To be involved in the event, you must become a combatant. You can't be involved as either a non-combatant or a combatant, so to say you are opting for a status for this is more or less a cope.
Right. By default everyone is a Non-Combatant.
If you want to defend or attack a Caravan, you have to opt-in to the PvP.
By design, an option pops-up which allows you to opt-in or ignore.
You would just as easily be able to do this on a PVE server. It has no real relation to the OWPvP flagging system.
You could just as easily have that mechanic in a game like NWO or NW. I'm not sure that a PvE-Only server would include this type of PvP.
Meaningful Conflict (Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars) have little-to-no relation to the Corruption flagging system. I think we agree.
As for Open Ocean, its simply a lawless part of the world, there's no regulation to moderate griefing there which severely increases the risk factor, though I do have another idea to add a bit more risk there which I will pitch if it feels needed after some testing.
Compared to the mainland, that is regulated with corruption to deter griefing gameplay, which as it is currently designed is walking a thin line between a system to keep OWPvP interactions balanced and fun, or overcompensating and outright turning PvP on the mainland into a death sentence. But I trust with enough testing it will indeed end up in a comfortable place that allows for sufficient PvP engagement and encouragement, while deterring players from griefing. But I will still toss ideas out there since I do believe that corruption as it is currently explained, needs a lot of work.
Corruption doesn't turn PvP on the mainland into a death sentence - rather it strongly incentivizes PvPers to kill Combatants, rather than Non-Combatants. Meaningful Conflict is a much less risky path than PKing Greens.
To be involved in the event, you must become a combatant. You can't be involved as either a non-combatant or a combatant, so to say you are opting for a status for this is more or less a cope.
Right. By default everyone is a Non-Combatant.
If you want to defend or attack a Caravan, you have to opt-in to the PvP.
By design, an option pops-up which allows you to opt-in or ignore.
You would just as easily be able to do this on a PVE server. It has no real relation to the OWPvP flagging system.
You could just as easily have that mechanic in a game like NWO or NW. I'm not sure that a PvE-Only server would include this type of PvP.
Meaningful Conflict (Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars) have little-to-no relation to the Corruption flagging system. I think we agree.
As for Open Ocean, its simply a lawless part of the world, there's no regulation to moderate griefing there which severely increases the risk factor, though I do have another idea to add a bit more risk there which I will pitch if it feels needed after some testing.
Compared to the mainland, that is regulated with corruption to deter griefing gameplay, which as it is currently designed is walking a thin line between a system to keep OWPvP interactions balanced and fun, or overcompensating and outright turning PvP on the mainland into a death sentence. But I trust with enough testing it will indeed end up in a comfortable place that allows for sufficient PvP engagement and encouragement, while deterring players from griefing. But I will still toss ideas out there since I do believe that corruption as it is currently explained, needs a lot of work.
Corruption doesn't turn PvP on the mainland into a death sentence - rather it strongly incentivizes PvPers to kill Combatants, rather than Non-Combatants. Meaningful Conflict is a much less risky path than PKing Greens.
You can opt-in to an event sure. Its like queueing up for a battleground. This is completely different from having a system that happens on a whim, where the only objective you have is the one that you have decided for yourself. There is no pop-up for OWPvP. There is only your choice to kill or not, and your ability to do so. My point I've been trying to make is that if you don't keep a relatively equal punishment for doing nothing, you are qllowing players to opt-out of PvP because there may not be enough risk. Inadvertently creating an opt-in system for OWPvP.
And just to iterate, corruption and OWPvP are also on the list of meaningful conflict. You just aren't meant to be able to avoid or engage in it without proper risk
Currently we dont know if corruption is a death sentence or not, we simply know what it is intended to be. Corruption is meant to disincentivize griefing. Just because someone decides to stand there and OPT-OUT of the PvP system doesnt mean the one who engaged should be deemed a horrible griefing player. Sure they should get some punishment to add to the risk, but not the punishment meant for a griefer. The system incentivizes players to fight back, not do nothing. And I think currently, doing nothing, when you are engaged by someone of equal level I should add, incurs only a minor penalty *in comparison to the penalties they generate against others*
Just because someone decides to stand there and OPT-OUT of the PvP system doesnt mean the one who engaged should be deemed a horrible griefing player. Sure they should get some punishment to add to the risk, but not the punishment meant for a griefer.
