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.
Do consider the likely case of you yet again misunderstanding/making stuff up to help your case before calling something stupid/moronic.
Player gets an increased death penalty for becoming corrupted. Not a victim here, had it coming. With me so far?
Then they're not doing it anymore. No non-consentual killing. No additional criminal activity. They're doing what's perfectly acceptable in AoC - consentual PvP. Another example of what's perfectly acceptable is... walking. Yet one of these activities punishes the criminal additionally while the other doesn't. This is where we have an issue: a criminal, who's already being punished for their criminal deeds, is additionally punished for one type of non-criminal deed but not the other. But wait, there's more! They're only punished for said non-criminal deed if the other party, that consented to PvP, happens to be green. How is consenting to PvP a red as a green different from doing the same as a purple/BH? What's the logic here? Why make consentual PvP vs greens different from consentual PvP vs non-greens?
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.
Here you're talking about the act of becoming corrupted, right? Not consentual PvP afterwards? If so, I'm with you so far. Otherwise, it's the same as high level purple attacking low level green, and low level green fighting back.
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.
Why would I ever do that? I don't get any benefit for doing this as a red, because my own death penalty is worse than if I did that as a purple. Remember that the change I suggested makes consented greens into purples, so they get purple death penalty. Being red doesn't benefit me in this case, besides perhaps giving more incentive for others to actually have a fight with me, which is consentual PvP and that's great.
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).
This is called consentual PvP and is a system that already exists, I invented nothing, only applied it to where it belongs.
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.
This "balance" you speak of is unfavorable for both parties, unless the whole plan of the green player is to increase the red player's corruption, and I don't think such sketchy strategies should be encouraged by the game.
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.
And my case is, it would be better if neither got additionally punished (red gaining more corruption, green losing more resources), for this is consentual PvP, not mindless griefing/PKing.
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.
This is consentual PvP. If the devs wanted to prevent consentual PvP in open world, they would. It's the NON-consentual PvP that the corruption system is supposed to reduce.
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.
Perfect, that's consentual PvP! They can do the same against non-corrupted as well, only in the case of red, they don't have to worry about red not fighting back. Plus better potential rewards.
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.
Grief the griefer back? I don't think that's what the game wants to encourage. You're already being penalized for your criminal activity, not sure why it warrants additional penalties for not doing anything bad.
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.
Again you're providing suggestions to survive the system, when nobody asked. Just because there are workarounds, that doesn't justify the flaws of the system.
Honestly, if your entire argument hinges on: "5 seconds after committing a crime, I'm no longer a criminal. I'm now a Red identifying as Green" then you've just lost the north entirely.
You being Red at all IS agreeing to PvP. It doesn't become non consensual when other do it to you, whilst you're Red. But you get further punished for having initiated non-consensual PvP (which you seem to be sweeping under the rug repeatedly, like it wasn't even a big deal).
Giving Greens their larger death penalties simply makes it harder for them to wanna fight you, just to karma bomb you so to speak. And if you have people whom you've pissed off enough to do so? Then you deserve the extra corruption *shrug*
Honestly, if your entire argument hinges on: "5 seconds after committing a crime, I'm no longer a criminal. I'm now a Red identifying as Green" then you've just lost the north entirely.
That's not my argument in the slightest, what are you talking about? It's as if you're incapable or unwilling to comprehend what is actually being said.
You're talking as if I'm trying to remove the punishment for becoming red. I'm talking about removing additional punishment for not doing bad things.
You being Red at all IS agreeing to PvP. It doesn't become non consensual when other do it to you, whilst you're Red. But you get further punished for having initiated non-consensual PvP (which you seem to be sweeping under the rug repeatedly, like it wasn't even a big deal).
Feel free to keep punishing me for continuing to do non-consentual PvP (as in, me going on a killing spree vs greens that don't fight back). If both parties fight though, that's consentual. That's not griefing, that's not criminal activity, that's not something corruption was designed to prevent. Why punish it in this very specific circumstance?
