DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
Reds choose to be treated like monsters. Monsters do not commit crimes.
Ashes is a world where people are not prevented from killing monsters. Players are not punished for killing monsters. Monsters cannot give consent.
The disconnect appears to be thinking that Reds should be treated like criminals instead of like monsters.
hleV, you CANNOT play the consensual card if you broke it.
Corruption is a form of karma that demands payment for breaking the consensual card and it is given in green's favour.
It's a citizen's arrest. If you kill someone, and go corrupt and I see you, and as a green wish to stop you and punish you for killing someone, then you killing me, is still going to be under the umbrella of: "you're a criminal who just killed someone".
I've never seen a (fair and just) citizen killed during a citizen's arrest that the murderer didn't get convicted for. There's no: It was self defense.
It cannot be looked at it this way, because such logic cannot apply to a world where consentual PvP where the loser dies is not considered criminal activity. Green attacking Red is consentual PvP. If they die - that's OK in AoC, just like it would be if they lost to a Purple player rather than Red. It's only criminal if Green doesn't fight back.
It can be compared to that. Because even in our world, if you try to stop a criminal, you are accepting the idea that you could get hurt or killed.
The good samaritan getting killed doesn't exonerate the killer just because the now defunct person wasn't a cop.
If you don't want to get attacked by greens for your crime: run away.
After all, they don't flag as combatants if they attack you. Meaning they also incur the risk of losing far more XP and materials if they die to you (non combatants experience increased death penalties). There's a risk for them as well.
If you lose: well tough shit, shouldn't have killed someone non consensually. You can't now complaint about consent. It'd be hypocritical.
If you win: you've now earned a bit more corruption, but also more materials from their death.
I'm failing to see the point of your post, as you're merely describing how things work now, when my whole point is that things don't work as they should. You also say what I should do in case I'm being attacked, when nobody really asked. "Run away" is on the same level of participation in the discussion as "Don't become red, problem solved".
I already, perfectly described why you cannot compare real world's "criminal vs non-criminal" to AoC's, when AoC's "non-criminal vs non-criminal" also differs from real world's.
hleV, you CANNOT play the consensual card if you broke it.
Corruption is a form of karma that demands payment for breaking the consensual card and it is given in green's favour.
He isn't complaining about non consensual lol. He is saying you are stuck on a infinite tread mill of corruption unable to depend yourself where it isn't a system of risk or reward but just continuous to sever punishment until you die.
You literarily are choose not to view it from his perspective and making weird arguments why its ok for things to happen as they are. If you get attacked and defending yourself continue to grant major corruption you are effectively losing insane progress on the game when it bounces back eventually.
Which brings up the question on the element of pvp thresholds you want per content. If your argument to people is to not flag ever that isn't a positive direction. You are effectively saying don't use the system in order to prevent as much pvp as content leading to much more of a pve type game.
Reds choose to be treated like monsters. Monsters do not commit crimes.
Ashes is a world where people are not prevented from killing monsters. Players are not punished for killing monsters. Monsters cannot give consent.
The disconnect appears to be thinking that Reds should be treated like criminals instead of like monsters.
We get it, corrupted are not players but mobs, you can move on to the other thread where you keep repeating that you're not gonna play the game.
hleV, you CANNOT play the consensual card if you broke it.
Corruption is a form of karma that demands payment for breaking the consensual card and it is given in green's favour.
I broke the consensual card and I'll suffer penalty for it when I die. You're trying to convince me that doing non-criminal activity as a criminal makes it a criminal activity. Well I'm not convinced. Is cutting trees down a criminal activity if you're a criminal?
hleV, you CANNOT play the consensual card if you broke it.
Corruption is a form of karma that demands payment for breaking the consensual card and it is given in green's favour.
He isn't complaining about non consensual lol. He is saying you are stuck on a infinite tread mill of corruption unable to depend yourself where it isn't a system of risk or reward but just continuous to sever punishment until you die.
That's working on the assumption that there's a conveyor belt of greens attacking a red player.
Odds are the red player will have cleansed his corruption by killing mobs in the open world before anyone attacks them.
And if not. Hey, shouldna killed someone. Face the consequences of your actions.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I broke the consensual card and I'll suffer penalty for it when I die. You're trying to convince me that doing non-criminal activity as a criminal makes it a criminal activity. Well I'm not convinced. Is cutting trees down a criminal activity if you're a criminal?
Monsters cannot commit crimes anyway. Typically monsters are KoS.
It's a citizen's arrest. If you kill someone, and go corrupt and I see you, and as a green wish to stop you and punish you for killing someone, then you killing me, is still going to be under the umbrella of: "you're a criminal who just killed someone".
I've never seen a (fair and just) citizen killed during a citizen's arrest that the murderer didn't get convicted for. There's no: It was self defense.
It cannot be looked at it this way, because such logic cannot apply to a world where consentual PvP where the loser dies is not considered criminal activity. Green attacking Red is consentual PvP. If they die - that's OK in AoC, just like it would be if they lost to a Purple player rather than Red. It's only criminal if Green doesn't fight back.
It can be compared to that. Because even in our world, if you try to stop a criminal, you are accepting the idea that you could get hurt or killed.