Could be a nice griefing player.
Where the griefing threshold starts is a subjective thing. And depends who and when you ask.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You can opt-in to an event sure. Its like queueing up for a battleground. This is completely different from having a system that happens on a whim, where the only objective you have is the one that you have decided for yourself. There is no pop-up for OWPvP.
There is an opt-in pop-up window for OWPvP in Ashes for Caravans.
There is only your choice to kill or not, and your ability to do so. My point I've been trying to make is that if you don't keep a relatively equal punishment for doing nothing, you are allowing players to opt-out of PvP because there may not be enough risk. Inadvertently creating an opt-in system for OWPvP.
That is false.
It's either Open World or an Instance.
Your point is moot. Especially because Ashes has a few different opt-in paths for OWPvP - especially from Steven's perspective.
And just to iterate, corruption and OWPvP are also on the list of meaningful conflict. You just aren't meant to be able to avoid or engage in it without proper risk
I don't know what you mean by "the list of of meaningful conflict". If you mean the wiki - that is intepreted by Lex as he tries to streamline pages and make it easy for people to read.
Maybe post a quote where Steven includes Corruption as part of Meaningful Conflict.
The only PvP in Ashes that is not Open World is 20% of dungeons and maybe some Arenas.
Just because someone decides to stand there and OPT-OUT of the PvP system doesnt mean the one who engaged should be deemed a horrible griefing player.
What? On the mainland, there is no mechanism to opt-out of the PvP system.
You can choose to remain Green. You can choose to not fight back.
Neither of those things are the same thing as opt-out.
Sure they should get some punishment to add to the risk, but not the punishment meant for a griefer.
Corruption is a punishment to disincentivize non-consensual PvP. And that punishment scales upwards with higher PK score in order to disincentivize griefing. The punishment for a couple of non-consensual PvP kills is not as severe as the penalties for becoming a murder-hobo.
The system incentivizes players to fight back, not do nothing. And I think currently, doing nothing, when you are engaged by someone of equal level I should add, incurs only a minor penalty *in comparison to the penalties they generate against others*
The Corruption system incentivizes players to fight other players who are interested in fighting back.
It disincetivizes killing Greens. Especially killing numerous Greens in quick succession.
And the system encourages Greens to flag Purple, when attacked on the Mainland by other players, by halving the death penalties for flagging Purple.
"Typically, you're not going to see players ganking each other very often in the sense that they murder you because the Corruption mechanic is a fairly meaty deterrent to that, but you will potentially see players participating in PvP and I think the flagging mechanic is going to be a healthy mechanic to deterring murder but incentivizing (consensual) PvP."
---Steven
"For the most part...if I go and kill Steven, I'm not really going to gain a lot out of it to offset the risk that Corruption entails. The intention is that the risk has to be wrth the reward. So, if I'm going to go kill someone randomly, it's probably not going to be enough for me. There's got be something at stake there for that to be meaningful for me."
----Jeffrey
"Typically, you're not going to see players ganking each other very often because in the sense that they murder you because the Corruption mechanic is a fairly meaty deterrent to that, but you will potentially see players participating in PvP and I think the flagging mechanic is going to be a healthy mechanic to deterring murder but incentivizing (consensual) PvP."
---Steven
You can opt-in to an event sure. Its like queueing up for a battleground. This is completely different from having a system that happens on a whim, where the only objective you have is the one that you have decided for yourself. There is no pop-up for OWPvP.
There is an opt-in pop-up window for OWPvP in Ashes for Caravans.
for a specific event that happens to be out in the world. This is an objective based event. It's no different than walking up to a battlemaster and signing up for a battleground, in this case the battlemaster happens to be moving. It's separate from true OWPvP, which are only limited to whatever subjective goals those players have. The point is, you don't have a choice to not PvP in events like caravans. You have to PvP, you can't act as a non-combatant within that format. You can choose to not play that game sure, but to even participate you must PvP.
There is only your choice to kill or not, and your ability to do so. My point I've been trying to make is that if you don't keep a relatively equal punishment for doing nothing, you are allowing players to opt-out of PvP because there may not be enough risk. Inadvertently creating an opt-in system for OWPvP.
