Ignoring the fact that IRL and games have different consequences for those things, you know that is a horrible argument as the current system already allows you to freely kill someone after they attacked someone. It's already allowed, I'm just saying increase the time period it's allowed.
Well then all I can say is "I prefer the current timer"
"Fine but have you entertained the possibility that you are simply used to this system and in fact there are certain scenarios between two consenting PvPers, where that system can be exploited and therefore "get in the way"?
Honestly, no. Because again, this game is not meant for free kills.
Disagreeing is fine but this is where any attempt at discussion just breaks down. Zero attempt to self-reflect or even understand the other perspective.
You are obviously used to a pretty particular set of rules. Of course anyone who is used to rule-less pvp is going to wonder how those rules manage to do their jobs without getting in the way unintentionally.
I have to assume this is trolling at this stage. After multiple attempts to explain the scenario which never once hinted at wanting "free kills".
I've asked several times for a clarification. What does the system prevent you from doing? Because the only thing I see is "killing the dude w/o repercussions". Mag noted that as well.
This is the main reason why I say that I see no "exploits" in this situation. I see several exploits of the target not being able to do any content, but that's an exploit on the side of the initial attacker and not the target.
So I'll ask again, what exactly is the system preventing you from doing here?
I'm not sure if there is a good solution but the "issue" is they seeing pretty simple. Like how jumping a caravan and catching it's defenders off guard is a valid strat, they see jumping someone in the open world as a valid strat. Even if that person is the best pvper on the server, they may choose use the threat of the corruption system to avoid death instead of fighting back.
I know you are experienced with L2 and very used to this scenario but I'd hope that you can see how someone can see this scenario as being a little odd and not necessarily intended.
After multiple attempts to explain the scenario which never once hinted at wanting "free kills".
Yet, the only thing that the system is stopping you from is "a free kill".
This is the part I'm not understanding. Your words say one thing, yet when I ask about that thing - you say that you mean some other thing.
If you just say "yes, I want to get a free kill on this person that was pvping me a minute ago but is now not flagged for pvp" - I'll completely understand your point and will simply disagree with it.
Yet you insist that this is not your point.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
After multiple attempts to explain the scenario which never once hinted at wanting "free kills".
Yet, the only thing that the system is stopping you from is "a free kill".
This is the part I'm not understanding. Your words say one thing, yet when I ask about that thing - you say that you mean some other thing.
If you just say "yes, I want to get a free kill on this person that was pvping me a minute ago but is now not flagged for pvp" - I'll completely understand your point and will simply disagree with it.
Yet you insist that this is not your point.
Ok, similar to my response to your rl argument, the system already allows "free kills."
Do you see this statement as false or true?
Yes, to your last part. We, or at least I, think that a person who intentionally attacked a non-combatant doesn't get to easily slip back to being a non-combatant and gain its protections after a little 30 second timer.
To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way.
I wouldn't call it broken, but yes the system is getting in the way of the particular pvp dynamics you mentioned. Simultaneously, that same system is achieving it's other intended goals. That is the price we pay. Push and pull, pros and cons, every system has them.
So yes that kind of unnatural feeling will be present when attacking greens/noncombatants. It does create a unique decision matrix for all the parties involved though, which will probably be interesting. You can't CC greens either. Your CC's will not affect them until they flag up and defend themselves.
That said, that unnatural dynamic is isolated to pretty much just that situation. Guild wars, node wars, caravans, sieges, the open ocean where everyone is flagged combatant by default, and when you come upon already combatant flagged, or corrupted players on land - in all of these other pvp situations it should have a more natural feel. You will be able to get the jump on people in all of these other situations and take full advantage of it.
Yeah because it's not. You keep telling me what I apparently want, clearly making no real attempt to understand the PoV, just ploughing forward with your own version.
When have made any suggestion that sounds like 'free kill'? I'm talking about getting the jump in wpvp, and then using the threat of corruption to nullify that (valid) jump advantage.
