That's part of the risk assessment.
Might be better for you to not attack someone.
Gotcha, gotcha. I was under the impression that we would be able to “flag for PvP” in order for PvPers to have a more immediately recognizable “down to brawl” outlet. Sounds like they’re more so discouraging open world PvP altogether, since pretty much any open world PvP attempts in this system would immediately become sketchy and awkward as everyone attempts to figure out who’s down to fight and who isn’t. Which, to be fair, is pretty realistic, but in a gameplay context sort of muddies the water a bit imo.
Also puts a bit of a barrier to the element of surprise. If one PvPer in a constant flagging system finds another one out in the world, the first one knows ahead of time that it’s safe to plan a surprise attack and go hard from the beginning. With this system, they have to somewhat artificially meter their damage output in case the other person doesn’t want to fight back.
Which, again, is okay I guess. I just had a different impression of what the open world PvP/flagging system would be like.
That's part of the risk assessment.
Might be better for you to not attack someone.
Gotcha, gotcha. I was under the impression that we would be able to “flag for PvP” in order for PvPers to have a more immediately recognizable “down to brawl” outlet. Sounds like they’re more so discouraging open world PvP altogether, since pretty much any open world PvP attempts in this system would immediately become sketchy and awkward as everyone attempts to figure out who’s down to fight and who isn’t. Which, to be fair, is pretty realistic, but in a gameplay context sort of muddies the water a bit imo.
Yeah, people might have to, god forbid, engage in communication.
"Hey, anybody wanna duel?"
"Oh, you're back. Wanna just fight for the spot, rather than one of us having to deal with being red?"
This does limit the element of surprise, but that's kindof beneficial to both parties. If I'm down 30% health at the start of the fight, I'm much more likely to go "fuck it, I cant win now anyway, so I'll just stay green", and then nobody gets a proper fight we'd both otherwise enjoy. (For this reason, I believe that Rogues sneak attack setups shouldn't be based on the initial engagement, but rather on setting up good positioning during a fight.)
I see this is becoming a new sub-topic for yet another flaw in the flagging system ^^.
The problem with lack of flagging-on-demand is that a PvPer who's looking for open world PvP experience is going to have to test non-combatants' willingness to PvP. This is bad for both sides: PvEers will get annoyed, and PvPers might miss a chance to PvP because the other PvPer doesn't know you're up for it. Could easily be solved by flagging-on-demand. A PvPer, in most cases, is not going to run to every player he meets verbally asking for PvP.
Perhaps we'll get another way to display whether we like PvP, to address this.
As for the risk of killing without intent?
Wiki has this:
The character's nameplate will deteriorate to give an indication of how much damage they have taken.
but also this:
It's important to note that the idea is going to be that, unless a player is in your party, alliance, guild, or raid that you will not have definitive knowledge of their exact hit point values. So when you do something that's sketchy like that, where you want to bring them close to death and let a monster finish him off, you are taking the risk of overhitting and actually gaining the corruption.
Seems that you'll be able to hit them as long as their nameplate looks "just right" and not risk killing them, but the risk of killing them if your intent is to grief, is there. No problem here.
But they're not trying to arrest you, they're after your life. How is being punished for defending your life not nonsensical?
I can put it in a few different ways for you.
Citizen sees evil doer, tries to kill said evil doer, ends up dying, proving once again evil doer is evil.
or
Cops raid meth lab, cop get killed, meth cooks charged with cops' death.
or
Cowboys form posse to catch murderous evil doer, cowboy is shot a killed by murderous evil doer, murderous evil doer is responsible for the death of that cowboy.
Once you're red, you're a criminal basically, you're free game. Or you allow people to go red and just play defensive without consequence (well as long as they don't die).
But they're not trying to arrest you, they're after your life. How is being punished for defending your life not nonsensical?
I can put it in a few different ways for you.
Citizen sees evil doer, tries to kill said evil doer, ends up dying, proving once again evil doer is evil.
or
Cops raid meth lab, cop get killed, meth cooks charged with cops' death.
or
Cowboys form posse to catch murderous evil doer, cowboy is shot a killed by murderous evil doer, murderous evil doer is responsible for the death of that cowboy.
Once you're red, you're a criminal basically, you're free game. Or you allow people to go red and just play defensive without consequence (well as long as they don't die).