That is false.
It's either Open World or an Instance.
Your point is moot. Especially because Ashes has a few different opt-in paths for OWPvP - especially from Steven's perspective.
Instanced is definitely separate, but if something such as a flagging status bars you from participation, that is just an instanced event that can be observed in the open world by non-participants.
And how is my point moot? Giving players the option to ignore half of the games content at the expense of other players trying to experience the full game as it is intended is an inadvertent Opt-in OWPVP system.
And just to iterate, corruption and OWPvP are also on the list of meaningful conflict. You just aren't meant to be able to avoid or engage in it without proper risk
I don't know what you mean by "the list of of meaningful conflict". If you mean the wiki - that is intepreted by Lex as he tries to streamline pages and make it easy for people to read.
Maybe post a quote where Steven includes Corruption as part of Meaningful Conflict.
The only PvP in Ashes that is not Open World is 20% of dungeons and maybe some Arenas.
If you're going to sit there and try to argue you're right by saying the Ashes wiki is wrong, you need to touch grass. It lists meaningful conflict under Risk vs Reward
Corruption is meant to punish non-consensual PvP and to disincentivize griefing.
Incorrect, corruption is meant to punish griefing. There is no such thing as non-consensual PvP in a game that you log into knowing that you will be a part of PvP.
Just because someone decides to stand there and OPT-OUT of the PvP system doesnt mean the one who engaged should be deemed a horrible griefing player.
What? On the mainland, there is no mechanism to opt-out of the PvP system.
You can choose to remain Green. You can choose to not fight back.
Neither of those things are the same thing as opt-out.
Only if there is enough risk to stay green. Currently I see there being either too little risk to stay green, or too much risk to ever engage one or kill one in a non-griefing manner. Just needs to stay balanced.
Sure they should get some punishment to add to the risk, but not the punishment meant for a griefer.
Corruption is a punishment to disincentivize non-consensual PvP. And that punishment scales upwards with higher PK score in order to disincentivize griefing. The punishment for a couple of non-consensual PvP kills is not as severe as the penalties for becoming a murder-hobo.
The entirety of corruption is to deter griefing, its not meant to deter PvP. Again, no such thing as non-consensual PvP in Ashes. And like I said, punishing a player for last week's kills is a terrible idea, especially if the corrupted player died and paid the penalty. I made a compromise suggestion saying that if someone did not die during corruption you could have that be a factor, but if they don't get away with it, keep letting it pile up, forcing players to pay their dues eventually if they don't pay them through putting in time to reduce them. Keeps the focus on griefers instead of the low PKs revolving around non-griefing.
The system incentivizes players to fight back, not do nothing. And I think currently, doing nothing, when you are engaged by someone of equal level I should add, incurs only a minor penalty *in comparison to the penalties they generate against others*
The Corruption system incentivizes players to fight other players who are interested in fighting back.
It disincetivizes killing Greens. Especially killing numerous Greens in quick succession.
And the system encourages Greens to flag Purple, when attacked on the Mainland by other players, by halving the death penalties for flagging Purple.
"Typically, you're not going to see players ganking each other very often because in the sense that they murder you because the Corruption mechanic is a fairly meaty deterrent to that, but you will potentially see players participating in PvP and I think the flagging mechanic is going to be a healthy mechanic to deterring murder but incentivizing (consensual) PvP."
---Steven
"For the most part...if I go and kill Steven, I'm not really going to gain a lot out of it to offset the risk that Corruption entails. The intention is that the risk has to be wrth the reward. So, if I'm going to go kill someone randomly, it's probably not going to be enough for me. There's got be something at stake there for that to be meaningful for me."
----Jeffrey
The corruption system is currently supposed to ONLY deter griefing. But as it currently is I do think it unintentionally offers too much protection against non-combatant non-griefing kills.
The entire idea of disincentivizing attacking non-combatants is simultaneously disincentivizing engaging in OWPvP.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It's separate from true OWPvP, which are only limited to whatever subjective goals those players have. The point is, you don't have a choice to not PvP in events like caravans. You have to PvP, you can't act as a non-combatant within that format. You can choose to not play that game sure, but to even participate you must PvP.