If you don't like my explanations, then try either @mcstackerson's or @hleV's, both clearly understood the issue.
Fine but have you entertained the possibility that you are simply used to this system and in fact there are certain scenarios between two consenting PvPers, where that system can be exploited and therefore "get in the way"?
I'll say this again if you are looking for honorable pvp based around the corruption system in AoC you are nto going to get it. The same way that if you flag up in someone in the open world randomly to attack them you will not get honor there. This is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in your own expectation of pvp.
Stop in front of them and talk, say duel for spot and that is as close to honor as you are going to get if they are willing to do it.
To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way.
I wouldn't call it broken, but yes the system is getting in the way of the particular pvp dynamics you mentioned. Simultaneously, that same system is achieving it's other intended goals. That is the price we pay. Push and pull, pros and cons, every system has them.
So yes that kind of unnatural feeling will be present when attacking greens/noncombatants. It does create a unique decision matrix for all the parties involved though, which will probably be interesting. You can't CC greens either. Your CC's will not affect them until they flag up and defend themselves.
That said, that unnatural dynamic is isolated to pretty much just that situation. Guild wars, node wars, caravans, sieges, the open ocean where everyone is flagged combatant by default, and when you come upon already combatant flagged, or corrupted players on land - in all of these other pvp situations it should have a more natural feel. You will be able to get the jump on people in all of these other situations and take full advantage of it.
Oh look - another person capable of understanding.
Simultaneously, that same system is achieving it's other intended goals
Yeah fair. As someone else said earlier, there's probably no easy solution to this (without doing more damage elsewhere). Definitely weird (for me), & have to assume this is an unintended consequence of such a system. But yeah as you say, push & pull.
I'll say this again if you are looking for honorable pvp based around the corruption system in AoC you are nto going to get it. The same way that if you flag up in someone in the open world randomly to attack them you will not get honor there. This is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in your own expectation of pvp.
Stop in front of them and talk, say duel for spot and that is as close to honor as you are going to get if they are willing to do it.
That's great n all but yet again, I'm not sure who you're talking to because this has never been the point that I or anyone else has been making. But go for it.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'll say this again if you are looking for honorable pvp based around the corruption system in AoC you are nto going to get it. The same way that if you flag up in someone in the open world randomly to attack them you will not get honor there. This is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in your own expectation of pvp.
Stop in front of them and talk, say duel for spot and that is as close to honor as you are going to get if they are willing to do it.
100% not going to be perfect but if someone jumps you at a spot and pushes you off, I'm not sure if it would be a bad change to the system if they are still considered a combatant, to you at least, when you come back to fight for your spot back.
This is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in your own expectation of pvp.
Also, just objectively speaking here, who's expectation of pvp is more likely to be flawed?
I am used to playing 'pure' pvp I guess you could say, whereas you are clearly used to a set of artificial rules.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that at all, as I've said several times... I like the concept of corruption!
I'm just trying to understand the implications of such a system; where it works perfectly as intended, and where it potentially breaks down and gets in the way a bit.
I have zero doubt Intrepid will have had a lot of similar discussions btw, all sorts of thought-exercises about various scenarios to 'test' whether corruption provides the desired effect. This is how systems are developed.
I'll say this again if you are looking for honorable pvp based around the corruption system in AoC you are nto going to get it. The same way that if you flag up in someone in the open world randomly to attack them you will not get honor there. This is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in your own expectation of pvp.
Stop in front of them and talk, say duel for spot and that is as close to honor as you are going to get if they are willing to do it.
That's great n all but yet again, I'm not sure who you're talking to because this has never been the point that I or anyone else has been making. But go for it.
You made this statement correct?
Might people (getting jumped) decide they're already at such a disadvantage in the fight anyway, that they'll not bother fighting back and basically dare the attacker to take corruption penalties? This could be despite the victim being a willing and active pvper.
Did you want a "yes" or have you not finished your post?
Do us all a favour and make your point in a single post please rather than making it into a multi-part series.