And yet, when no corruption is involved, getting attacked out of nowhere and fighting back and dying is somehow perfectly justified. You see the issue in that logic? Fighting back a combatant, who might as well kill you and become corrupted if you don't fight back, and losing, doesn't make them gain any corruption.
The system doesn't weight the conditions properly. It's essentially "corruption is bad, so screw any logic". Let's also increase their corruption for cutting down trees while we're at it.
I'm still hopeful because this part is not set in stone. As per wiki:
Corrupted players can be attacked regardless of other affiliations. This is something that will be tested during Alpha-2.
Q: If my guild has no one corrupted and your guild is like always killing people and always corrupted, will your guild have repercussions because they're corrupted versus my guild?
A: No I don't think so either. And the reason why is we want to deter it, but we don't want to make the system meaningless; and if the deterrent becomes too heavy-handed then it's a system without a purpose. And I think that the intent behind the corruption is that like during a rise in passion and like anger and whatever you want to make this decision and do something and you'll suffer the repercussions later. But if those repercussions are just overwhelmingly bad and even anti-social in the sense that like your guild is like hey man you went corrupted and this gives us like corruption points on the guild, and like you're out of here, then people just aren't going to choose to use it; and then at which point might as well just take it out. So I think there's a healthy balance between the type of deterrent used.[47] – Steven Sharif
But they're not trying to arrest you, they're after your life. How is being punished for defending your life not nonsensical?
I can put it in a few different ways for you.
Citizen sees evil doer, tries to kill said evil doer, ends up dying, proving once again evil doer is evil.
or
Cops raid meth lab, cop get killed, meth cooks charged with cops' death.
or
Cowboys form posse to catch murderous evil doer, cowboy is shot a killed by murderous evil doer, murderous evil doer is responsible for the death of that cowboy.
Once you're red, you're a criminal basically, you're free game. Or you allow people to go red and just play defensive without consequence (well as long as they don't die).
And yet, when no corruption is involved, getting attacked out of nowhere and fighting back and dying is somehow perfectly justified. You see the issue in that logic? Fighting back a combatant, who might as well kill you and become corrupted if you don't fight back, and losing, doesn't make them gain any corruption.
The system doesn't weight the conditions properly. It's essentially "corruption is bad, so screw any logic". Let's also increase their corruption for cutting down trees while we're at it.
Your example is different - when there is no corruption involved, nobody is guilty of anything.
While the game marks you as corrupted, the game is basically saying "this guy needs karma to bite him"
And you running around the world while corrupted is you not working back your karma to neutral.
To put it in less moralistic terms. Becoming red is you volunteering to become an objective. And like most objectives in the game they are subject to the developers making it easier or harder for players to complete the objective. The only way to opt out of volunteering is to basically not kill people who don't fight back, but that's just a risk you take whenever you engage someone. Try practicing your ability to wrangle mobs to get the last hit kill if you want to avoid becoming an objective more often.
Again, my "Corrupted should also gain corruption for cutting down trees" applies to your "red is bad, therefore screw punishment logic".
If consentual PvP is fine for non-corrupted, why is it not fine for corrupted? It's not a crime. It's not griefing. It's your everyday AoC thing.
If cutting down trees is fine for non-corrupted, why is it also fine for corrupted?
To put it in less moralistic terms. Becoming red is you volunteering to become an objective. And like most objectives in the game they are subject to the developers making it easier or harder for players to complete the objective.
Indeed, hence Bounty Hunters. Non-Combatants have no business here, and the usual rules should apply.
Again, my "Corrupted should also gain corruption for cutting down trees" applies to your "red is bad, therefore screw punishment logic".
If consentual PvP is fine for non-corrupted, why is it not fine for corrupted? It's not a crime. It's not griefing. It's your everyday AoC thing.
If cutting down trees is fine for non-corrupted, why is it also fine for corrupted?
Let's go with JustVine's language.
You have plenty of opportunity to not be a target. Why are you complaining that you are a target, when you're choosing to be one?
Correct me if I’m wrong, @hleV - it sounds like your main issue is the premise of a Red, rather than the flagging system governing how others interact with a Red.
What’s your perspective on repeatedly killing a player that shows no interest in PvP?
Indeed, hence Bounty Hunters. Non-Combatants have no business here, and the usual rules should apply.