The good samaritan getting killed doesn't exonerate the killer just because the now defunct person wasn't a cop.
If you don't want to get attacked by greens for your crime: run away.
After all, they don't flag as combatants if they attack you. Meaning they also incur the risk of losing far more XP and materials if they die to you (non combatants experience increased death penalties). There's a risk for them as well.
If you lose: well tough shit, shouldn't have killed someone non consensually. You can't now complaint about consent. It'd be hypocritical.
If you win: you've now earned a bit more corruption, but also more materials from their death.
I'm failing to see the point of your post, as you're merely describing how things work now, when my whole point is that things don't work as they should. You also say what I should do in case I'm being attacked, when nobody really asked. "Run away" is on the same level of participation in the discussion as "Don't become red, problem solved".
I already, perfectly described why you cannot compare real world's "criminal vs non-criminal" to AoC's, when AoC's "non-criminal vs non-criminal" also differs from real world's.
Lol, bold of you to assume your explanations are perfect.
My comparison works very well for AoC too.
My point is, that yes, you're to be shafted if a green chooses to kill you, because you are a criminal on the run.
It's balanced in that the green faces increased death penalties if they fail to kill you, as they don't flag as combatant.
Running away and working off your corruption is what you're meant to do as a Red. You're a criminal on the run. You can't trade, you can't access Nodes. You're the baddy. A "good guy" attacking you is doing "good deed" and you killing them just makes you more of a baddie.
The system works perfectly fine as intended. You're just working under the assumption that somehow every green player in the area will suddenly turn on you and that you're good enough to kill all of them and that your corruption score will then increase infinitely.
Being Red is a vicious spiral by design. The only way to deal with it is: kill mobs, wait long enough or die enough times (depending on how much corruption you've accrued). So yes. Don't become red is indeed what the Corruption system is in place for. It's to dissuade you from killing people non-consensually. Look just how worked up you are at the idea that greens can attack you and further increase your Corruption score.
The system is already working and you haven't even played the game.
hleV, you CANNOT play the consensual card if you broke it.
Corruption is a form of karma that demands payment for breaking the consensual card and it is given in green's favour.
He isn't complaining about non consensual lol. He is saying you are stuck on a infinite tread mill of corruption unable to depend yourself where it isn't a system of risk or reward but just continuous to sever punishment until you die.
That's working on the assumption that there's a conveyor belt of greens attacking a red player.
Odds are the red player will have cleansed his corruption by killing mobs in the open world before anyone attacks them.
And if not. Hey, shouldna killed someone. Face the consequences of your actions.
And if there is a conveyer belt of greens around everywhere and will constantly swarm a red player at most times and takes long to remove the corruption? We have 10,000 potential people to be in a world at one time after all..... Are you saying to never use the corrupted system if that is the case?
And if there is a conveyer belt of greens around everywhere and will constantly swarm a red player at most times and takes long to remove the corruption? We have 10,000 potential people to be in a world at one time after all..... Are you saying to never use the corrupted system if that is the case?
We can get all the way from node to node in a couple minutes. If corruption can wear off in the few minutes it'd take for a Green to return from spawn, the entire system is useless.
hleV, you CANNOT play the consensual card if you broke it.
Corruption is a form of karma that demands payment for breaking the consensual card and it is given in green's favour.
He isn't complaining about non consensual lol. He is saying you are stuck on a infinite tread mill of corruption unable to depend yourself where it isn't a system of risk or reward but just continuous to sever punishment until you die.
That's working on the assumption that there's a conveyor belt of greens attacking a red player.
Odds are the red player will have cleansed his corruption by killing mobs in the open world before anyone attacks them.
And if not. Hey, shouldna killed someone. Face the consequences of your actions.
And if there is a conveyer belt of greens around everywhere and will constantly swarm a red player at most times and takes long to remove the corruption? We have 10,000 potential people to be in a world at one time after all..... Are you saying to never use the corrupted system if that is the case?
Well then you must have pissed off a lot of people if all the green players in the area all chose to stop what they were doing just to fuck with you, and that's your problem at that point, and likely deserve it.
And you're also not likely to be able to kill everyone anyway. So there's no infinite gain of corruption.
Not to mention (again) that a green player not flagging when they attack a red, means they get increased death penalties. They have to be very sure that they can take you out, or they're just screwing themselves over.
The idea is that you're not supposed to kill a player who's not fighting back. If you do, then you assume the consequences. Time to kill is between 30 seconds to 1 minute. You have ample time to stop killing them if you see that they're not fighting back.
If you want to kill people, the system promotes killing other purples, doing caravan PvP and Guild Wars etc.
So yes, the system is in place to dissuade you from ever wanting to gain corruption. Not for you to gain corruption at your leisure and then not have any consequences from those you killed.
@Dygz it's a great insight that corrupted players are not actually players and are treated, at least by one person (you), as mobs. If you have more incredible insights, and from the looks of it you do, please do indulge me.
@Asgerr all you do is try justify the system by speculative statements such as "there won't be that many greens going after you", which may or may not be right, that doesn't make the system any less broken. You're also describing ways to survive the system, when nobody asked.
"Face the consequences of your actions"? Shut down the thread, I think you're the winner (well, you share the 1st place with a bunch of other PvE brains). Why discuss the system when we can just deal with what it is, regardless how we feel about it?