True Open World PvP is PvP that takes place in the Open World rather than in an instance.
We literally do have a choice to not PvP in events like Caravans. There is literall a pop-up window for people in the vicinity to choose Defend/Attack/Ignore.
I don't know what "act as a Non-Combatant" is supposed to mean.
You can opt-in to participate in Caravan PvP. Yes. That happens if you choose Defend or Attack.
Instanced is definitely separate, but if something such as a flagging status bars you from participation, that is just an instanced event that can be observed in the open world by non-participants.
Flagging status does not bar anyone from participating in Caravan PvP.
Anyone in the ZoI of the Caravan will have a pop-up that allows them to opt-in by choosing Defend or Attack. Or they can opt-out of Caravan PvP by choosing ignore.
And how is my point moot? Giving players the option to ignore half of the games content at the expense of other players trying to experience the full game as it is intended is an inadvertent Opt-in OWPVP system.
I don't even know what you're attempting to communicate, there.
If you're going to sit there and try to argue you're right by saying the Ashes wiki is wrong, you need to touch grass. It lists meaningful conflict under Risk vs Reward
When you look at the wiki - you really need to be sure to go to the sources referenced, rather than rely on Lex's editorial interpretations.
So... it's up to you to supply actual quotes from Steven to support your claim.
Post an actual Steven quote where he includes Corruption PvP under Meaningful Conflict.
Incorrect, corruption is meant to punish griefing. There is no such thing as non-consensual PvP in a game that you log into knowing that you will be a part of PvP.
I am correct. In Ashes, Non-Consensual PvP is punished with Corruption.
And the Corruption penalties increase with increased frequency of killing Greens.
When you kill a Green, you know that you will become subject to increased Corruption if you kill more Greens. Even "aggressive Greens". You auto-consent to that the moment you choose to kill a Green.
Only if there is enough risk to stay green. Currently I see there being either too little risk to stay green, or too much risk to ever engage one or kill one in a non-griefing manner. Just needs to stay balanced.
I dunno what you mean by "only enough risk to stay Green".
Stay Green is normal "risk". Normal death penalties when you die. Same penalties as dying to a mob.
If you choose to kill a Green, you will be treated like a monster until you work off Corruption. The quickest way to work off Corruption is to die. So... quicker to let a Green kill you rather than increase your Corruption by killing more Greens.
But, sure, you could also let a Purple or a Bounty Hunter kill you.
The Corruption system is already balanced - just not in the manner you prefer.
We can expect some tweaks during Alpha 2 and the Betas.
The entirety of corruption is to deter griefing, its not meant to deter PvP.
That is false. In addition to deterring griefing, Corruption is designed to deter murder.
Murder is killing a Non-Combatant.
The flagging system incentivizes killing Combatants. "Healthy PvP." (Consensual PvP)
Steven specifically states: "I think the flagging mechanic is going to be a healthy mechanic to deterring murder..."
---Steven
And like I said, punishing a player for last week's kills is a terrible idea, especially if the corrupted player died and paid the penalty.
If you have paid the penalties, you probably won't be punished for last week's kills.
But... the game stronly deters murder-hobos. So... if you are a murder-hobo with tons of old kills, well... yeah, you will still be treated like a murder-hobo. Even if you took a week off of murdering people. Your PK score might still be high, even if you have worked off the Corruption.
Because you are supposed to be focused on killing Combatants, rather than non-chalantly murdering Non-Combatants.
I made a compromise suggestion saying that if someone did not die during corruption you could have that be a factor, but if they don't get away with it, keep letting it pile up, forcing players to pay their dues eventually if they don't pay them through putting in time to reduce them. Keeps the focus on griefers instead of the low PKs revolving around non-griefing.
The corruption system is currently supposed to ONLY deter griefing. But as it currently is I do think it unintentionally offers too much protection against non-combatant non-griefing kills.
No. The Corruption system is designed to deter murdering Non-Combatants and to deter griefing. And currently offers the intended deterrent for murdering Non-Combatants. The "protection" against murdering Non-Combatants is intentional.
The entire idea of disincentivizing attacking non-combatants is simultaneously disincentivizing engaging in OWPvP.