If you don't want to be an objective to all possible participants have you considered.... only fighting people who only fight back so you don't get flagged? You know you don't need to kos anyone near by right? Your problem seems to be rooted in the fact that you don't understand that becoming a participant in objective based PvP is completely optional. I doubt IS will change corruption in the way you desire because of this.
Let's go with JustVine's language.
You have plenty of opportunity to not be a target. Why are you complaining that you are a target, when you're choosing to be one?
(I've added to my reply above to address some of what JustVine wrote)
Corrupted being a target is not the issue. In fact, Corrupted SHOULD be a target because they committed a crime and you can get their gear piece should you manage to kill them. The issue is with ADDITIONAL, nonsensical, uncalled for, penalty for Corrupted's non-criminal action of defending themselves.
Correct me if I’m wrong, @hleV - it sounds like your main issue is the premise of a Red, rather than the flagging system governing how others interact with a Red.
What’s your perspective on repeatedly killing a player that shows no interest in PvP?
You are indeed wrong, this is purely about why a system works in a specific way when in my opinion it shouldn't.
Somebody who kills innocent players is a griefer and the corruption system is in place for those. Somebody you don't like, a player from an enemy guild, somebody who verbally harasses you/trolls you, somebody whose loot I want, somebody who's contesting the resources in the area - killing any of those, while a crime, is not griefing. You have to understand that not everybody who ever goes Corrupted is a toxic PvP griefer that deserves the worst punishment possible, increasing that punishment for doing literally anything, if possible.
I'm corrupted, I have a death penalty. Come and kill me, and potentially loot my gear piece. But don't punish me for merely defending myself and winning, as that's not something that only Corrupted would do, it's a simple and completely accepted action in AoC (yet isn't if you're corrupted, somehow).
If you don't want to be an objective to all possible participants have you considered.... only fighting people who only fight back so you don't get flagged? You know you don't need to kos anyone near by right? Your problem seems to be rooted in the fact that you don't understand that becoming a participant in objective based PvP is completely optional. I doubt IS will change corruption in the way you desire because of this.
I have already addressed your "corrupted is bad, so their punishment doesn't need logic". Please refrain from posting if all you have to say is "don't become corrupted".
Let's go with JustVine's language.
You have plenty of opportunity to not be a target. Why are you complaining that you are a target, when you're choosing to be one?
(I've added to my reply above to address some of what JustVine wrote)
Corrupted being a target is not the issue. In fact, Corrupted SHOULD be a target because they committed a crime and you can get their gear piece should you manage to kill them. The issue is with ADDITIONAL, nonsensical, uncalled for, penalty for Corrupted's non-criminal action of defending themselves.
I think where we disagree is that:
you think it's ok for a criminal to kill in self-defence.
whereas I think it's only ok for an innocent to kill in self-defence.
I think where we disagree is that:
you think it's ok for a criminal to kill in self-defence.
whereas I think it's only ok for an innocent to kill in self-defence.
Indeed, I'm glad we can agree on what precisely we disagree with. It's only in the first post of this thread.
Indeed, hence Bounty Hunters. Non-Combatants have no business here, and the usual rules should apply.
I also don't think you understand this properly:
The bounty hunters aren't the only police in this game.
The entire server turns against you the moment you go red - bounty hunters just specialize in it and get bonuses for doing it.
EDIT: this is also a massive cop-out from your sense of justice.
You killed a green - so who has the biggest burden of revenge? Greens or bounty hunters?
Of course greens should have their revenge.
Indeed, hence Bounty Hunters. Non-Combatants have no business here, and the usual rules should apply.
I also don't think you understand this properly:
The bounty hunters aren't the only police in this game.
The entire server turns against you the moment you go red - bounty hunters just specialize in it and get bonuses for doing it.
Riddle me this: why are corrupted allowed to defend against bounty hunters and not gain additional corruption? They're corrupted, they're bad, they should be punished additionally even for self-defense, isn't that what you lot are going for? Why not additionally punish for killing bounty hunter as well then? Or cutting down trees, for that matter.
Somebody who kills innocent players is a griefer and the corruption system is in place for those. Somebody you don't like, a player from an enemy guild, somebody who verbally harasses you/trolls you, somebody whose loot I want, somebody who's contesting the resources in the area - killing any of those, while a crime, is not griefing. You have to understand that not everybody who ever goes Corrupted is a toxic PvP griefer that deserves the worst punishment possible, increasing that punishment for doing literally anything, if possible.