I have yet to hear why a non-criminal activity such as defending yourself is bad, while cutting down trees is not.
Or if you want a PvP-based example, why killing bounty hunters and combatants is fine, but killing greens who want to fight you is bad.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
You've heard why. You just choose to dismiss the answers.
Which is why this discussion is pointless.
hleV, you CANNOT play the consensual card if you broke it.
Corruption is a form of karma that demands payment for breaking the consensual card and it is given in green's favour.
He isn't complaining about non consensual lol. He is saying you are stuck on a infinite tread mill of corruption unable to depend yourself where it isn't a system of risk or reward but just continuous to sever punishment until you die.
That's working on the assumption that there's a conveyor belt of greens attacking a red player.
Odds are the red player will have cleansed his corruption by killing mobs in the open world before anyone attacks them.
And if not. Hey, shouldna killed someone. Face the consequences of your actions.
And if there is a conveyer belt of greens around everywhere and will constantly swarm a red player at most times and takes long to remove the corruption? We have 10,000 potential people to be in a world at one time after all..... Are you saying to never use the corrupted system if that is the case?
Well then you must have pissed off a lot of people if all the green players in the area all chose to stop what they were doing just to fuck with you, and that's your problem at that point, and likely deserve it.
And you're also not likely to be able to kill everyone anyway. So there's no infinite gain of corruption.
Not to mention (again) that a green player not flagging when they attack a red, means they get increased death penalties. They have to be very sure that they can take you out, or they're just screwing themselves over.
The idea is that you're not supposed to kill a player who's not fighting back. If you do, then you assume the consequences. Time to kill is between 30 seconds to 1 minute. You have ample time to stop killing them if you see that they're not fighting back.
If you want to kill people, the system promotes killing other purples, doing caravan PvP and Guild Wars etc.
So yes, the system is in place to dissuade you from ever wanting to gain corruption. Not for you to gain corruption at your leisure and then not have any consequences from those you killed.
You are making some clear assumptions on kissing people off or deserving it, rather than looking at the fundamental design for what it is.
1. First you are assuming how long it takes to remove corruption as it increases with pk count and that is a undefined number so you can't assume it one way or another.
2. Second not every green player will attack but depending on player density and their numbers with the game focusing on group content they should have a high chance at winning if it is a 1v3+
This is a PvX game yet you can refuse to fight back and give them corruption as a deterrent. But the person that is corrupted has little choice but gain immense more corruption or simply die and lose far more than the other people.
Saying don't attack people if you can't handle isn't really a good answer that will get the discussion anywhere. If that is all that can be said and the punishment is so serve that people completely refuse to use the system, then the devs will have to look at it and see if it is working as intended or if there is a issue in the punishment based on the gameplay.
If the devs consider it is too much do you think they won't change it, or do you think the devs intended to make the system but have it almost never used by players because of the consequences?
If you think the latter than you want very very minimal people ever pvping in that scenario, if not the latter then its better to actually discuss things and have some more leeway or potential solutions.
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@hleV As others have said, It was designed this way as part of the punishment but at the end of the day, it will be tested and possibly tweaked. If it gives you any solace, they have already said corrupted players wont get more corruption for killing bounty hunters. If the scenario you talk about is seen as a problem, it may be changed so non-combatants are treated in a similar fashion. Maybe they will go half way and you wont gain more corruption for killing someone who attacked you but the kill tally that impacts how much corruption you get from kills will still go up. Just speculation.
And if there is a conveyer belt of greens around everywhere and will constantly swarm a red player at most times and takes long to remove the corruption? We have 10,000 potential people to be in a world at one time after all..... Are you saying to never use the corrupted system if that is the case?
We can get all the way from node to node in a couple minutes. If corruption can wear off in the few minutes it'd take for a Green to return from spawn, the entire system is useless.
System isn't useless I'm unsure about the amount of time one should take to work off corruption and we can't assume that....No one is saying you can work off corruption in 5 minutes either.
Even if you can work off corruption in a few minutes it doesn't matter as the system further increases corruption based on pk count. So over the life time on your account you gain more corruption from killing more players. And we are also unsure how easy or difficult it will be to reduce that pk count.
If the discussion is people hating PvP and wanting no one to be corrupted i feel it ends right there as the goal of people is to turn it more towards a pve game. Which won't happen, as there will be more free incentive to use the other systems to kill players without corruption gain, ie guild wars and node wars.
@hleV As others have said, It was designed this way as part of the punishment but at the end of the day, it will be tested and possibly tweaked. If it gives you any solace, they have already said corrupted players wont get more corruption for killing bounty hunters. If the scenario you talk about is seen as a problem, it may be changed so non-combatants are treated in a similar fashion. Maybe they will go half way and you wont gain more corruption for killing someone who attacked you but the kill tally that impacts how much corruption you get from kills will still go up. Just speculation.
Yes, I'm aware it's not set in stone (it's stated it'll be tested further in A2), it's just a discussion about how people feel about it. Unfortunately most do not bother or are incapable of comprehending this and just suggest not to become corrupted
@Asgerr all you do is try justify the system by speculative statements such as "there won't be that many greens going after you", which may or may not be right, that doesn't make the system any less broken. You're also describing ways to survive the system, when nobody asked.