Nope. It does not disincentivize engaging in OWPvP.
It incentivizes killing Combatants instead of Non-Combatants.
And incentivizes focusing on Meaninful Conflict: Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars... as well as the Open Seas. Where gamers can engage in PvP in the Open World with Corruption inactive.
OWPvP is not just about murdering Non-Combatants. Corruption is designed to help ensure that is relatively rare. "Typically, you're not going to see players ganking each other very often in the sense that they murder you because the Corruption mechanic is a fairly meaty deterrent to that."
---Steven
Ganking is not the same thing as griefing.
But Corruption is designed to deter both.
Incorrect, corruption is meant to punish griefing. There is no such thing as non-consensual PvP in a game that you log into knowing that you will be a part of PvP.
The entirety of corruption is to deter griefing, its not meant to deter PvP. Again, no such thing as non-consensual PvP in Ashes.
Nonsense. And you are making up your own rules now.
Next step is to put an accept button under a wall of text when you login into the game.
Just because someone decides to stand there and OPT-OUT of the PvP system doesnt mean the one who engaged should be deemed a horrible griefing player.
What? On the mainland, there is no mechanism to opt-out of the PvP system.
You can choose to remain Green. You can choose to not fight back.
Neither of those things are the same thing as opt-out.
Only if there is enough risk to stay green. Currently I see there being either too little risk to stay green, or too much risk to ever engage one or kill one in a non-griefing manner. Just needs to stay balanced.
We can see nothing until we know how much value the loot typically has, how hard is to gather those mats and how fast you can grind the corruption off, if you make that quest: A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future.[2][3]
And all these assuming the players involved care about loot.
The green has the advantage of knowing if it is worth putting corruption onto the attacker or not.
Let's say I gather stone for 1 hour.
Becoming purple I can save 30 minutes of work.
Sacrificing 60 minutes of work, I can put corruption onto the other player. IF the other player has to grind NPCs 70 minutes, then I can hope next time he sees me, will avoid killing me. But I need to go and spend 60 minutes again and hope no other player will kill me.
If a player cares about enjoying a good fight, then he has no reason to kill a green in this area.
But if the fight happens near a vein of silver, then maybe it makes sense to take the risk to kill him.
Unless he has a stufferton. Then you better mind your own business.
Now regarding the risk to stay green...
Imagine being a woodcutter with crap gear which everyone can evaluate looking at your nameplate and once having the luck to be the first in an area and collecting some silver. Then having to use in-game voice chat and stay calm and bluff your attacker.
The risk is about pretending that you have nothing of value and waiting too long and losing the chance to win if you become purple too late.
Comments
If you want to defend or attack a Caravan, you have to opt-in to the PvP.
By design, an option pops-up which allows you to opt-in or ignore.
You could just as easily have that mechanic in a game like NWO or NW. I'm not sure that a PvE-Only server would include this type of PvP.
Meaningful Conflict (Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars) have little-to-no relation to the Corruption flagging system. I think we agree.
OK
Corruption doesn't turn PvP on the mainland into a death sentence - rather it strongly incentivizes PvPers to kill Combatants, rather than Non-Combatants. Meaningful Conflict is a much less risky path than PKing Greens.
You can opt-in to an event sure. Its like queueing up for a battleground. This is completely different from having a system that happens on a whim, where the only objective you have is the one that you have decided for yourself. There is no pop-up for OWPvP. There is only your choice to kill or not, and your ability to do so. My point I've been trying to make is that if you don't keep a relatively equal punishment for doing nothing, you are qllowing players to opt-out of PvP because there may not be enough risk. Inadvertently creating an opt-in system for OWPvP.
And just to iterate, corruption and OWPvP are also on the list of meaningful conflict. You just aren't meant to be able to avoid or engage in it without proper risk
Currently we dont know if corruption is a death sentence or not, we simply know what it is intended to be. Corruption is meant to disincentivize griefing. Just because someone decides to stand there and OPT-OUT of the PvP system doesnt mean the one who engaged should be deemed a horrible griefing player. Sure they should get some punishment to add to the risk, but not the punishment meant for a griefer. The system incentivizes players to fight back, not do nothing. And I think currently, doing nothing, when you are engaged by someone of equal level I should add, incurs only a minor penalty *in comparison to the penalties they generate against others*
Where the griefing threshold starts is a subjective thing. And depends who and when you ask.