Giving Greens their larger death penalties simply makes it harder for them to wanna fight you, just to karma bomb you so to speak.
Which is bad for greens and should be changed. People who don't want to PvP, won't do consentual PvP. People who want to PvP, will do consentual PvP, yet against red they're for some reason locked as "non-PvPers".
Still not an issue. Been playing L2 from where the corruption system is taken from, nobody complained about getting more corruption for defending against attacking non-combatants.
Only you have an issue with it. Keep going for another 7 pages.
3
Options
HinotoriMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You being corrupted and then being open to being killed going about and conducting your daily business is part of the punishment for killing non-combatants. Just like you'll also be opening yourself up to being attacked by guards near towns and being named an enemy of a node if you become enough of a nuisance and having node services denied to you even if you aren't red.
That's not my argument in the slightest, what are you talking about? It's as if you're incapable or unwilling to comprehend what is actually being said.
You're talking as if I'm trying to remove the punishment for becoming red. I'm talking about removing additional punishment for not doing bad things.
Then you might actually be dumb enough not to understand what you're proposing. Your punishment includes the risk of potentially gaining more corruption.
You not wanting that, is equal to wanting to remove a portion of your punishment.
And again, you've done a bad thing. Until you clear off you're corruption, you're akin to still be doing a bad thing.
Imagine if someone killed a person in the street to steal their wallet and then claimed self defence when they killed someone else who attacked them to stop them.
Every time you type the same excuse of "Oh but I'm not doing anything bad anymore" you're lowering the general IQ of these forums.
It does seem unusual though, that somebody in combat (a combatant, if you will) could still have the Non-Combatant status. If I'm Green and want to flag Purple against a Red that's attacking me, fighting back should be enough to do that.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
Killing a Combatant is not a criminal activity, rather it is a monstrous activity and that killer then is treated like a monster by the game system until Corruption is removed.
There is a reason that L2 refers to the mechanic as Karma. Has nothing to do with "criminal" activity.
Greens not flagging Combatant when they fight Reds is not bad for Greens.
If a Corrupted kills a Green, the Green still gets the same death penalties they would for killing other monsters.
Greens not flagging Combatant when they fight Reds is not bad for Greens.
If a Corrupted kills a Green, the Green still gets the same death penalties they would for killing other monsters.
It removes the element of Choice that they'd have had, had they been attacked by a Purple instead. That element of choice has been: "Well, if someone attacks you, you can choose to not fight back in the hopes that they'll stop due to not wanting Corruption, or you can choose to fight back and either kill them first or protect half your drops."
You don't get that same choice when attacked by a Red. A Red is already somebody who's willing to be Corrupted, and attacking you, has already accepted that they're going to become more so. Only, you don't get to protect half your drops.
Greens not flagging Combatant when they fight Reds is not bad for Greens.
If a Corrupted kills a Green, the Green still gets the same death penalties they would for killing other monsters.
It removes the element of Choice that they'd have had, had they been attacked by a Purple instead. That element of choice has been: "Well, if someone attacks you, you can choose to not fight back in the hopes that they'll stop due to not wanting Corruption, or you can choose to fight back and either kill them first or protect half your drops."
You don't get that same choice when attacked by a Red. A Red is already somebody who's willing to be Corrupted, and attacking you, has already accepted that they're going to become more so. Only, you don't get to protect half your drops.
By not turning Greens into Purples upon attacking a Red, you're allowing for Bounty hunters to matter.
If any green could kill reds without its usual increased death penalties (compared to a purple), then Bounty hunters would be out of a job, and that entire social organization would be useless.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
It doesn't remove anything.
Corrupted are monsters. If a Green attacks a Red and the Red kills the Green, the Red gets more Corruption. The fairness of that balances out by the Green getting normal death penalties if they are killed. The Green is still making a Choice.
A Green will not have the same consequences when attacking a Red as they would when they initiate a fair fight by attacking a Purple.
A Red is a monster. A Green gets the normal death penalties they would for killing any other monster.
