the way it's designed right now:
Player kills Non-Combatant and becomes Corrupted (1x)
Non-Combatant attacks Corrupted but gets killed, Corrupted gains additional corruption (2x)
Corrupted gets killed, receives 2x penalty
The way I think would be better:
Player kills Non-Combatant and becomes Corrupted (1x)
Non-Combatant attacks Corrupted but gets killed, Corrupted doesn't gain additional corruption because he wasn't the aggressor
Corrupted gets killed, receives 1x penalty
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
How many times will people have to explain the same thing to you before you accept that you can't comprehend the concept?
No...perhaps the corrupted should get MORE penalties than the current system provides. If someone is going to be enough of a stack of dog dirt to kill a non-combatant, then kills another non-combatant in another fight, maybe they should receive 5x the penalty.
Maybe an example from the 'real world' would help. Someone kills an innocent person (a green) walking down the street, the killer is now the red. A second innocent person, perhaps a policeman, attempts to stop the killer, but the killer shoots them. Is the killer not guilty of a second murder, just because the policeman was trying to apprehend them? Of course not!
In order to get corrupted you have to have already afflicted quite a few kills is my initial assumption.
Corruption as a system is supposed to deter people from ganking. If we protect the gankers then it's doing the very opposite. I see this as one of the first big punishments for achieving enough negative points to *get* corrupted -> you are now vulnerable and you will be frowned upon in society for your actions.
And to others, attacking you is considered risk-free on account of your reputation.
The game is designed more for consensual pvp - ganking is just being a stain on society and putting limitations on corrupted players is the way to stop it getting out of hand.
One act will make you red. Regardless of how little or big the offense is, committing it will make you red to varying degrees of severity, but red nonetheless.
A good way to see the pvp flagging system is this: Green means I do not consent to being attacked, Purple means I consent to being attacked, and Red means I consent to being attacked and possibly losing my gear.
A good way to see the pvp flagging system is this: Green means I do not consent to being attacked, Purple means I consent to being attacked, and Red means I consent to being attacked and possibly losing my gear.
Red can also mean: “I’m a compulsive murder hobo, desperately in need to be educated and reformed before I do it again. Please help me learn.” 😉
So it looks like you could attack a green player or their summon / mount by accident or on purpose, and that’s allowed, but if you kill even one, you’re flagged red. I don’t know how I feel about this since you could grief greens by attacking them while they’re fighting mobs, then let the mob get the killing blow, but maybe Intrepid has some plans to work around that.
HleV I think that your case is lost. Killing player that doesn’t fight back is crime that must be punished. Punishment must be harsh to be effective and being hunted by Green players is part of this punishment.
Compare this to GTA. When you kill pedestrian you became 1 star wanted. After fighting back with police you became more and more wanted. Do you think this is illogical? Should criminal that fight back with police get additional punishment or not?
From gameplay standpoint it is important that Corrupted get more corruption when he fight back with Greens. With this solution Corrupted players usually will try to escape and not fight with pursuers. As a consequence every Green player is encouraged to try his luck and hunt Corrupted. Even somebody with lower level and worse eq. This makes impression that whole world is enemy of Corrupted player. Being strong enough is not viable solution and more fighting will only make your situation worse.
Whenever killing Purple players adds more corruption is not really very important. It may be both ways and it won’t effect whole system because usually Corrupted players won’t fight Purple players.
Corrupt players don't receive a penalty against bounty hunters which are your main threat as a corrupted player. If you run into a bunch of noncombatants that decide to take you out, you can either fight and risk more corruption/dying, or flee.
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.
This is correct, and is a part of the known and understood penalty of gaining corruption.
If you are in an area where there are many greens that may attack you, don't gain corruption. If you are unwilling to risk the possibility of this being the case, don't gain corruption.
I mean, really, the answer to any corruption penalty complaint is simple - if you are not willing to deal with that penalty, don't gain corruption.
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?
As a player, I think a red player should have extra corruption by fighting green player back, but the green player who initiate the fight should take risk too like more death punish than normal. Because a red player have lots of chance to stop killing the player don't fight back before the player die, so a red player should take the consequences and deal with it, you commit the kill you should find your way out on you own.