And you're working on the assumption that somehow every green will attack you and die on purpose (or you're just that good) to give you more corruption.
"Face the consequences of your actions"? Shut down the thread, I think you're the winner (well, you share the 1st place with a bunch of other PvE brains). Why discuss the system when we can just deal with what it is, regardless how we feel about it?
Because that's what the system is designed to do. What you're wanting is a more lenient impact of said core system because you somehow assume that every green within an entire area will die on your blade just to mess with you, after you've ruined someone's experience, whent they didn't want to fight you.
You have up to 1 minute of time to kill. If they don't fight back, stop and attack someone else who will fight back. That's the purpose of the corruption system.
You can think it handicaps your murderhobo fantasy, but guess what? Nobody other than you cares.
I have yet to hear why a non-criminal activity such as defending yourself is bad, while cutting down trees is not.
Or if you want a PvP-based example, why killing bounty hunters and combatants is fine, but killing greens who want to fight you is bad.
Because self defense doesn't apply to active criminals (aka being Red). Cutting down trees and killing monsters contribute to the Node's development. Killing players (consensually or not doesn't. Consider it doing community work for your fell deeds.
A bounty hunter is getting paid extra for their efforts to kill you and has normal death penalties if you kill him. And it works towards a secondary progression system.
A green player risks increased death penalties and gains no XP for a secondary progression system. So yes, they give you more corruption, but they also screw themselves over.
Do you truly believe you're that central in everyone's mind that they will abandon their gameplay and screw their character over just for a chance at making your own criminal experience worse? Sounds quite egotistical.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Asgerr all you do is try justify the system by speculative statements such as "there won't be that many greens going after you", which may or may not be right, that doesn't make the system any less broken. You're also describing ways to survive the system, when nobody asked.
And you're working on the assumption that somehow every green will attack you and die on purpose (or you're just that good) to give you more corruption.
No, never have I ever assumed that or indicated that I do.
"Face the consequences of your actions"? Shut down the thread, I think you're the winner (well, you share the 1st place with a bunch of other PvE brains). Why discuss the system when we can just deal with what it is, regardless how we feel about it?
Because that's what the system is designed to do.
Cool, we should tell the others to stop discussing game's systems right away.
I have yet to hear why a non-criminal activity such as defending yourself is bad, while cutting down trees is not.
Or if you want a PvP-based example, why killing bounty hunters and combatants is fine, but killing greens who want to fight you is bad.
Because self defense doesn't apply to active criminals (aka being Red).
Cutting down trees and killing monsters contribute to the Node's development. Killing players (consensually or not doesn't. Consider it doing community work for your fell deeds.
A bounty hunter is getting paid extra for their efforts to kill you and has normal death penalties if you kill him. And it works towards a secondary progression system.
A green player risks increased death penalties and gains no XP for a secondary progression system. So yes, they give you more corruption, but they also screw themselves over.
I don't think at that point it matters to the Corrupted what risk the opponent is taking by attacking red. You're trying to justify red's self defense and victory against green as "ah, I got more corruption, but also more resources from the victim". Pretty sure it'd be better for everyone if green counted as purple when fighting red.
Do you truly believe you're that central in everyone's mind that they will abandon their gameplay and screw their character over just for a chance at making your own criminal experience worse? Sounds quite egotistical.
No. It's really difficult to discuss things with you when you're making stuff up.
Pretty sure it'd be better for everyone if green counted as purple when fighting red.
Keep in mind also, that whilst fighting bounty hunters your corruption combat penalties don't apply. But they would for every other purple.
So basically: Kill one player and go red, gaining corruption just that once, and then you people trying to stop a criminal, but you never gain corruption again?
There is a difference between talking about situations that could cause a problem, and making up a situation that won't cause a problem in the current system. You need to look at all aspects and check off every problem, not be stuck on the perfect scenario until we see how the game plays out. Looking at the worst case and seeing if it is viable that it can happen is important, when that is solved you look at the next worst case.
Don't flag, is not a solution it is making something potentially obsolete in the game if that is what everyone days. Which most likely isn't going to happen as devs will adjust and make more reason to pvp. So its the perfect chance to give a reasoning that is fair and less bias on both sides.
I've already stated a reasoning why they could leave it at that and increase pvp on guilds and nodes with a shift in balance.
If corruption is takes 30 miuntes to get rid of corruption but you have a high chance to run into someone every 5 min, and over 80% of players that go corrupted die usually within 10 minutes there is potential for a design issue.
So basically: Kill one player and go red, gaining corruption just that once, and then you people trying to stop a criminal, but you never gain corruption again?
Then replace it with whatever non-criminal activity (except consentual PvP, obviously) that only benefits the player.
So now you want a way to clear corruption that only benefits you, an active criminal?? That's not how the world works.
The ways to clear corruption are: gaining XP and dying. There is no non criminal activity that provides those options. Even in PvP terms, that's from Caravans, Arenas etc. But you can't really access many of those as you can't get near nodes without guards killing you on sight.
So no. Cutting trees is the only way for you to clear corruption. Seeking a different alternative, to allow you to kill more players with impunity, is extremely self serving and damaging to the game's health. More below.