It's not an "additional penality" it's part of the price of corruption in the system, when "defending yourself" from the "aggressive Greens" coming after you, your best shot is CCs, slows and fleeing, killing those greens isn't the correct approach for someone looking to remove that corruption fast.
That's not my argument in the slightest, what are you talking about? It's as if you're incapable or unwilling to comprehend what is actually being said.
You're talking as if I'm trying to remove the punishment for becoming red. I'm talking about removing additional punishment for not doing bad things.
Then you might actually be dumb enough not to understand what you're proposing. Your punishment includes the risk of potentially gaining more corruption.
You not wanting that, is equal to wanting to remove a portion of your punishment.
And again, you've done a bad thing. Until you clear off you're corruption, you're akin to still be doing a bad thing.
Imagine if someone killed a person in the street to steal their wallet and then claimed self defence when they killed someone else who attacked them to stop them.
Every time you type the same excuse of "Oh but I'm not doing anything bad anymore" you're lowering the general IQ of these forums.
You're suggesting that the system was specifically, on purpose, after being well thought through, designed this way that:
- Against reds in particular, greens are removed the choice of being treated as combatants even if they're literally PvPers or just innocent PvEers wishing to preserve their resources. Oh there's a higher level red coming to get you? Well too fucking bad, enjoy your full death penalty! Damn, if only that guy was green/purple instead... Darn reds, they have it good... Corruption system FTW!
- Against greens in particular, reds can't fight back without risking additional penalty on top of what they signed up for by becoming corrupted. Because hey, they've committed a crime, so fuck them, their punishment should increase in these very specific circumstances where they're defending not against BHs or combatants, but greens!
The fact that it's stated that it's still going to need testing means no, the system isn't obviously perfect, and may need adjustments.
You say the risk of additional corruption gain for activity that normally wouldn't be considered criminal is part of the penalty. That's a perfectly valid point of view. I just disagree that it should be like that, especially when it applies in weirdly specific circumstances. It doesn't make the game better or more interesting (for anyone, not just reds).
But hey, PvE brain is PvE brain, obviously you're incapable of comprehending the fact that this part of corruption system isn't flawless, so I'll just add you to the list of PvE brains I ignore, next to Dygz.
He thinks the consequence is that all green players will sacrifice themselves just to give him extra corruption.
But don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience in stupidity.
I've provided all of the reasons why and he doesn't like any of them. He just wants to PK and not accept the full breadth of penalties afforded for that.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think Greens who want to flag Purple against Corrupted can do so by becoming Bounty Hunters.
Honestly, if your entire argument hinges on: "5 seconds after committing a crime, I'm no longer a criminal. I'm now a Red identifying as Green" then you've just lost the north entirely.
You being Red at all IS agreeing to PvP. It doesn't become non consensual when other do it to you, whilst you're Red. But you get further punished for having initiated non-consensual PvP (which you seem to be sweeping under the rug repeatedly, like it wasn't even a big deal).
Giving Greens their larger death penalties simply makes it harder for them to wanna fight you, just to karma bomb you so to speak. And if you have people whom you've pissed off enough to do so? Then you deserve the extra corruption *shrug*
Corruption bomb to infinite cycle of corruption is griefing. A slightly adjusted system can make things better and reduce the amount of corruption lost on death so they are still losing more if they are hunted down. Force them to have to work it off while being hunted longer and dealing with their punishment
That's not my argument in the slightest, what are you talking about? It's as if you're incapable or unwilling to comprehend what is actually being said.
You're talking as if I'm trying to remove the punishment for becoming red. I'm talking about removing additional punishment for not doing bad things.
Then you might actually be dumb enough not to understand what you're proposing. Your punishment includes the risk of potentially gaining more corruption.
You not wanting that, is equal to wanting to remove a portion of your punishment.
And again, you've done a bad thing. Until you clear off you're corruption, you're akin to still be doing a bad thing.