As a pvp player, I don't think to heavily force non pvp player to interact with us through the contents we like is a healthy idea, the corruption system is a very big concession to any kind of pve player. If you want pvp contents maybe you can like make guilds that commit war to each other then you can have your own pvp contents without corruption system, you can make your own party like Splatoon did for example make 2 or 3 guilds then discuss topics like should pineapples on pizza or not, yes to guild A no to guild B and you guys can find a area to hold your own party, isn't it better?.
Are you addressing the original post of this thread? That was based on my misinformation, as I had originally thought that you can flag up to always be a Combatant, in which case it wouldn't make sense for anyone to attack a Corrupted without first unflagging, as killing unflagged players would cause the Corrupted to gain additional corruption, so they might just give up without a fight.
The other 2 sub-topics are:
1. The unlikely scenario that a Corrupted will meet a Combatant (remember that you only remain a Combatant for 90s since the last PvP attack), in which case the Corrupted for some reason can freely kill them, but can't do the same to Non-Combatants who are attacking him.
2. Should Corrupted be punished further for fighting back, but I made a new thread for that.
Okay, I understand your point now. So as per your original argument: in general, yes, I suppose someone could attempt to make the corrupted player give up without a fight by turning green before initiating combat, but that presents extra risks for the now-green player as well - they drop twice as many items on death if the corrupted player fights back and wins. Does this give more corruption to the corrupted player? Yes. So they have to choose - do I accept my sentence and lose what I signed up to lose? Or do I attempt to defend myself, maybe get some more sweet loot off this other green player, but then be required to hide a bit longer afterwards?
Now, could this sneaky corrupted-player killer go deposit their items and come back green before initiating? Sure, if they can even find the corrupted player again. But if the corrupted player has half a brain, they’ll hide somewhere and stay there. So the chances of that being pulled off successfully in a real life scenario are slim to none.
SubTopic:
Combatants sign up for combat, either from other combatants or corrupted players. They know the chance to be attacked is there. If they’re killed by a corrupted player, it makes no difference that the one who killed them was corrupted. They’ll probably get killed by another combatant later anyway. So no, a corrupted player shouldn’t have to suffer further for fighting with registered combatants. The benefit flagged combatants get from being able to be freely attacked is half the resources lost upon death. That’s the risk vs reward.
If a green comes up and starts attacking you, the same scenario plays out that would if a combatant did. You either choose to kill them to defend yourself and get loot, or you accept your sentence and die. The only difference between the two attackers is that the combatant will lose fewer items if they die, and the green player will lose twice as many as the combatant in order to deliver further corruption to the corrupted player. Again, risk vs reward. For them, and for you.
So it looks like you could attack a green player or their summon / mount by accident or on purpose, and that’s allowed, but if you kill even one, you’re flagged red. I don’t know how I feel about this since you could grief greens by attacking them while they’re fighting mobs, then let the mob get the killing blow, but maybe Intrepid has some plans to work around that.
Doing that is risky since you don't know the exact percentage of health left, and if the green is smart he'll start escaping the fight with the mob before he's out, but of course that's assuming it happened while the green still has substantial health
To illustrate, the way it's designed right now:
Player kills Non-Combatant and becomes Corrupted (1x)
Non-Combatant attacks Corrupted but gets killed, Corrupted gains additional corruption (2x)
Corrupted gets killed, receives 2x penalty
The way I think would be better:
Player kills Non-Combatant and becomes Corrupted (1x)
Non-Combatant attacks Corrupted but gets killed, Corrupted doesn't gain additional corruption because he wasn't the aggressor
Corrupted gets killed, receives 1x penalty
To my knowledge the death penalty remains the same regardless of how much corruption you've gained, so it doesn't matter how many greens you've killed you'll still loose around 400% of items, probably shouldn't have given a value but I think you know the exact value since you've recently read the wiki.... It's the same penalty, no change to it.