I'm corrupted, I have a death penalty. Come and kill me, and potentially loot my gear piece. But don't punish me for merely defending myself and winning, as that's not something that only Corrupted would do, it's a simple and completely accepted action in AoC (yet isn't if you're corrupted, somehow).
Oh, so it's not that you disagree with the premise of a Red in Ashes, it's that you disagree that killing others that constitutes a crime shouldn't make one Red, and therefore be subject to the consequences of being a Red ... got it.
Oh, so it's not that you disagree with the premise of a Red in Ashes, it's that you disagree that killing others that constitutes a crime shouldn't make one Red, and therefore be subject to the consequences of being a Red ... got it.
I really am as clear as I can be, not sure how you get so confused.
No, if you kill someone who doesn't fight back, you should become red, even if you did that not for griefing purposes. Never argued about that, so not sure where you're coming from. You just shouldn't gain additional corruption for fighting back and winning, just as is the case when you fight back as non-corrupted. You already have the death penalty of being corrupted, performing an action that is otherwise legal should not make you more of a criminal than you already are, like cutting down trees doesn't make you more of a criminal.
@hleV I think I mostly don't understand why you feel there is no recourse in the first place. You can just run from the greens (and if that's not possible it probably needs to be.) If you have friends then running is an even more valid strategy since the only people who can find you are bounty hunters if you are good enough at running. Then you can grind 'in peace'. If you are randomly side tracked by more greens coming to your grind location just find a new one or take the risk and kill them. It's supposed to be quite difficult objective based PvP. So I understand that you are having trouble figuring out optimal strategies. But I assure you they will be developed on release.
I'll 'apologize' that I basically went 'so just don't volunteer for the objective' but I figured you would have already thought of the above and went 'I don't like that'.
I think where we disagree is that:
you think it's ok for a criminal to kill in self-defence.
whereas I think it's only ok for an innocent to kill in self-defence.
Indeed, I'm glad we can agree on what precisely we disagree with. It's only in the first post of this thread.
@hleV I think I mostly don't understand why you feel there is no recourse in the first place. You can just run from the greens (and if that's not possible it probably needs to be.) If you have friends then running is an even more valid strategy since the only people who can find you are bounty hunters if you are good enough at running. Then you can grind 'in peace'. If you are randomly side tracked by more greens coming to your grind location just find a new one or take the risk and kill them. It's supposed to be quite difficult objective based PvP. So I understand that you are having trouble figuring out optimal strategies. But I assure you they will be developed on release.
I do hope escape is a viable strategy, but we just don't know for now. Even so, I still find it wrong that you can be punished for not being the aggressor, but merely defending yourself and winning, under any circumstances. I should not be forced to run if I feel like I can win, but getting punished for winning is just not nice. Griefing and criminal activies should be punished, other activies, such as self-defense, shouldn't.
Indeed, hence Bounty Hunters. Non-Combatants have no business here, and the usual rules should apply.
I also don't think you understand this properly:
The bounty hunters aren't the only police in this game.
The entire server turns against you the moment you go red - bounty hunters just specialize in it and get bonuses for doing it.
Riddle me this: why are corrupted allowed to defend against bounty hunters and not gain additional corruption? They're corrupted, they're bad, they should be punished additionally even for self-defense, isn't that what you lot are going for? Why not additionally punish for killing bounty hunter as well then? Or cutting down trees, for that matter.
Intrepid could very well do that - is that what you'd prefer? I thought you'd be happy that at least you get to have a cat-and-mouse relationship with bounty hunters - if you'd rather have an authoritarian relationship to them feel free to push for it.
Greens never consented, bounty hunters know what they're signing up for.
Intrepid could very well do that - is that what you'd prefer? I thought you'd be happy that at least you get to have a cat-and-mouse relationship with bounty hunters - if you'd rather have an authoritarian relationship to them feel free to push for it.
The irony must have escaped you. My whole point is that the Corrupted should receive NO additional penalty if it's consentual PvP. Yet, non-combatants that are participating in combat remain non-combatants, and the corrupted gets punished for killing them.
Greens never consented, bounty hunters know what they're signing up for.
Greens consented the moment they attacked a Corrupted player. We're not talking about Corrupted continuously killing Greens that don't fight back here.
Even so, I still find it wrong that you can be punished for NOT BEING THE AGGRESSOR, but merely defending yourself and winning, under any circumstances.