Imagine if someone killed a person in the street to steal their wallet and then claimed self defence when they killed someone else who attacked them to stop them.
Every time you type the same excuse of "Oh but I'm not doing anything bad anymore" you're lowering the general IQ of these forums.
You're suggesting that the system was specifically, on purpose, after being well thought through, designed this way that:
- Against reds in particular, greens are removed the choice of being treated as combatants even if they're literally PvPers or just innocent PvEers wishing to preserve their resources. Oh there's a higher level red coming to get you? Well too fucking bad, enjoy your full death penalty! Damn, if only that guy was green/purple instead... Darn reds, they have it good... Corruption system FTW!
- Against greens in particular, reds can't fight back without risking additional penalty on top of what they signed up for by becoming corrupted. Because hey, they've committed a crime, so fuck them, their punishment should increase in these very specific circumstances where they're defending not against BHs or combatants, but greens!
The fact that it's stated that it's still going to need testing means no, the system isn't obviously perfect, and may need adjustments.
You say the risk of additional corruption gain for activity that normally wouldn't be considered criminal is part of the penalty. That's a perfectly valid point of view. I just disagree that it should be like that, especially when it applies in weirdly specific circumstances. It doesn't make the game better or more interesting (for anyone, not just reds).
But hey, PvE brain is PvE brain, obviously you're incapable of comprehending the fact that this part of corruption system isn't flawless, so I'll just add you to the list of PvE brains I ignore, next to Dygz.
BTW there is a pvp life time count on your account and the more people you kill the higher corruption you gain every time.
Me literarily playing BDO where people karma bombed people all the time lol. And they drop there gear people will 100% of alts in groups for bombing corruption. with a BH.
End of the day its people voicing that aren't really for PvP, or will never go corrupted so they just want someone to have as high as possible to 100% death rate as they can get lmao.
@JamesSunderland in L2 did killing more people permanently give you more corruption every kill after on your character/account. Do you lose stats for the higher your corruption?
If a green player initiate a fight on a red player, the green player should takes same risk like the red player in stead of normal death penalty, it should be more death penalty than normal and maybe will stack to punish players who trying to abuse corruption system by using the role of green player to make red player can’t really achieve what Intrepid allows red player to do which like what Steven said in past stream that there are chances you will meet players who can’t be reasonable and encounter really bad situations you really hate and he think it’s ok to allow player to commit to kill another player with some conditions, and in other hand maybe should consider to decrease the death penalty if a green player keep killed by other players in a short time to prevent situations like players try to PK with multiple characters or accounts which means organized PK.
Because there is bounty hunter system for pvp players already, so point is if a green player is also happen to be a pvp player willing to kill red player, should bounty hunter system be able to toggle on and off no matter where the player is just one click then just join the fight.
I think that outnumbered pk and baiting pk are also problems, for example at beginning it seems a 1v1 fight between A and B but player B’s teammates of were hiding far or just stealth in shadow before the fight start, player B is just a bait to encourage A fight back to become purple, once A turns to purple B’s teammates will join the fight immediately to kill A, I don’t know that should or shouldn’t to use corruption system to deal with these kind of situations because it’s can be hard and complex to do it good enough.
@JamesSunderland in L2 did killing more people permanently give you more corruption every kill after on your character/account. Do you lose stats for the higher your corruption?
In Lineage 2 you had the Karma points and your PK count, the higher the PK count the more Karma you received per kill "permanently" on that character, Karma points being lost by dying or killing monsters and your PK count can be removed through a quest called "Repent Your Sins" that would give a "Sin Eater" Devil pet that would need to be leveled up to max level, and no, no matter how high your karma point or PK count would be, it would never make you lose stats.
@hleV remind me what do you think the consequence of leaving the thing you think is a flaw in the current design as is?
It will make the game worse. For reds, if greens assaulting reds becomes a common thing (and it will if it's beneficial to abuse it), it's just not fun to be additionally penalized for self-defense. For greens that are assaulted by reds, they don't get a choice to become purple to decrease their death penalty, which is also not fun.