This also adds to the risk vs reward flavour to the game.... If you love ganking so much, you have to be willing to take the risk of getting ganked by just anybody you meet, or even if it's just an individual green you killed, I'm sure it took more than at least 5 hits to achieve that meaning the chance it was a mistake is very low, you have to be prepared for the risk that follows. So in my opinion, I don't see anything wrong with increasing the corruption, even if it was self-defence. If you don't like it, then best keep a good reputation 😉
The threads were merged so it can be confusing, I edited the original post to summarize the active topic.
So far the popular response is "red bad, red need punish, don't be red if you don't want punish", without much attempt at analyzing why the system works in specific ways. I assume these are PvE players who don't just dislike griefers, but PvPers in general.
You actually agree with additional penalty on top of what they already have by being Corrupted, for merely doing something that's completely acceptable when no corruption is involved (defending yourself in PvP, and winning). Since self-defense doesn't fall under griefing category (or does it, need a carebear to confirm) but is yet additionally penalized, should the Corrupted also be additionally penalized for cutting down trees, and doing any other activity that's normally perfectly OK?
From gameplay standpoint it is important that Corrupted get more corruption when he fight back with Greens. With this solution Corrupted players usually will try to escape and not fight with pursuers. As a consequence every Green player is encouraged to try his luck and hunt Corrupted. Even somebody with lower level and worse eq. This makes impression that whole world is enemy of Corrupted player. Being strong enough is not viable solution and more fighting will only make your situation worse.
This is a valid point of view, but how viable is the escape strategy? When just one Non-Combatant is after the Corrupted? Two? Three?
If a green comes up and starts attacking you, the same scenario plays out that would if a combatant did. You either choose to kill them to defend yourself and get loot, or you accept your sentence and die. The only difference between the two attackers is that the combatant will lose fewer items if they die, and the green player will lose twice as many as the combatant in order to deliver further corruption to the corrupted player. Again, risk vs reward. For them, and for you.
If you're a Non-Combatant, you can't even become Combatant to fight a Corrupted, unless there's another player nearby that you can hit to flag yourself up. So say you want PvP, you want reduced penalty for dying, but if you happen to be a Non-Combatant by the time you engage a Corrupted, the game will continue to consider you a neutral Non-Combatant. Yet another flaw in this system.
To my knowledge the death penalty remains the same regardless of how much corruption you've gained, so it doesn't matter how many greens you've killed you'll still loose around 400% of items, probably shouldn't have given a value but I think you know the exact value since you've recently read the wiki.... It's the same penalty, no change to it.
Higher corruption means higher chance of dropping equipped gear on death, plus your PvP effectiveness gets worse (not sure if that applies against Bounty Hunters/Combatants though).
On that note, if you are purple and a green attacks you. If you win you become red? The chart says "kills" so if they attack you, but don't kill you, you become red? Or are greens unable to attack until they activate pvp or something?
I think if a green attacks anyone they should he considered a combatant.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
On that note, if you are purple and a green attacks you. If you win you become red? The chart says "kills" so if they attack you, but don't kill you, you become red? Or are greens unable to attack until they activate pvp or something?
I think if a green attacks anyone they should he considered a combatant.
If a green attacks a purple or another green, they become a combatant(purple). It's only when they attack someone who is already red that they don't change.
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?
Actually, the L2 karma system was a copy and paste as well
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?
Actually, in L2, there has been countless complaints about this exact thing, as the karma system was largely based on UO, which indeed let red players defend themselves against attacking greens (blues in UO)
After reviewing the flagging system, unless I’m misunderstanding something, I think @hleV has something of a point here, at least in terms of flagging system issues. Are you able to flag yourself for PvP? Because as per the current wiki page, a player becomes purple when they “attack a non-corrupted player.”
So two greens face each other. Green 1 attacks Green 2, Green 1 turns purple. Purple has no idea what Green 2’s health is. Purple could’ve even killed them by accident with that first hit. So how is anyone supposed to know who’s safe to fight and who isn’t? If we can’t flag and un-flag ourselves for PvP via a UI menu, doesn’t any act of PvP put the attacker at risk for corruption through the simple nature of potentially causing death on the first blow, or before the opposing player can deliver a return strike to flag themselves Purple?