Yeah fair. As someone else said earlier, there's probably no easy solution to this (without doing more damage elsewhere). Definitely weird (for me), & have to assume this is an unintended consequence of such a system. But yeah as you say, push & pull.
Yeah my gut feeling is that attempts to try to fix it would probably just lead to an even more carebear system. I haven't really tried to think of any ways to fix it though. I think it just is what it is. I also come from more pure pvp games, and pure pvp modes like ESO Cyrodiil etc. Maybe there is a way to fix it, I dunno. But I think it'll end up mostly feeling alright regardless as is.
Yes, to your last part. We, or at least I, think that a person who intentionally attacked a non-combatant doesn't get to easily slip back to being a non-combatant and gain its protections after a little 30 second timer.
Uhm...
It's 90 seconds And as I said, I prefer the current timer.
I'm talking about getting the jump in wpvp, and then using the threat of corruption to nullify that (valid) jump advantage.
And again. The "jump" you're doing, in this context, is against a green player. A, by default, passive player.
You are completely free to follow through on your "jump" and kill him. The system is not stopping you from doing that. The only thing it's doing is saying "if you kill a green player - the consequences are different from killing a purple one".
You ask me to see your pov, but you refuse to acknowledge that this game does not have a "free pvp" design. All player are non-combatants by default and return to this default state after 90 seconds of their last attack on a flagged/green player.
Your perceived unfairness comes from the inherent desire to be able to kill another player w/o a punishment. But any opponent can, at any time, decide that they've had enough pvp for the day and decline to flag back up. They won't be "hiding" behind the system or ragequitting (as Azherae put it). No player out there owes you a reciprocal flagging up at all times of your convenience.
I say "honestly no" to that question because that's exactly what I would say to a person who'd ask me "can't you see that him attacking me at any moment is unfair to me?" Both yours and this question are on the extremes of the pvp spectrum. You consider it a disadvantage that you can't keep your unfair advantage over a target, while another person considers it unfair that you even have that advantage.
The system is in the middle. Though it's not even the middle of those 2 extremes, it's way closer to the PK side, because you can still always attack another person and you're always free to kill that person. You just have to take into the account that there'll be consequences.
Also, you keep saying that you "lose advantage" due to this system, but how exactly is that true? You're free to keep up that advantage at all times. You don't need to keep using your strongest abilities on the target. You can just keep him at 25-50% hp until he either leaves, dies or fights back.
And if he does in fact leave, heals back and then comes back - how is that any different from him simply coming back after a death? And as today's showcase (and pretty much all the other ones) showed - none of our damaging abilities have smth like 1m++ cd. And even if the literal strongest ability does have that kind of cd - running away and healing up to full from it would potentially take ~the same amount of time. And this is w/o even mentioning that starting off pvp with it seems a bit silly imo.
Yeah my gut feeling is that attempts to try to fix it would probably just lead to an even more carebear system.
That's a point.. if it changes significantly, eg as a result of some player backlash, it feels more likely to move in that direction.
Tbh I think it'll work too, overall anyway, just take a bit of adjusting to.
The biggest adjustment might just be sharing a server with people who can't wrap their heads around the concept of pvp without artificial rules to hide behind.
have to assume this is an unintended consequence of such a system. But yeah as you say, push & pull.
As I pointed out on the last page, your exact interaction happened countless times in Lineage 2. Steven copypasted L2's system one to one and then simply tuned the nobs of punishment higher (into the pve side btw).
So this interaction is quite intended, otherwise Steven would've changed it when copying the system. This is exactly why I've been adamant on explaining that this is how the system is in this game.
And even if the literal strongest ability does have that kind of cd - running away and healing up to full from it would potentially take ~the same amount of time. And this is w/o even mentioning that starting off pvp with it seems a bit silly imo.
The biggest adjustment might just be sharing a server with people who can't wrap their heads around the concept of pvp without artificial rules to hide behind.