Green attacking red could just make them purple to that red exclusively and not everyone else (like BHs are only combatants to reds), and it'd solve this. Reds would still receive corrupted death penalty, and greens would receive combatant level of death penalty. Everyone happy (except carebears, because god forbid you have a reason to kill another player even if they don't fight back).
Just to clear up a little ambiguity do you think it would be fair to say your position is that it would make the game less fun for reds specifically (let's ignore the green part of it as there is a bounty hunting system that is capable of solving this if IS so chooses to.)
Are there any other side effects to the game play that you forsee given the current status quo?
BTW there is a pvp life time count on your account and the more people you kill the higher corruption you gain every time.
I assume PK means killing a non-combatant, in which case the current issue of greens attacking reds but not getting registered as combatans would affect this, which is not great. Not as severe as being penalized for self-defending against aggressive greens as a red, though.
Just to clear up a little ambiguity do you think it would be fair to say your position is that it would make the game less fun for reds specifically (let's ignore the green part of it as there is a bounty hunting system that is capable of solving this if IS so chooses to.)
Are there any other side effects to the game play that you forsee given the current status quo?
It will be less fun (while already being not fun the right amount) to anyone that is negatively affected by it, so self-defending reds and non-aggressive greens. Might be more fun to greens that choose to abuse it, though.
The fact that the summation of this thread is “I think I should be able to PK someone who’s trying to stop me from PKing with no extra penalties.” and yet op is continuously claiming that’s toooootally not what it is, makes me laugh.
Being Red is the indicator that you are an active criminal who has not resolved their karma, ie worked off the corruption. Either learn to accept the consequences and risks of your actions, or stop PKing non-combatants. It really is that simple
Honestly, if your entire argument hinges on: "5 seconds after committing a crime, I'm no longer a criminal. I'm now a Red identifying as Green" then you've just lost the north entirely.
You being Red at all IS agreeing to PvP. It doesn't become non consensual when other do it to you, whilst you're Red. But you get further punished for having initiated non-consensual PvP (which you seem to be sweeping under the rug repeatedly, like it wasn't even a big deal).
Giving Greens their larger death penalties simply makes it harder for them to wanna fight you, just to karma bomb you so to speak. And if you have people whom you've pissed off enough to do so? Then you deserve the extra corruption *shrug*
Corruption bomb to infinite cycle of corruption is griefing. A slightly adjusted system can make things better and reduce the amount of corruption lost on death so they are still losing more if they are hunted down. Force them to have to work it off while being hunted longer and dealing with their punishment
You seem to want to support griefing though.
You realize you can simply not continue killing greens right? You’re completely able to accept karma and end the corruption cycle. You, in all your wisdom, really are out here thinking your active choices to make the situation worse means you’re being “griefed”. I can’t roll my eyes hard enough
I remember in L2 that there was a pretty widespread feeling on my server that it was a good thing to 'Pk reds off the server.' In other words, folks felt that making players who go red quit the game made the game better and attracted more players to the game.
On another topic, some comments in this thread have implied that PvE players, or perhaps I should say 'anything less than a pure PvP player', is somehow flawed. Somehow less worthy. Somehow a player who should be despised and made fun of, a weak person, a joke. I do not agree with that. I trust that IS does not agree with that because those players are what is going to power the economy of the game, make the game a success and make it profitable. Don't look down on the PvE community, they will make AoC a success.
Honestly, if your entire argument hinges on: "5 seconds after committing a crime, I'm no longer a criminal. I'm now a Red identifying as Green" then you've just lost the north entirely.
You being Red at all IS agreeing to PvP. It doesn't become non consensual when other do it to you, whilst you're Red. But you get further punished for having initiated non-consensual PvP (which you seem to be sweeping under the rug repeatedly, like it wasn't even a big deal).