Again, unless I’m missing something, this system makes no sense to me. Why shouldn’t it be a system where you can choose to flag or unflag yourself in safe zones like established nodes or freeholds, and stay that way until you go back and switch?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That's part of the risk assessment.
Might be better for you to not attack someone.
After reviewing the flagging system, unless I’m misunderstanding something, I think @hleV has something of a point here, at least in terms of flagging system issues. Are you able to flag yourself for PvP? Because as per the current wiki page, a player becomes purple when they “attack a non-corrupted player.”
So two greens face each other. Green 1 attacks Green 2, Green 1 turns purple. Purple has no idea what Green 2’s health is. Purple could’ve even killed them by accident with that first hit. So how is anyone supposed to know who’s safe to fight and who isn’t? If we can’t flag and un-flag ourselves for PvP via a UI menu, doesn’t any act of PvP put the attacker at risk for corruption through the simple nature of potentially causing death on the first blow, or before the opposing player can deliver a return strike to flag themselves Purple?
Again, unless I’m missing something, this system makes no sense to me. Why shouldn’t it be a system where you can choose to flag or unflag yourself in safe zones like established nodes or freeholds, and stay that way until you go back and switch?
You have to hold a specific key, or hit a toggle, to be able to hit another player, so there's no accidents on that front. As for "tapping a green to see if they'll fight"...
Comments
Why are you defending PKers? You were the aggressor.
You don't have to participate in this discussion if you have nothing of relevance to say.
I understand the complaint you’re making, but I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding just how bad going red is. It literally turns you into a corrupted monster. While corrupted, you are no longer considered an acceptable member of society. There is no punishment for killing monsters. If a green player kills a red player, the red player deserves it, and the green player did not, by the rules and lore of the game, commit an act of war or sign up for PvP. They killed a monster.
Killing monsters is not PvP. In this game, if you are red, you are a monster. It’s almost on par with doing a monster coin event and controlling a giant world boss attacking a city. Is there a human behind the monster? Yes. Is it still a monster in the game? Yes. Does killing it constitute an act of PvP? Maybe from an outside technical point of view, yes, but not within the game world.
Kill a non-combatant, become a monster. Killing monsters isn’t PvP, it’s a public service. The end.
I don’t think this thread needed to be split. When a corrupted dies, their corruption is lowered. Sometimes altogether upon the first death, but a while longer if they killed multiple greens before their first death. The corrupted player doesn’t receive a more severe penalty when they die, in fact their debuffs are mitigated because in a way, they’ve met some degree of justice for their actions. Will they drop more items upon death? Yes. But that’s the punishment you get for killing greens.
Corruption as a system is supposed to deter people from ganking. If we protect the gankers then it's doing the very opposite. I see this as one of the first big punishments for achieving enough negative points to *get* corrupted -> you are now vulnerable and you will be frowned upon in society for your actions.
And to others, attacking you is considered risk-free on account of your reputation.
The game is designed more for consensual pvp - ganking is just being a stain on society and putting limitations on corrupted players is the way to stop it getting out of hand.
The other 2 sub-topics are:
1. The unlikely scenario that a Corrupted will meet a Combatant (remember that you only remain a Combatant for 90s since the last PvP attack), in which case the Corrupted for some reason can freely kill them, but can't do the same to Non-Combatants who are attacking him.
2. Should Corrupted be punished further for fighting back, but I made a new thread for that.
I can go down a separate line of thought and come to the conclusion that of course they should get additional corruption.
I defer to Intrepid. Glad to be of help for the thread, I'll be here all week.
The way I see it, Corruption is there to prevent griefing, and defending your own life is not griefing, therefore the Corrupted player's corruption shouldn't go up if he's not the aggressor, but only defending himself.