A red killing a purple doesn't increase the red's corruption. So far so good? That's the basics of the current system.
With your vision (greens flagging into purple when attacking reds), you're making it faaaaaaar more likely for yourself to be attacked by Green players, as flagging purple, gives normal death penalties, meaning they have lower risk in trying to kill you.
On the other hand, you being red, could then provoke and harass all greens into fighting you, to kill them, and gain no further corruption. Which means the Corruption system is now failing entirely in protecting the Green players of the world. Regardless of whether you like PvErs or not. (That's also not assuming that they're not PvPers with other important things they wanna do at that time than fighting you).
Then replace it with whatever non-criminal activity (except consentual PvP, obviously) that only benefits the player.
So now you want a way to clear corruption that only benefits you, an active criminal?? That's not how the world works.
The ways to clear corruption are: gaining XP and dying. There is no non criminal activity that provides those options. Even in PvP terms, that's from Caravans, Arenas etc. But you can't really access many of those as you can't get near nodes without guards killing you on sight.
What? Who's talking about clearing corruption? My "cutting down trees" was only an example of a random non-criminal activity. WALKING is a non-criminal activity. Why not increase red player's corruption for simply walking? It's as much of a non-criminal activity as consentual PvP is.
A red killing a purple doesn't increase the red's corruption. So far so good? That's the basics of the current system.
With your vision (greens flagging into purple when attacking reds), you're making it faaaaaaar more likely for yourself to be attacked by Green players, as flagging purple, gives normal death penalties, meaning they have lower risk in trying to kill you.
Indeed, and I do honestly believe this would make for a better system, as this way the player wouldn't be punished for non-criminal activity of defending themselves.
On the other hand, you being red, could then provoke and harass all greens into fighting you, to kill them, and gain no further corruption. Which means the Corruption system is now failing entirely in protecting the Green players of the world. Regardless of whether you like PvErs or not. (That's also not assuming that they're not PvPers with other important things they wanna do at that time than fighting you).
How does red harass and provoke greens into fighting them, that is different from a purple doing the same thing? Only that in this case, the rewards for killing red are far better than killing purple. I suppose there's more incentive to attack a red due to higher rewards and the same risk, but that's consentual PvP, they know what they signed up for by attacking another player, isn't that how the system works?
In the end, corrupted are punished with harsher death penalty. What's the point of additionally punishing them for doing consentual PvP? Such system achieves nothing, because both corrupted are punished unnecessarily, and green are punished because they can't flag up to suffer less death penalty if they lose, unless the greens' plan is to just increase the corrupted's corruption, which is sort of griefing, no?
What? Who's talking about clearing corruption? My "cutting down trees" was only an example of a random non-criminal activity. WALKING is a non-criminal activity. Why not increase red player's corruption for simply walking? It's as much of a non-criminal activity as consentual PvP is.
That is the absolute dumbest take I've read on these forums.
"I killed someone non consensually and got corrupted. Now that guy's friend is attacking me and doesn't flag, so if I kill him, I get more corruption. But I'm the victim of non consensual PvP.."
Jesus Christ.... I might get a fucking aneurism from the amount of sheer stupidity of this argument....
Whilst you're Red you agree to PvP and are an active criminal. You're not the victim of non consensual PvP. You're the perpetrator of it. A Green attacking you can be either very smart or very dumb on their part depending on their skill, level, gear etc. You crying victim of non consensual PvP after killing someone non consensually is moronic to the extreme, and very entitled.
How does red harass and provoke greens into fighting them, that is different from a purple doing the same thing? Only that in this case, the rewards for killing red are far better than killing purple. I suppose there's more incentive to attack a red due to higher rewards and the same risk, but that's consentual PvP, they know what they signed up for by attacking another player, isn't that how the system works?
The difference is: you've already killed one player non consensually before. Simple as that.
Yes the rewards for killing a red are better, IF they manage to kill you, which might not be the case. If you're a high level player and kill a low level green player, the idea is that you gain a shit-ton of corruption rendering you virtually useless.
So what would a supposedly smart player do? Kill (non consensually) an equal level player first (maybe he's AFK), and then go provoking green players into fighting back, so that you can kill them without gaining further corruption, because in your scenario they now flag as purple.
So congratulations, you've invented a system in which high level players can basically gank low level noobs at will, so long as you manage to make them fight back (which by sheer virtue of habit, a lot of people will do).
The green player staying green already offers a good balance. They risk harsher death penalties, and lose more materials, in return for a chance at taking part of your gear and loot.
You as a red, get punished for having killed someone non consensually and also have a shot at killing another player, and get more of their dropped materials, than if they were purple, in exchange for more corruption.
In the end, corrupted are punished with harsher death penalty. What's the point of additionally punishing them for doing consentual PvP? Such system achieves nothing, because both corrupted are punished unnecessarily, and green are punished because they can't flag up to suffer less death penalty if they lose, unless the greens' plan is to just increase the corrupted's corruption, which is sort of griefing, no?
The point you ask? To prevent everyone from murdering everyone else on sight. To punish players who initiated consensual PKing. And to push people to participate in other forms of content and social organizations such as Bounty Hunters, Caravan PvP, Guild Wars, Node Sieges, etc. And to prevent players going on killing rampages just to keep a certain area from leveling their Node.