Giving Greens their larger death penalties simply makes it harder for them to wanna fight you, just to karma bomb you so to speak. And if you have people whom you've pissed off enough to do so? Then you deserve the extra corruption *shrug*
Corruption bomb to infinite cycle of corruption is griefing. A slightly adjusted system can make things better and reduce the amount of corruption lost on death so they are still losing more if they are hunted down. Force them to have to work it off while being hunted longer and dealing with their punishment
You seem to want to support griefing though.
You realize you can simply not continue killing greens right? You’re completely able to accept karma and end the corruption cycle. You, in all your wisdom, really are out here thinking your active choices to make the situation worse means you’re being “griefed”. I can’t roll my eyes hard enough
if you think you are simply going to be able to run away from someone that easily when a group is chasing you everywhere no matter the grind spot that won't be the case. This depends on the density of the area as well you are underestimating what people will do.
Bh hunter and a group of greens and it doesn't matter where you go you have no choice but to die or gain corruption.
Btw... players can complete Quests to reduce their PK count.
The lower the PK score on a characters window, the less corruption is accumulated per new kill.
Comments
Player gets an increased death penalty for becoming corrupted. Not a victim here, had it coming. With me so far?
Then they're not doing it anymore. No non-consentual killing. No additional criminal activity. They're doing what's perfectly acceptable in AoC - consentual PvP. Another example of what's perfectly acceptable is... walking. Yet one of these activities punishes the criminal additionally while the other doesn't. This is where we have an issue: a criminal, who's already being punished for their criminal deeds, is additionally punished for one type of non-criminal deed but not the other. But wait, there's more! They're only punished for said non-criminal deed if the other party, that consented to PvP, happens to be green. How is consenting to PvP a red as a green different from doing the same as a purple/BH? What's the logic here? Why make consentual PvP vs greens different from consentual PvP vs non-greens?
And there's a penalty for that. Simple as that.
Here you're talking about the act of becoming corrupted, right? Not consentual PvP afterwards? If so, I'm with you so far. Otherwise, it's the same as high level purple attacking low level green, and low level green fighting back.
Why would I ever do that? I don't get any benefit for doing this as a red, because my own death penalty is worse than if I did that as a purple. Remember that the change I suggested makes consented greens into purples, so they get purple death penalty. Being red doesn't benefit me in this case, besides perhaps giving more incentive for others to actually have a fight with me, which is consentual PvP and that's great.
This is called consentual PvP and is a system that already exists, I invented nothing, only applied it to where it belongs.
This "balance" you speak of is unfavorable for both parties, unless the whole plan of the green player is to increase the red player's corruption, and I don't think such sketchy strategies should be encouraged by the game.
And my case is, it would be better if neither got additionally punished (red gaining more corruption, green losing more resources), for this is consentual PvP, not mindless griefing/PKing.
This is consentual PvP. If the devs wanted to prevent consentual PvP in open world, they would. It's the NON-consentual PvP that the corruption system is supposed to reduce.
Perfect, that's consentual PvP! They can do the same against non-corrupted as well, only in the case of red, they don't have to worry about red not fighting back. Plus better potential rewards.
Grief the griefer back? I don't think that's what the game wants to encourage. You're already being penalized for your criminal activity, not sure why it warrants additional penalties for not doing anything bad.
Again you're providing suggestions to survive the system, when nobody asked. Just because there are workarounds, that doesn't justify the flaws of the system.
It may be working as intended, but its current design is worse than it could be, hence the discussion.
Honestly, if your entire argument hinges on: "5 seconds after committing a crime, I'm no longer a criminal. I'm now a Red identifying as Green" then you've just lost the north entirely.
You being Red at all IS agreeing to PvP. It doesn't become non consensual when other do it to you, whilst you're Red. But you get further punished for having initiated non-consensual PvP (which you seem to be sweeping under the rug repeatedly, like it wasn't even a big deal).
Giving Greens their larger death penalties simply makes it harder for them to wanna fight you, just to karma bomb you so to speak. And if you have people whom you've pissed off enough to do so? Then you deserve the extra corruption *shrug*
You're talking as if I'm trying to remove the punishment for becoming red. I'm talking about removing additional punishment for not doing bad things.
