Non-Combatant attacking Corrupted

hleV

The thread was split and then merged back. The actual topic:

Non-Combatants can attack Corrupted and remain Non-Combatants, therefore if the Corrupted defend themselves and kill the aggressor Non-Combatant, their corruption score increases (as if killing an innocent player).
How do you feel about adding this additional penalty for something that is not technically griefing?

Apparently, Greens can freely attack a Red and remain green? So if Greens are out to get him and Red fights back and kills a Green, their corruption is increased even more? Isn't that nonsensical?

EDIT: The issue is that it's more beneficial to attack Red as a Green than as a Purple, because then the Red might hesitate to fight back and gain more corruption. Red should be allowed to defend themselves without repercussions.

EDIT2: The thread was based on misinformation, that people can willingly stay flagged up (Purple/Combatant) 24/7. Essentially scenarios where Red are being attacked by Purples are going to be non-existent, because everyone is Green by default and Purple status is very temporary for when you PvP a non-Red player. The system just wants you to die and discourages fighting back when you go Red.

JustVine

hleV wrote: »

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.