The green's plans doesn't have to be to "gried you by giving you more corruption". They can be trying to your gear and loot, since you're a scumbag criminal.
And hey. If you grief someone, you've now opened yourself to being a target of griefing. Don't like it, then do onto others as you would have them do unto you, and leave them alone. And if you truly must kill them, then plan it out and know where to go hide and how to quickly cleanse yourself of corruption.
Maybe have a friend with you, to kill you, and loot your ashes, so that he can return them to you after you're cleansed.
That is how the game is played so that everyone gets to enjoy it at its healthiest.
Of course there are levels to this, and they will be tested, to see what level of corruption is gained in what scenarios etc. But overall the system works as intended for the benefit of the game, and not yours.
Honestly this is going to go no where if we are going to argue a red player has to deal with potentially being surrounded by green players based on how full a server or area is preventing them from ever having the chance to work off corruption.
I'm going to agree greens should be flagged as well if they attack since we aren't going to have proper discussion or leeway in potential issues.
This is a PvX game and pvp is expected and part of the game. If you engage in consensual pvp you should be flagged as (insert other colour) as well so it balances out and people have to decide to hunt down a red or not. Making it so the only players that can attack them are reds for a duration of 30 seconds after using a combat skill unless another is used.
If you are signing up to flag on people be it someone who is red or anything you need to be flagged for pvp as well with both parties having a chance to fight back. No one should be locked in perpetual gameplay where greens can be everywhere and attack them every second until they are permanently red.
If you are someone that dies to the red after flagging on them tough luck.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Corrupted doing consensual PvP is still a monster activity.
Corrupted are monsters, no matter what they do... or don't do.
Killing more Greens adds more Corruption. Might want to try to avoid that.
Comments
Ashes is a world where people are not prevented from killing monsters. Players are not punished for killing monsters. Monsters cannot give consent.
The disconnect appears to be thinking that Reds should be treated like criminals instead of like monsters.
Corruption is a form of karma that demands payment for breaking the consensual card and it is given in green's favour.
I already, perfectly described why you cannot compare real world's "criminal vs non-criminal" to AoC's, when AoC's "non-criminal vs non-criminal" also differs from real world's.
He isn't complaining about non consensual lol. He is saying you are stuck on a infinite tread mill of corruption unable to depend yourself where it isn't a system of risk or reward but just continuous to sever punishment until you die.
You literarily are choose not to view it from his perspective and making weird arguments why its ok for things to happen as they are. If you get attacked and defending yourself continue to grant major corruption you are effectively losing insane progress on the game when it bounces back eventually.
Which brings up the question on the element of pvp thresholds you want per content. If your argument to people is to not flag ever that isn't a positive direction. You are effectively saying don't use the system in order to prevent as much pvp as content leading to much more of a pve type game.
That's working on the assumption that there's a conveyor belt of greens attacking a red player.
Odds are the red player will have cleansed his corruption by killing mobs in the open world before anyone attacks them.
And if not. Hey, shouldna killed someone. Face the consequences of your actions.
Reds are treated like mobs.
If you don't want to be treated like a mob; don't become Red.
Monsters cannot commit crimes anyway. Typically monsters are KoS.
Lol, bold of you to assume your explanations are perfect.
My comparison works very well for AoC too.
My point is, that yes, you're to be shafted if a green chooses to kill you, because you are a criminal on the run.
It's balanced in that the green faces increased death penalties if they fail to kill you, as they don't flag as combatant.
Running away and working off your corruption is what you're meant to do as a Red. You're a criminal on the run. You can't trade, you can't access Nodes. You're the baddy. A "good guy" attacking you is doing "good deed" and you killing them just makes you more of a baddie.
The system works perfectly fine as intended. You're just working under the assumption that somehow every green player in the area will suddenly turn on you and that you're good enough to kill all of them and that your corruption score will then increase infinitely.
Being Red is a vicious spiral by design. The only way to deal with it is: kill mobs, wait long enough or die enough times (depending on how much corruption you've accrued). So yes. Don't become red is indeed what the Corruption system is in place for. It's to dissuade you from killing people non-consensually. Look just how worked up you are at the idea that greens can attack you and further increase your Corruption score.
The system is already working and you haven't even played the game.
And if there is a conveyer belt of greens around everywhere and will constantly swarm a red player at most times and takes long to remove the corruption? We have 10,000 potential people to be in a world at one time after all..... Are you saying to never use the corrupted system if that is the case?
We can get all the way from node to node in a couple minutes. If corruption can wear off in the few minutes it'd take for a Green to return from spawn, the entire system is useless.
Well then you must have pissed off a lot of people if all the green players in the area all chose to stop what they were doing just to fuck with you, and that's your problem at that point, and likely deserve it.
And you're also not likely to be able to kill everyone anyway. So there's no infinite gain of corruption.
Not to mention (again) that a green player not flagging when they attack a red, means they get increased death penalties. They have to be very sure that they can take you out, or they're just screwing themselves over.