As Okey already pointed out, your preferred pvp will be the absolute majority of pvp in the game. Literally every pvp event and the open seas (a pretty big part of the map) allow you to freely kill your opponents.
The corruption system is in the game to not alienate the players who'd be willing to die a few times here and there at the hands of another player, but would not be willing to play a game where they can be freely killed at all times and anywhere.
Your perceived unfairness comes from the inherent desire to be able to kill another player w/o a punishment.
Yeah it's statements like this where I just cba.
I do of course realise that it's a totally different system. IE: there is one, rather than "purer" pvp without such rules in the way (not that I'm advocating for that! just in case).
Btw just because Steven's chosen a particular system, doesn't at all mean there can't be unintentional gaps/consequences in that system, even ones he's aware of.
It just means that all things considered, he's decided it was the best compromise.
That archetype shoulda been called Michael Jordan CAUSE HE FUCKING FLIES
But yes, obviously there'll be super mobile chars or ones with super high regen, who'll come back way faster. But is this not just a part of the "owpvp is always unfair" that blot has already acknowledged before?
I just find it silly that having an unfair advantage is fine when it's "you", but it's not fine when it's the opponent
It just means that all things considered, it's the best compromise. The cons don't outweigh the pros.
Which is exactly why the system is they way that it is. Your described situation will be so damn rare when compared to literally every other instance of pvp in the game that its importance pales in comparison to the importance of curbing malicious pvp attacks on green players.
The example that I mentioned on the previous page summed up to maybe 1-2% of my pvp interactions in the game across 12 years of playing. Everything else was guild wars and sieges. Ashes will have even more ways to participate in free pvp, so the % of the presented situation will be even lower.
Did you want a "yes" or have you not finished your post?
Do us all a favour and make your point in a single post please rather than making it into a multi-part series.
I figured i didn't need to say anything else and you would understand that my comment is valid as it is your own point. Again you its not a flaw, you should not be looking for honorable pvp in the corruption system, let alone ow in general.
Ok, similar to my response to your rl argument, the system already allows "free kills."
Do you see this statement as false or true?
If that person is flagged (or you are both in a pvp event or open seas) - yes, you can kill them for free.
But an unflagged person is not a pvper.
An unflagged person might not be a pvper but I don't think a person who stopped pvping for 90 seconds after attacking someone suddenly stops being a pvper.
I get you prefer how it is and you might be right, it might be the perfect amount of time, but is that just because it's what you are used to?
Yeah it's really not that rare at all. Two willing pvpers, one getting the jump on the other. Not rare.
Using a system other than combat to handle that scenario, is not the default in any way.
Once again, I've been playing with this exact pvp system for 12 years. I've been pvping in this exact system for the same 12 years. I've fought thousands upon thousands of different players, all with different approaches to not just the fights but the system itself as well.
And as I already said, I've experienced your exact situation a ton of times. It's a completely normal way to use this system, because the system is a tool that players can use, just as a tree is a tool to use against a ranged character when you're trying to dodge their attacks.
I understand that you've never played with this system, so it feels completely alien to you and weird and all of that. But I'm just telling you that expecting Steven to change the system into something even more pvpey is a lost cause, considering that he has already made pve tunes to this system and the ABSOLUTE MAJORITY of feedback on this system will be along the lines of "why in the living fuck are people attacking me?!?! PLz fIx".
I get you prefer how it is and you might be right, it might be the perfect amount of time, but is that just because it's what you are used to?
It's because I believe that is what would be preferable for the kind of owpvp experience that I'd prefer. I've proposed and discussed multiple variations on this system on these forums. Iirc at some point I even proposed a longer flagged counter, just as you did.
But unless Steven decides to overhaul the pvp system completely - I believe that the current timer is just right for what he's going for with this design.
As a middle of the road compromise, I'd be totally ok if the flagging state had a longer timer if the attacker's last attack was against a green player at <50%hp. We're gonna see that shit either way, it seems, so why not at least use it to its fullest.