To illustrate, the way it's designed right now:
Player kills Non-Combatant and becomes Corrupted (1x)
Non-Combatant attacks Corrupted but gets killed, Corrupted gains additional corruption (2x)
Corrupted gets killed, receives 2x penalty
The way I think would be better:
Player kills Non-Combatant and becomes Corrupted (1x)
Non-Combatant attacks Corrupted but gets killed, Corrupted doesn't gain additional corruption because he wasn't the aggressor
Corrupted gets killed, receives 1x penalty
Maybe an example from the 'real world' would help. Someone kills an innocent person (a green) walking down the street, the killer is now the red. A second innocent person, perhaps a policeman, attempts to stop the killer, but the killer shoots them. Is the killer not guilty of a second murder, just because the policeman was trying to apprehend them? Of course not!
If the civilian engages the murderer and the murderer kills the civilian, the murderer’s sentence will be increased accordingly.
One act will make you red. Regardless of how little or big the offense is, committing it will make you red to varying degrees of severity, but red nonetheless.
Red can also mean: “I’m a compulsive murder hobo, desperately in need to be educated and reformed before I do it again. Please help me learn.” 😉
I’m pretty sure it only takes one PK to o become corrupted.
“If a combatant player, or their summon, kills a non-combatant player, the player's character will be flagged as corrupted.”
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging
So it looks like you could attack a green player or their summon / mount by accident or on purpose, and that’s allowed, but if you kill even one, you’re flagged red. I don’t know how I feel about this since you could grief greens by attacking them while they’re fighting mobs, then let the mob get the killing blow, but maybe Intrepid has some plans to work around that.
Compare this to GTA. When you kill pedestrian you became 1 star wanted. After fighting back with police you became more and more wanted. Do you think this is illogical? Should criminal that fight back with police get additional punishment or not?
From gameplay standpoint it is important that Corrupted get more corruption when he fight back with Greens. With this solution Corrupted players usually will try to escape and not fight with pursuers. As a consequence every Green player is encouraged to try his luck and hunt Corrupted. Even somebody with lower level and worse eq. This makes impression that whole world is enemy of Corrupted player. Being strong enough is not viable solution and more fighting will only make your situation worse.
Whenever killing Purple players adds more corruption is not really very important. It may be both ways and it won’t effect whole system because usually Corrupted players won’t fight Purple players.
If you are in an area where there are many greens that may attack you, don't gain corruption. If you are unwilling to risk the possibility of this being the case, don't gain corruption.
I mean, really, the answer to any corruption penalty complaint is simple - if you are not willing to deal with that penalty, don't gain corruption.
I fail to see the issue.
As a player, I think a red player should have extra corruption by fighting green player back, but the green player who initiate the fight should take risk too like more death punish than normal. Because a red player have lots of chance to stop killing the player don't fight back before the player die, so a red player should take the consequences and deal with it, you commit the kill you should find your way out on you own.
As a pvp player, I don't think to heavily force non pvp player to interact with us through the contents we like is a healthy idea, the corruption system is a very big concession to any kind of pve player. If you want pvp contents maybe you can like make guilds that commit war to each other then you can have your own pvp contents without corruption system, you can make your own party like Splatoon did for example make 2 or 3 guilds then discuss topics like should pineapples on pizza or not, yes to guild A no to guild B and you guys can find a area to hold your own party, isn't it better?.
Okay, I understand your point now. So as per your original argument: in general, yes, I suppose someone could attempt to make the corrupted player give up without a fight by turning green before initiating combat, but that presents extra risks for the now-green player as well - they drop twice as many items on death if the corrupted player fights back and wins. Does this give more corruption to the corrupted player? Yes. So they have to choose - do I accept my sentence and lose what I signed up to lose? Or do I attempt to defend myself, maybe get some more sweet loot off this other green player, but then be required to hide a bit longer afterwards?
Now, could this sneaky corrupted-player killer go deposit their items and come back green before initiating? Sure, if they can even find the corrupted player again. But if the corrupted player has half a brain, they’ll hide somewhere and stay there. So the chances of that being pulled off successfully in a real life scenario are slim to none.