That is false.
It's either Open World or an Instance.
Your point is moot. Especially because Ashes has a few different opt-in paths for OWPvP - especially from Steven's perspective.
I don't know what you mean by "the list of of meaningful conflict". If you mean the wiki - that is intepreted by Lex as he tries to streamline pages and make it easy for people to read.
Maybe post a quote where Steven includes Corruption as part of Meaningful Conflict.
The only PvP in Ashes that is not Open World is 20% of dungeons and maybe some Arenas.
Obviously... because it still needs to be tested.
Corruption is meant to punish non-consensual PvP and to disincentivize griefing.
What? On the mainland, there is no mechanism to opt-out of the PvP system.
You can choose to remain Green. You can choose to not fight back.
Neither of those things are the same thing as opt-out.
Corruption is a punishment to disincentivize non-consensual PvP. And that punishment scales upwards with higher PK score in order to disincentivize griefing. The punishment for a couple of non-consensual PvP kills is not as severe as the penalties for becoming a murder-hobo.
The Corruption system incentivizes players to fight other players who are interested in fighting back.
It disincetivizes killing Greens. Especially killing numerous Greens in quick succession.
And the system encourages Greens to flag Purple, when attacked on the Mainland by other players, by halving the death penalties for flagging Purple.
"Typically, you're not going to see players ganking each other very often in the sense that they murder you because the Corruption mechanic is a fairly meaty deterrent to that, but you will potentially see players participating in PvP and I think the flagging mechanic is going to be a healthy mechanic to deterring murder but incentivizing (consensual) PvP."
---Steven
"For the most part...if I go and kill Steven, I'm not really going to gain a lot out of it to offset the risk that Corruption entails. The intention is that the risk has to be wrth the reward. So, if I'm going to go kill someone randomly, it's probably not going to be enough for me. There's got be something at stake there for that to be meaningful for me."
----Jeffrey
mark 42:52
Nice!
Instanced is definitely separate, but if something such as a flagging status bars you from participation, that is just an instanced event that can be observed in the open world by non-participants.
And how is my point moot? Giving players the option to ignore half of the games content at the expense of other players trying to experience the full game as it is intended is an inadvertent Opt-in OWPVP system.
If you're going to sit there and try to argue you're right by saying the Ashes wiki is wrong, you need to touch grass. It lists meaningful conflict under Risk vs Reward
Incorrect, corruption is meant to punish griefing. There is no such thing as non-consensual PvP in a game that you log into knowing that you will be a part of PvP.
Only if there is enough risk to stay green. Currently I see there being either too little risk to stay green, or too much risk to ever engage one or kill one in a non-griefing manner. Just needs to stay balanced.
The entirety of corruption is to deter griefing, its not meant to deter PvP. Again, no such thing as non-consensual PvP in Ashes. And like I said, punishing a player for last week's kills is a terrible idea, especially if the corrupted player died and paid the penalty. I made a compromise suggestion saying that if someone did not die during corruption you could have that be a factor, but if they don't get away with it, keep letting it pile up, forcing players to pay their dues eventually if they don't pay them through putting in time to reduce them. Keeps the focus on griefers instead of the low PKs revolving around non-griefing.
The corruption system is currently supposed to ONLY deter griefing. But as it currently is I do think it unintentionally offers too much protection against non-combatant non-griefing kills.
The entire idea of disincentivizing attacking non-combatants is simultaneously disincentivizing engaging in OWPvP.
Open World PvP events are opt-in.
True Open World PvP is PvP that takes place in the Open World rather than in an instance.
We literally do have a choice to not PvP in events like Caravans. There is literall a pop-up window for people in the vicinity to choose Defend/Attack/Ignore.
I don't know what "act as a Non-Combatant" is supposed to mean.
You can opt-in to participate in Caravan PvP. Yes. That happens if you choose Defend or Attack.
Flagging status does not bar anyone from participating in Caravan PvP.
Anyone in the ZoI of the Caravan will have a pop-up that allows them to opt-in by choosing Defend or Attack. Or they can opt-out of Caravan PvP by choosing ignore.