Imo any pvper who attacks a visible weaker passive player is a weakling coward, so I'm totally fine with him getting punished for doing so. This would also align with my reasoning for invisible hp values, so there's that too.
Btw, blat, another question for you. Would the "known pvper" still be "exploiting the system" even if he hadn't pvped you in a week? Like, you've come across each other, maybe you even tried flagging up on him, but he simply moved on from the spot. But then he finally did attack you after a week.
Would you still consider that exploit of the system?
Comments
Disagreeing is fine but this is where any attempt at discussion just breaks down. Zero attempt to self-reflect or even understand the other perspective.
You are obviously used to a pretty particular set of rules. Of course anyone who is used to rule-less pvp is going to wonder how those rules manage to do their jobs without getting in the way unintentionally.
I have to assume this is trolling at this stage. After multiple attempts to explain the scenario which never once hinted at wanting "free kills".
This is the main reason why I say that I see no "exploits" in this situation. I see several exploits of the target not being able to do any content, but that's an exploit on the side of the initial attacker and not the target.
So I'll ask again, what exactly is the system preventing you from doing here?
Yeah I give up then. Others seemed to have managed fine, and attempted their own explanation. It's subtle maybe but really not complicated.
I'll leave you with @mcstackerson's attempt, which was spot on.
This is the part I'm not understanding. Your words say one thing, yet when I ask about that thing - you say that you mean some other thing.
If you just say "yes, I want to get a free kill on this person that was pvping me a minute ago but is now not flagged for pvp" - I'll completely understand your point and will simply disagree with it.
Yet you insist that this is not your point.
Ok, similar to my response to your rl argument, the system already allows "free kills."
Do you see this statement as false or true?
Yes, to your last part. We, or at least I, think that a person who intentionally attacked a non-combatant doesn't get to easily slip back to being a non-combatant and gain its protections after a little 30 second timer.
I wouldn't call it broken, but yes the system is getting in the way of the particular pvp dynamics you mentioned. Simultaneously, that same system is achieving it's other intended goals. That is the price we pay. Push and pull, pros and cons, every system has them.
So yes that kind of unnatural feeling will be present when attacking greens/noncombatants. It does create a unique decision matrix for all the parties involved though, which will probably be interesting. You can't CC greens either. Your CC's will not affect them until they flag up and defend themselves.
That said, that unnatural dynamic is isolated to pretty much just that situation. Guild wars, node wars, caravans, sieges, the open ocean where everyone is flagged combatant by default, and when you come upon already combatant flagged, or corrupted players on land - in all of these other pvp situations it should have a more natural feel. You will be able to get the jump on people in all of these other situations and take full advantage of it.
Yeah because it's not. You keep telling me what I apparently want, clearly making no real attempt to understand the PoV, just ploughing forward with your own version.
When have made any suggestion that sounds like 'free kill'? I'm talking about getting the jump in wpvp, and then using the threat of corruption to nullify that (valid) jump advantage.
If you don't like my explanations, then try either @mcstackerson's or @hleV's, both clearly understood the issue.
Says all I need to know.
Stop in front of them and talk, say duel for spot and that is as close to honor as you are going to get if they are willing to do it.
Oh look - another person capable of understanding.
Yeah fair. As someone else said earlier, there's probably no easy solution to this (without doing more damage elsewhere). Definitely weird (for me), & have to assume this is an unintended consequence of such a system. But yeah as you say, push & pull.
That's great n all but yet again, I'm not sure who you're talking to because this has never been the point that I or anyone else has been making. But go for it.
100% not going to be perfect but if someone jumps you at a spot and pushes you off, I'm not sure if it would be a bad change to the system if they are still considered a combatant, to you at least, when you come back to fight for your spot back.
Also, just objectively speaking here, who's expectation of pvp is more likely to be flawed?
I am used to playing 'pure' pvp I guess you could say, whereas you are clearly used to a set of artificial rules.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that at all, as I've said several times... I like the concept of corruption!