SubTopic:
Combatants sign up for combat, either from other combatants or corrupted players. They know the chance to be attacked is there. If they’re killed by a corrupted player, it makes no difference that the one who killed them was corrupted. They’ll probably get killed by another combatant later anyway. So no, a corrupted player shouldn’t have to suffer further for fighting with registered combatants. The benefit flagged combatants get from being able to be freely attacked is half the resources lost upon death. That’s the risk vs reward.
If a green comes up and starts attacking you, the same scenario plays out that would if a combatant did. You either choose to kill them to defend yourself and get loot, or you accept your sentence and die. The only difference between the two attackers is that the combatant will lose fewer items if they die, and the green player will lose twice as many as the combatant in order to deliver further corruption to the corrupted player. Again, risk vs reward. For them, and for you.
Doing that is risky since you don't know the exact percentage of health left, and if the green is smart he'll start escaping the fight with the mob before he's out, but of course that's assuming it happened while the green still has substantial health
To my knowledge the death penalty remains the same regardless of how much corruption you've gained, so it doesn't matter how many greens you've killed you'll still loose around 400% of items, probably shouldn't have given a value but I think you know the exact value since you've recently read the wiki.... It's the same penalty, no change to it.
This also adds to the risk vs reward flavour to the game.... If you love ganking so much, you have to be willing to take the risk of getting ganked by just anybody you meet, or even if it's just an individual green you killed, I'm sure it took more than at least 5 hits to achieve that meaning the chance it was a mistake is very low, you have to be prepared for the risk that follows. So in my opinion, I don't see anything wrong with increasing the corruption, even if it was self-defence. If you don't like it, then best keep a good reputation 😉
So far the popular response is "red bad, red need punish, don't be red if you don't want punish", without much attempt at analyzing why the system works in specific ways. I assume these are PvE players who don't just dislike griefers, but PvPers in general.
You actually agree with additional penalty on top of what they already have by being Corrupted, for merely doing something that's completely acceptable when no corruption is involved (defending yourself in PvP, and winning). Since self-defense doesn't fall under griefing category (or does it, need a carebear to confirm) but is yet additionally penalized, should the Corrupted also be additionally penalized for cutting down trees, and doing any other activity that's normally perfectly OK?
This is a valid point of view, but how viable is the escape strategy? When just one Non-Combatant is after the Corrupted? Two? Three?
If you're a Non-Combatant, you can't even become Combatant to fight a Corrupted, unless there's another player nearby that you can hit to flag yourself up. So say you want PvP, you want reduced penalty for dying, but if you happen to be a Non-Combatant by the time you engage a Corrupted, the game will continue to consider you a neutral Non-Combatant. Yet another flaw in this system.
Higher corruption means higher chance of dropping equipped gear on death, plus your PvP effectiveness gets worse (not sure if that applies against Bounty Hunters/Combatants though).
I think if a green attacks anyone they should he considered a combatant.
If a green attacks a purple or another green, they become a combatant(purple). It's only when they attack someone who is already red that they don't change.
Actually, the L2 karma system was a copy and paste as well
Actually, in L2, there has been countless complaints about this exact thing, as the karma system was largely based on UO, which indeed let red players defend themselves against attacking greens (blues in UO)
So two greens face each other. Green 1 attacks Green 2, Green 1 turns purple. Purple has no idea what Green 2’s health is. Purple could’ve even killed them by accident with that first hit. So how is anyone supposed to know who’s safe to fight and who isn’t? If we can’t flag and un-flag ourselves for PvP via a UI menu, doesn’t any act of PvP put the attacker at risk for corruption through the simple nature of potentially causing death on the first blow, or before the opposing player can deliver a return strike to flag themselves Purple?
Again, unless I’m missing something, this system makes no sense to me. Why shouldn’t it be a system where you can choose to flag or unflag yourself in safe zones like established nodes or freeholds, and stay that way until you go back and switch?
Might be better for you to not attack someone.
You have to hold a specific key, or hit a toggle, to be able to hit another player, so there's no accidents on that front. As for "tapping a green to see if they'll fight"...
(ref: Nameplate > Health)
You'll at least know whether they're full or sorta low. You just won't know the exact details of "how low".