The idea is that you're not supposed to kill a player who's not fighting back. If you do, then you assume the consequences. Time to kill is between 30 seconds to 1 minute. You have ample time to stop killing them if you see that they're not fighting back.
If you want to kill people, the system promotes killing other purples, doing caravan PvP and Guild Wars etc.
So yes, the system is in place to dissuade you from ever wanting to gain corruption. Not for you to gain corruption at your leisure and then not have any consequences from those you killed.
@Asgerr all you do is try justify the system by speculative statements such as "there won't be that many greens going after you", which may or may not be right, that doesn't make the system any less broken. You're also describing ways to survive the system, when nobody asked.
"Face the consequences of your actions"? Shut down the thread, I think you're the winner (well, you share the 1st place with a bunch of other PvE brains). Why discuss the system when we can just deal with what it is, regardless how we feel about it?
I have yet to hear why a non-criminal activity such as defending yourself is bad, while cutting down trees is not.
Or if you want a PvP-based example, why killing bounty hunters and combatants is fine, but killing greens who want to fight you is bad.
Which is why this discussion is pointless.
You are making some clear assumptions on kissing people off or deserving it, rather than looking at the fundamental design for what it is.
1. First you are assuming how long it takes to remove corruption as it increases with pk count and that is a undefined number so you can't assume it one way or another.
2. Second not every green player will attack but depending on player density and their numbers with the game focusing on group content they should have a high chance at winning if it is a 1v3+
This is a PvX game yet you can refuse to fight back and give them corruption as a deterrent. But the person that is corrupted has little choice but gain immense more corruption or simply die and lose far more than the other people.
Saying don't attack people if you can't handle isn't really a good answer that will get the discussion anywhere. If that is all that can be said and the punishment is so serve that people completely refuse to use the system, then the devs will have to look at it and see if it is working as intended or if there is a issue in the punishment based on the gameplay.
If the devs consider it is too much do you think they won't change it, or do you think the devs intended to make the system but have it almost never used by players because of the consequences?
If you think the latter than you want very very minimal people ever pvping in that scenario, if not the latter then its better to actually discuss things and have some more leeway or potential solutions.
System isn't useless I'm unsure about the amount of time one should take to work off corruption and we can't assume that....No one is saying you can work off corruption in 5 minutes either.
Even if you can work off corruption in a few minutes it doesn't matter as the system further increases corruption based on pk count. So over the life time on your account you gain more corruption from killing more players. And we are also unsure how easy or difficult it will be to reduce that pk count.
If the discussion is people hating PvP and wanting no one to be corrupted i feel it ends right there as the goal of people is to turn it more towards a pve game. Which won't happen, as there will be more free incentive to use the other systems to kill players without corruption gain, ie guild wars and node wars.
And you're working on the assumption that somehow every green will attack you and die on purpose (or you're just that good) to give you more corruption.
Because that's what the system is designed to do. What you're wanting is a more lenient impact of said core system because you somehow assume that every green within an entire area will die on your blade just to mess with you, after you've ruined someone's experience, whent they didn't want to fight you.
You have up to 1 minute of time to kill. If they don't fight back, stop and attack someone else who will fight back. That's the purpose of the corruption system.
You can think it handicaps your murderhobo fantasy, but guess what? Nobody other than you cares.
Because self defense doesn't apply to active criminals (aka being Red). Cutting down trees and killing monsters contribute to the Node's development. Killing players (consensually or not doesn't. Consider it doing community work for your fell deeds.
A bounty hunter is getting paid extra for their efforts to kill you and has normal death penalties if you kill him. And it works towards a secondary progression system.
A green player risks increased death penalties and gains no XP for a secondary progression system. So yes, they give you more corruption, but they also screw themselves over.
Do you truly believe you're that central in everyone's mind that they will abandon their gameplay and screw their character over just for a chance at making your own criminal experience worse? Sounds quite egotistical.
Cool, we should tell the others to stop discussing game's systems right away.
It does against bounty hunters and combatants.
I don't think at that point it matters to the Corrupted what risk the opponent is taking by attacking red. You're trying to justify red's self defense and victory against green as "ah, I got more corruption, but also more resources from the victim". Pretty sure it'd be better for everyone if green counted as purple when fighting red.
No. It's really difficult to discuss things with you when you're making stuff up.
Me: provides said reason
hleV: But not that one
Keep in mind also, that whilst fighting bounty hunters your corruption combat penalties don't apply. But they would for every other purple.
So basically: Kill one player and go red, gaining corruption just that once, and then you people trying to stop a criminal, but you never gain corruption again?
Yeah sure, that's super balanced.
You're also making up situations and assumptions. Where does that leave us?
Don't flag, is not a solution it is making something potentially obsolete in the game if that is what everyone days. Which most likely isn't going to happen as devs will adjust and make more reason to pvp. So its the perfect chance to give a reasoning that is fair and less bias on both sides.
I've already stated a reasoning why they could leave it at that and increase pvp on guilds and nodes with a shift in balance.
If corruption is takes 30 miuntes to get rid of corruption but you have a high chance to run into someone every 5 min, and over 80% of players that go corrupted die usually within 10 minutes there is potential for a design issue.
I'm lost here.
What sort of assumptions? That a hypothetical situation where a green, or multiple, attack a corrupted player, may happen?