I don't even know what you're attempting to communicate, there.
When you look at the wiki - you really need to be sure to go to the sources referenced, rather than rely on Lex's editorial interpretations.
So... it's up to you to supply actual quotes from Steven to support your claim.
Post an actual Steven quote where he includes Corruption PvP under Meaningful Conflict.
I am correct. In Ashes, Non-Consensual PvP is punished with Corruption.
And the Corruption penalties increase with increased frequency of killing Greens.
When you kill a Green, you know that you will become subject to increased Corruption if you kill more Greens. Even "aggressive Greens". You auto-consent to that the moment you choose to kill a Green.
I dunno what you mean by "only enough risk to stay Green".
Stay Green is normal "risk". Normal death penalties when you die. Same penalties as dying to a mob.
If you choose to kill a Green, you will be treated like a monster until you work off Corruption. The quickest way to work off Corruption is to die. So... quicker to let a Green kill you rather than increase your Corruption by killing more Greens.
But, sure, you could also let a Purple or a Bounty Hunter kill you.
The Corruption system is already balanced - just not in the manner you prefer.
We can expect some tweaks during Alpha 2 and the Betas.
That is false. In addition to deterring griefing, Corruption is designed to deter murder.
Murder is killing a Non-Combatant.
The flagging system incentivizes killing Combatants. "Healthy PvP." (Consensual PvP)
Steven specifically states:
"I think the flagging mechanic is going to be a healthy mechanic to deterring murder..."
---Steven
Again, in Ashes, Non-Consensual PvP - murdering Non-Combatants - is punished by Corruption. That is irrefutable fact.
If you have paid the penalties, you probably won't be punished for last week's kills.
But... the game stronly deters murder-hobos. So... if you are a murder-hobo with tons of old kills, well... yeah, you will still be treated like a murder-hobo. Even if you took a week off of murdering people. Your PK score might still be high, even if you have worked off the Corruption.
Because you are supposed to be focused on killing Combatants, rather than non-chalantly murdering Non-Combatants.
LMAO
OK. You offered a "compromise".
No. The Corruption system is designed to deter murdering Non-Combatants and to deter griefing. And currently offers the intended deterrent for murdering Non-Combatants. The "protection" against murdering Non-Combatants is intentional.
Nope. It does not disincentivize engaging in OWPvP.
It incentivizes killing Combatants instead of Non-Combatants.
And incentivizes focusing on Meaninful Conflict: Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars... as well as the Open Seas. Where gamers can engage in PvP in the Open World with Corruption inactive.
OWPvP is not just about murdering Non-Combatants. Corruption is designed to help ensure that is relatively rare.
"Typically, you're not going to see players ganking each other very often in the sense that they murder you because the Corruption mechanic is a fairly meaty deterrent to that."
---Steven
Ganking is not the same thing as griefing.
But Corruption is designed to deter both.
Nonsense. And you are making up your own rules now.
Next step is to put an accept button under a wall of text when you login into the game.
We can see nothing until we know how much value the loot typically has, how hard is to gather those mats and how fast you can grind the corruption off, if you make that quest:
A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future.[2][3]
And all these assuming the players involved care about loot.
The green has the advantage of knowing if it is worth putting corruption onto the attacker or not.
Let's say I gather stone for 1 hour.
Becoming purple I can save 30 minutes of work.
Sacrificing 60 minutes of work, I can put corruption onto the other player. IF the other player has to grind NPCs 70 minutes, then I can hope next time he sees me, will avoid killing me. But I need to go and spend 60 minutes again and hope no other player will kill me.
If a player cares about enjoying a good fight, then he has no reason to kill a green in this area.
But if the fight happens near a vein of silver, then maybe it makes sense to take the risk to kill him.
Unless he has a stufferton. Then you better mind your own business.
Now regarding the risk to stay green...
Imagine being a woodcutter with crap gear which everyone can evaluate looking at your nameplate and once having the luck to be the first in an area and collecting some silver. Then having to use in-game voice chat and stay calm and bluff your attacker.
The risk is about pretending that you have nothing of value and waiting too long and losing the chance to win if you become purple too late.