Please listen
This is what everyone is trying to tell you: while red you are ALWAYS considered an aggressor.
If you don't want to be attacked, work off your red.
@hleV I think I mostly don't understand why you feel there is no recourse in the first place. You can just run from the greens (and if that's not possible it probably needs to be.) If you have friends then running is an even more valid strategy since the only people who can find you are bounty hunters if you are good enough at running. Then you can grind 'in peace'. If you are randomly side tracked by more greens coming to your grind location just find a new one or take the risk and kill them. It's supposed to be quite difficult objective based PvP. So I understand that you are having trouble figuring out optimal strategies. But I assure you they will be developed on release.
I do hope escape is a viable strategy, but we just don't know for now. Even so, I still find it wrong that you can be punished for not being the aggressor, but merely defending yourself and winning, under any circumstances. I should not be forced to run if I feel like I can win, but getting punished for winning is just not nice.
Right, but without the threat of more corruption you WON'T feel compelled to run which I perceive is key part of the objective based PvP involved You will almost always want to fight in cases where the numbers won't overwhelm you in the change you propose. You running is part of the green's challenge in clearing you, the objective and part of what having a well bred mount is going to be vital for.
Additionally the threat of corruption snowballing, is part of what I perceive as part of what makes going red an effective enough threat in the first place to make it a rarer activity.
Intrepid could very well do that - is that what you'd prefer? I thought you'd be happy that at least you get to have a cat-and-mouse relationship with bounty hunters - if you'd rather have an authoritarian relationship to them feel free to push for it.
The irony must have escaped you. My whole point is that the Corrupted should receive NO additional penalty if it's consentual PvP. Yet, non-combatants that are participating in combat remain non-combatants, and the corrupted gets punished for killing them.
Greens never consented, bounty hunters know what they're signing up for.
Greens consented the moment they attacked a Corrupted player. We're not talking about Corrupted continuously killing Greens that don't fight back here.
This is you:
"I killed a green non-consentually. I want to keep my redness"
"Greens shouldn't kill me because I don't consent. I killed him 5 minutes ago. He should get over it."
Please listen
This is what everyone is trying to tell you: while red you are ALWAYS considered an aggressor.
If you don't want to be attacked, work off your red.
Literally what I'd be trying to do, IF I WASN'T BEING ATTACKED! Even if I'm considered the aggressor, it's still consentual PvP because Green is attacking me while I'm trying to work off my corruption... without dying.
Right, but without the threat of more corruption you WON'T feel compelled to run which I perceive is key part of the objective based PvP involved You will almost always want to fight in cases where the numbers won't overwhelm you in the change you propose. You running is part of the green's challenge in clearing you, the objective and part of what having a well bred mount is going to be vital for.
Additionally the threat of corruption snowballing, is part of what I perceive as part of what makes going red an effective enough threat in the first place to make it a rarer activity.
I think the main objective is going be for the bounty hunters, which don't give you additional corruption. Greens should have no business here, and leave the job to BHs. Yet the fact that the corrupted might hesitate to defend themselves and gain additional corruption, may compell non-combatants to attack, which is just bad system design in my opinion.
Intrepid could very well do that - is that what you'd prefer? I thought you'd be happy that at least you get to have a cat-and-mouse relationship with bounty hunters - if you'd rather have an authoritarian relationship to them feel free to push for it.
The irony must have escaped you. My whole point is that the Corrupted should receive NO additional penalty if it's consentual PvP. Yet, non-combatants that are participating in combat remain non-combatants, and the corrupted gets punished for killing them.
Greens never consented, bounty hunters know what they're signing up for.
Greens consented the moment they attacked a Corrupted player. We're not talking about Corrupted continuously killing Greens that don't fight back here.
This is you:
"I killed a green non-consentually. I want to keep my redness"
"Greens shouldn't kill me because I don't consent. I killed him 5 minutes ago. He should get over it."
No.
It's almost as if you don't even read. That is not me. Green are free to come and kill me. I just shouldn't be punished for fighting back, because I ALREADY have corruption penalty and am NOT DOING ANY ADDITIONAL CRIME. Consentual PvP is not a crime in AoC.
Intrepid could very well do that - is that what you'd prefer? I thought you'd be happy that at least you get to have a cat-and-mouse relationship with bounty hunters - if you'd rather have an authoritarian relationship to them feel free to push for it.