And monsters are KoS, even when they are doing nothing.
So now you want a way to clear corruption that only benefits you, an active criminal?? That's not how the world works.
The ways to clear corruption are: gaining XP and dying. There is no non criminal activity that provides those options. Even in PvP terms, that's from Caravans, Arenas etc. But you can't really access many of those as you can't get near nodes without guards killing you on sight.
So no. Cutting trees is the only way for you to clear corruption. Seeking a different alternative, to allow you to kill more players with impunity, is extremely self serving and damaging to the game's health. More below.
A red killing a purple doesn't increase the red's corruption. So far so good? That's the basics of the current system.
With your vision (greens flagging into purple when attacking reds), you're making it faaaaaaar more likely for yourself to be attacked by Green players, as flagging purple, gives normal death penalties, meaning they have lower risk in trying to kill you.
On the other hand, you being red, could then provoke and harass all greens into fighting you, to kill them, and gain no further corruption. Which means the Corruption system is now failing entirely in protecting the Green players of the world. Regardless of whether you like PvErs or not. (That's also not assuming that they're not PvPers with other important things they wanna do at that time than fighting you).
Indeed, and I do honestly believe this would make for a better system, as this way the player wouldn't be punished for non-criminal activity of defending themselves.
How does red harass and provoke greens into fighting them, that is different from a purple doing the same thing? Only that in this case, the rewards for killing red are far better than killing purple. I suppose there's more incentive to attack a red due to higher rewards and the same risk, but that's consentual PvP, they know what they signed up for by attacking another player, isn't that how the system works?
In the end, corrupted are punished with harsher death penalty. What's the point of additionally punishing them for doing consentual PvP? Such system achieves nothing, because both corrupted are punished unnecessarily, and green are punished because they can't flag up to suffer less death penalty if they lose, unless the greens' plan is to just increase the corrupted's corruption, which is sort of griefing, no?
That is the absolute dumbest take I've read on these forums.
"I killed someone non consensually and got corrupted. Now that guy's friend is attacking me and doesn't flag, so if I kill him, I get more corruption. But I'm the victim of non consensual PvP.."
Jesus Christ.... I might get a fucking aneurism from the amount of sheer stupidity of this argument....
Whilst you're Red you agree to PvP and are an active criminal. You're not the victim of non consensual PvP. You're the perpetrator of it. A Green attacking you can be either very smart or very dumb on their part depending on their skill, level, gear etc. You crying victim of non consensual PvP after killing someone non consensually is moronic to the extreme, and very entitled.
The difference is: you've already killed one player non consensually before. Simple as that.
Yes the rewards for killing a red are better, IF they manage to kill you, which might not be the case. If you're a high level player and kill a low level green player, the idea is that you gain a shit-ton of corruption rendering you virtually useless.
So what would a supposedly smart player do? Kill (non consensually) an equal level player first (maybe he's AFK), and then go provoking green players into fighting back, so that you can kill them without gaining further corruption, because in your scenario they now flag as purple.
So congratulations, you've invented a system in which high level players can basically gank low level noobs at will, so long as you manage to make them fight back (which by sheer virtue of habit, a lot of people will do).
The green player staying green already offers a good balance. They risk harsher death penalties, and lose more materials, in return for a chance at taking part of your gear and loot.
You as a red, get punished for having killed someone non consensually and also have a shot at killing another player, and get more of their dropped materials, than if they were purple, in exchange for more corruption.
The point you ask? To prevent everyone from murdering everyone else on sight. To punish players who initiated consensual PKing. And to push people to participate in other forms of content and social organizations such as Bounty Hunters, Caravan PvP, Guild Wars, Node Sieges, etc. And to prevent players going on killing rampages just to keep a certain area from leveling their Node.
The green's plans doesn't have to be to "gried you by giving you more corruption". They can be trying to your gear and loot, since you're a scumbag criminal.
And hey. If you grief someone, you've now opened yourself to being a target of griefing. Don't like it, then do onto others as you would have them do unto you, and leave them alone. And if you truly must kill them, then plan it out and know where to go hide and how to quickly cleanse yourself of corruption.
Maybe have a friend with you, to kill you, and loot your ashes, so that he can return them to you after you're cleansed.
That is how the game is played so that everyone gets to enjoy it at its healthiest.
Of course there are levels to this, and they will be tested, to see what level of corruption is gained in what scenarios etc. But overall the system works as intended for the benefit of the game, and not yours.
I'm going to agree greens should be flagged as well if they attack since we aren't going to have proper discussion or leeway in potential issues.
This is a PvX game and pvp is expected and part of the game. If you engage in consensual pvp you should be flagged as (insert other colour) as well so it balances out and people have to decide to hunt down a red or not. Making it so the only players that can attack them are reds for a duration of 30 seconds after using a combat skill unless another is used.
If you are signing up to flag on people be it someone who is red or anything you need to be flagged for pvp as well with both parties having a chance to fight back. No one should be locked in perpetual gameplay where greens can be everywhere and attack them every second until they are permanently red.
If you are someone that dies to the red after flagging on them tough luck.
Corrupted are monsters, no matter what they do... or don't do.
Killing more Greens adds more Corruption. Might want to try to avoid that.