Feel free to keep punishing me for continuing to do non-consentual PvP (as in, me going on a killing spree vs greens that don't fight back). If both parties fight though, that's consentual. That's not griefing, that's not criminal activity, that's not something corruption was designed to prevent. Why punish it in this very specific circumstance?
Which is bad for greens and should be changed. People who don't want to PvP, won't do consentual PvP. People who want to PvP, will do consentual PvP, yet against red they're for some reason locked as "non-PvPers".
Only you have an issue with it. Keep going for another 7 pages.
Then you might actually be dumb enough not to understand what you're proposing. Your punishment includes the risk of potentially gaining more corruption.
You not wanting that, is equal to wanting to remove a portion of your punishment.
And again, you've done a bad thing. Until you clear off you're corruption, you're akin to still be doing a bad thing.
Imagine if someone killed a person in the street to steal their wallet and then claimed self defence when they killed someone else who attacked them to stop them.
Every time you type the same excuse of "Oh but I'm not doing anything bad anymore" you're lowering the general IQ of these forums.
There is a reason that L2 refers to the mechanic as Karma. Has nothing to do with "criminal" activity.
Greens not flagging Combatant when they fight Reds is not bad for Greens.
If a Corrupted kills a Green, the Green still gets the same death penalties they would for killing other monsters.
It removes the element of Choice that they'd have had, had they been attacked by a Purple instead. That element of choice has been: "Well, if someone attacks you, you can choose to not fight back in the hopes that they'll stop due to not wanting Corruption, or you can choose to fight back and either kill them first or protect half your drops."
You don't get that same choice when attacked by a Red. A Red is already somebody who's willing to be Corrupted, and attacking you, has already accepted that they're going to become more so. Only, you don't get to protect half your drops.
By not turning Greens into Purples upon attacking a Red, you're allowing for Bounty hunters to matter.
If any green could kill reds without its usual increased death penalties (compared to a purple), then Bounty hunters would be out of a job, and that entire social organization would be useless.
Corrupted are monsters. If a Green attacks a Red and the Red kills the Green, the Red gets more Corruption. The fairness of that balances out by the Green getting normal death penalties if they are killed. The Green is still making a Choice.
A Green will not have the same consequences when attacking a Red as they would when they initiate a fair fight by attacking a Purple.
A Red is a monster. A Green gets the normal death penalties they would for killing any other monster.
Aren't we all sinners?
- Against reds in particular, greens are removed the choice of being treated as combatants even if they're literally PvPers or just innocent PvEers wishing to preserve their resources. Oh there's a higher level red coming to get you? Well too fucking bad, enjoy your full death penalty! Damn, if only that guy was green/purple instead... Darn reds, they have it good... Corruption system FTW!
- Against greens in particular, reds can't fight back without risking additional penalty on top of what they signed up for by becoming corrupted. Because hey, they've committed a crime, so fuck them, their punishment should increase in these very specific circumstances where they're defending not against BHs or combatants, but greens!
The fact that it's stated that it's still going to need testing means no, the system isn't obviously perfect, and may need adjustments.
You say the risk of additional corruption gain for activity that normally wouldn't be considered criminal is part of the penalty. That's a perfectly valid point of view. I just disagree that it should be like that, especially when it applies in weirdly specific circumstances. It doesn't make the game better or more interesting (for anyone, not just reds).
But hey, PvE brain is PvE brain, obviously you're incapable of comprehending the fact that this part of corruption system isn't flawless, so I'll just add you to the list of PvE brains I ignore, next to Dygz.
But don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience in stupidity.
I've provided all of the reasons why and he doesn't like any of them. He just wants to PK and not accept the full breadth of penalties afforded for that.
Corruption bomb to infinite cycle of corruption is griefing. A slightly adjusted system can make things better and reduce the amount of corruption lost on death so they are still losing more if they are hunted down. Force them to have to work it off while being hunted longer and dealing with their punishment
You seem to want to support griefing though.