The irony must have escaped you. My whole point is that the Corrupted should receive NO additional penalty if it's consentual PvP. Yet, non-combatants that are participating in combat remain non-combatants, and the corrupted gets punished for killing them.
Greens never consented, bounty hunters know what they're signing up for.
Greens consented the moment they attacked a Corrupted player. We're not talking about Corrupted continuously killing Greens that don't fight back here.
This is you:
"I killed a green non-consentually. I want to keep my redness"
"Greens shouldn't kill me because I don't consent. I killed him 5 minutes ago. He should get over it."
No.
It's almost as if you don't even read. That is not me. Green are free to come and kill me. I just shouldn't be punished for fighting back, because I ALREADY have corruption penalty and am NOT DOING ANY ADDITIONAL CRIME. Consentual PvP is not a crime in AoC.
You BROKE consent by killing a green.
You CANNOT uphold it after you JUST BROKE IT. Karma demands your blood as payment.
Comments
Gotcha, gotcha. I was under the impression that we would be able to “flag for PvP” in order for PvPers to have a more immediately recognizable “down to brawl” outlet. Sounds like they’re more so discouraging open world PvP altogether, since pretty much any open world PvP attempts in this system would immediately become sketchy and awkward as everyone attempts to figure out who’s down to fight and who isn’t. Which, to be fair, is pretty realistic, but in a gameplay context sort of muddies the water a bit imo.
Also puts a bit of a barrier to the element of surprise. If one PvPer in a constant flagging system finds another one out in the world, the first one knows ahead of time that it’s safe to plan a surprise attack and go hard from the beginning. With this system, they have to somewhat artificially meter their damage output in case the other person doesn’t want to fight back.
Which, again, is okay I guess. I just had a different impression of what the open world PvP/flagging system would be like.
Yeah, people might have to, god forbid, engage in communication.
"Hey, anybody wanna duel?"
"Oh, you're back. Wanna just fight for the spot, rather than one of us having to deal with being red?"
This does limit the element of surprise, but that's kindof beneficial to both parties. If I'm down 30% health at the start of the fight, I'm much more likely to go "fuck it, I cant win now anyway, so I'll just stay green", and then nobody gets a proper fight we'd both otherwise enjoy. (For this reason, I believe that Rogues sneak attack setups shouldn't be based on the initial engagement, but rather on setting up good positioning during a fight.)
The problem with lack of flagging-on-demand is that a PvPer who's looking for open world PvP experience is going to have to test non-combatants' willingness to PvP. This is bad for both sides: PvEers will get annoyed, and PvPers might miss a chance to PvP because the other PvPer doesn't know you're up for it. Could easily be solved by flagging-on-demand. A PvPer, in most cases, is not going to run to every player he meets verbally asking for PvP.
Perhaps we'll get another way to display whether we like PvP, to address this.
As for the risk of killing without intent?
Wiki has this: but also this: Seems that you'll be able to hit them as long as their nameplate looks "just right" and not risk killing them, but the risk of killing them if your intent is to grief, is there. No problem here.
I can put it in a few different ways for you.
Citizen sees evil doer, tries to kill said evil doer, ends up dying, proving once again evil doer is evil.
or
Cops raid meth lab, cop get killed, meth cooks charged with cops' death.
or
Cowboys form posse to catch murderous evil doer, cowboy is shot a killed by murderous evil doer, murderous evil doer is responsible for the death of that cowboy.
Once you're red, you're a criminal basically, you're free game. Or you allow people to go red and just play defensive without consequence (well as long as they don't die).
The system doesn't weight the conditions properly. It's essentially "corruption is bad, so screw any logic". Let's also increase their corruption for cutting down trees while we're at it.
I'm still hopeful because this part is not set in stone. As per wiki:
Your example is different - when there is no corruption involved, nobody is guilty of anything.
While the game marks you as corrupted, the game is basically saying "this guy needs karma to bite him"
And you running around the world while corrupted is you not working back your karma to neutral.
If consentual PvP is fine for non-corrupted, why is it not fine for corrupted? It's not a crime. It's not griefing. It's your everyday AoC thing.
If cutting down trees is fine for non-corrupted, why is it also fine for corrupted? Indeed, hence Bounty Hunters. Non-Combatants have no business here, and the usual rules should apply.
Let's go with JustVine's language.
You have plenty of opportunity to not be a target. Why are you complaining that you are a target, when you're choosing to be one?
What’s your perspective on repeatedly killing a player that shows no interest in PvP?
If you don't want to be an objective to all possible participants have you considered.... only fighting people who only fight back so you don't get flagged? You know you don't need to kos anyone near by right? Your problem seems to be rooted in the fact that you don't understand that becoming a participant in objective based PvP is completely optional. I doubt IS will change corruption in the way you desire because of this.
Corrupted being a target is not the issue. In fact, Corrupted SHOULD be a target because they committed a crime and you can get their gear piece should you manage to kill them. The issue is with ADDITIONAL, nonsensical, uncalled for, penalty for Corrupted's non-criminal action of defending themselves.
Somebody who kills innocent players is a griefer and the corruption system is in place for those. Somebody you don't like, a player from an enemy guild, somebody who verbally harasses you/trolls you, somebody whose loot I want, somebody who's contesting the resources in the area - killing any of those, while a crime, is not griefing. You have to understand that not everybody who ever goes Corrupted is a toxic PvP griefer that deserves the worst punishment possible, increasing that punishment for doing literally anything, if possible.
I'm corrupted, I have a death penalty. Come and kill me, and potentially loot my gear piece. But don't punish me for merely defending myself and winning, as that's not something that only Corrupted would do, it's a simple and completely accepted action in AoC (yet isn't if you're corrupted, somehow).
I have already addressed your "corrupted is bad, so their punishment doesn't need logic". Please refrain from posting if all you have to say is "don't become corrupted".
I think where we disagree is that:
you think it's ok for a criminal to kill in self-defence.
whereas I think it's only ok for an innocent to kill in self-defence.
I also don't think you understand this properly:
The bounty hunters aren't the only police in this game.
The entire server turns against you the moment you go red - bounty hunters just specialize in it and get bonuses for doing it.
EDIT: this is also a massive cop-out from your sense of justice.
You killed a green - so who has the biggest burden of revenge? Greens or bounty hunters?
Of course greens should have their revenge.
Oh, so it's not that you disagree with the premise of a Red in Ashes, it's that you disagree that killing others that constitutes a crime shouldn't make one Red, and therefore be subject to the consequences of being a Red ... got it.
No, if you kill someone who doesn't fight back, you should become red, even if you did that not for griefing purposes. Never argued about that, so not sure where you're coming from. You just shouldn't gain additional corruption for fighting back and winning, just as is the case when you fight back as non-corrupted. You already have the death penalty of being corrupted, performing an action that is otherwise legal should not make you more of a criminal than you already are, like cutting down trees doesn't make you more of a criminal.
I'll 'apologize' that I basically went 'so just don't volunteer for the objective' but I figured you would have already thought of the above and went 'I don't like that'.
I didnt say that btw
Intrepid could very well do that - is that what you'd prefer? I thought you'd be happy that at least you get to have a cat-and-mouse relationship with bounty hunters - if you'd rather have an authoritarian relationship to them feel free to push for it.
Greens never consented, bounty hunters know what they're signing up for.
Greens consented the moment they attacked a Corrupted player. We're not talking about Corrupted continuously killing Greens that don't fight back here.
Please listen
This is what everyone is trying to tell you: while red you are ALWAYS considered an aggressor.
If you don't want to be attacked, work off your red.
Right, but without the threat of more corruption you WON'T feel compelled to run which I perceive is key part of the objective based PvP involved You will almost always want to fight in cases where the numbers won't overwhelm you in the change you propose. You running is part of the green's challenge in clearing you, the objective and part of what having a well bred mount is going to be vital for.
Additionally the threat of corruption snowballing, is part of what I perceive as part of what makes going red an effective enough threat in the first place to make it a rarer activity.
This is you:
"I killed a green non-consentually. I want to keep my redness"
"Greens shouldn't kill me because I don't consent. I killed him 5 minutes ago. He should get over it."
No.
I think the main objective is going be for the bounty hunters, which don't give you additional corruption. Greens should have no business here, and leave the job to BHs. Yet the fact that the corrupted might hesitate to defend themselves and gain additional corruption, may compell non-combatants to attack, which is just bad system design in my opinion.
You BROKE consent by killing a green.
You CANNOT uphold it after you JUST BROKE IT. Karma demands your blood as payment.