BTW there is a pvp life time count on your account and the more people you kill the higher corruption you gain every time.
End of the day its people voicing that aren't really for PvP, or will never go corrupted so they just want someone to have as high as possible to 100% death rate as they can get lmao.
@JamesSunderland in L2 did killing more people permanently give you more corruption every kill after on your character/account. Do you lose stats for the higher your corruption?
If a green player initiate a fight on a red player, the green player should takes same risk like the red player in stead of normal death penalty, it should be more death penalty than normal and maybe will stack to punish players who trying to abuse corruption system by using the role of green player to make red player can’t really achieve what Intrepid allows red player to do which like what Steven said in past stream that there are chances you will meet players who can’t be reasonable and encounter really bad situations you really hate and he think it’s ok to allow player to commit to kill another player with some conditions, and in other hand maybe should consider to decrease the death penalty if a green player keep killed by other players in a short time to prevent situations like players try to PK with multiple characters or accounts which means organized PK.
Because there is bounty hunter system for pvp players already, so point is if a green player is also happen to be a pvp player willing to kill red player, should bounty hunter system be able to toggle on and off no matter where the player is just one click then just join the fight.
I think that outnumbered pk and baiting pk are also problems, for example at beginning it seems a 1v1 fight between A and B but player B’s teammates of were hiding far or just stealth in shadow before the fight start, player B is just a bait to encourage A fight back to become purple, once A turns to purple B’s teammates will join the fight immediately to kill A, I don’t know that should or shouldn’t to use corruption system to deal with these kind of situations because it’s can be hard and complex to do it good enough.
In Lineage 2 you had the Karma points and your PK count, the higher the PK count the more Karma you received per kill "permanently" on that character, Karma points being lost by dying or killing monsters and your PK count can be removed through a quest called "Repent Your Sins" that would give a "Sin Eater" Devil pet that would need to be leveled up to max level, and no, no matter how high your karma point or PK count would be, it would never make you lose stats.
Aren't we all sinners?
Green attacking red could just make them purple to that red exclusively and not everyone else (like BHs are only combatants to reds), and it'd solve this. Reds would still receive corrupted death penalty, and greens would receive combatant level of death penalty. Everyone happy (except carebears, because god forbid you have a reason to kill another player even if they don't fight back).
Just to clear up a little ambiguity do you think it would be fair to say your position is that it would make the game less fun for reds specifically (let's ignore the green part of it as there is a bounty hunting system that is capable of solving this if IS so chooses to.)
Are there any other side effects to the game play that you forsee given the current status quo?
It will be less fun (while already being not fun the right amount) to anyone that is negatively affected by it, so self-defending reds and non-aggressive greens. Might be more fun to greens that choose to abuse it, though.
Being Red is the indicator that you are an active criminal who has not resolved their karma, ie worked off the corruption. Either learn to accept the consequences and risks of your actions, or stop PKing non-combatants. It really is that simple
You realize you can simply not continue killing greens right? You’re completely able to accept karma and end the corruption cycle. You, in all your wisdom, really are out here thinking your active choices to make the situation worse means you’re being “griefed”. I can’t roll my eyes hard enough
On another topic, some comments in this thread have implied that PvE players, or perhaps I should say 'anything less than a pure PvP player', is somehow flawed. Somehow less worthy. Somehow a player who should be despised and made fun of, a weak person, a joke. I do not agree with that. I trust that IS does not agree with that because those players are what is going to power the economy of the game, make the game a success and make it profitable. Don't look down on the PvE community, they will make AoC a success.
if you think you are simply going to be able to run away from someone that easily when a group is chasing you everywhere no matter the grind spot that won't be the case. This depends on the density of the area as well you are underestimating what people will do.
Bh hunter and a group of greens and it doesn't matter where you go you have no choice but to die or gain corruption.
The lower the PK score on a characters window, the less corruption is accumulated per new kill.