I'm just trying to understand the implications of such a system; where it works perfectly as intended, and where it potentially breaks down and gets in the way a bit.
I have zero doubt Intrepid will have had a lot of similar discussions btw, all sorts of thought-exercises about various scenarios to 'test' whether corruption provides the desired effect. This is how systems are developed.
You made this statement correct?
Did you want a "yes" or have you not finished your post?
Do us all a favour and make your point in a single post please rather than making it into a multi-part series.
Yeah my gut feeling is that attempts to try to fix it would probably just lead to an even more carebear system. I haven't really tried to think of any ways to fix it though. I think it just is what it is. I also come from more pure pvp games, and pure pvp modes like ESO Cyrodiil etc. Maybe there is a way to fix it, I dunno. But I think it'll end up mostly feeling alright regardless as is.
But an unflagged person is not a pvper.
Uhm...
It's 90 seconds
And again. The "jump" you're doing, in this context, is against a green player. A, by default, passive player.
You are completely free to follow through on your "jump" and kill him. The system is not stopping you from doing that. The only thing it's doing is saying "if you kill a green player - the consequences are different from killing a purple one".
You ask me to see your pov, but you refuse to acknowledge that this game does not have a "free pvp" design. All player are non-combatants by default and return to this default state after 90 seconds of their last attack on a flagged/green player.
Your perceived unfairness comes from the inherent desire to be able to kill another player w/o a punishment. But any opponent can, at any time, decide that they've had enough pvp for the day and decline to flag back up. They won't be "hiding" behind the system or ragequitting (as Azherae put it). No player out there owes you a reciprocal flagging up at all times of your convenience.
I say "honestly no" to that question because that's exactly what I would say to a person who'd ask me "can't you see that him attacking me at any moment is unfair to me?" Both yours and this question are on the extremes of the pvp spectrum. You consider it a disadvantage that you can't keep your unfair advantage over a target, while another person considers it unfair that you even have that advantage.
The system is in the middle. Though it's not even the middle of those 2 extremes, it's way closer to the PK side, because you can still always attack another person and you're always free to kill that person. You just have to take into the account that there'll be consequences.
Also, you keep saying that you "lose advantage" due to this system, but how exactly is that true? You're free to keep up that advantage at all times. You don't need to keep using your strongest abilities on the target. You can just keep him at 25-50% hp until he either leaves, dies or fights back.
And if he does in fact leave, heals back and then comes back - how is that any different from him simply coming back after a death? And as today's showcase (and pretty much all the other ones) showed - none of our damaging abilities have smth like 1m++ cd. And even if the literal strongest ability does have that kind of cd - running away and healing up to full from it would potentially take ~the same amount of time. And this is w/o even mentioning that starting off pvp with it seems a bit silly imo.
That's a point.. if it changes significantly, eg as a result of some player backlash, it feels more likely to move in that direction.
Tbh I think it'll work too, overall anyway, just take a bit of adjusting to.
The biggest adjustment might just be sharing a server with people who can't wrap their heads around the concept of pvp without artificial rules to hide behind.
So this interaction is quite intended, otherwise Steven would've changed it when copying the system. This is exactly why I've been adamant on explaining that this is how the system is in this game.
Idk it's a hell of a Leap.
From downtown!
The corruption system is in the game to not alienate the players who'd be willing to die a few times here and there at the hands of another player, but would not be willing to play a game where they can be freely killed at all times and anywhere.
Yeah it's statements like this where I just cba.
I do of course realise that it's a totally different system. IE: there is one, rather than "purer" pvp without such rules in the way (not that I'm advocating for that! just in case).
Btw just because Steven's chosen a particular system, doesn't at all mean there can't be unintentional gaps/consequences in that system, even ones he's aware of.
It just means that all things considered, he's decided it was the best compromise.
But yes, obviously there'll be super mobile chars or ones with super high regen, who'll come back way faster. But is this not just a part of the "owpvp is always unfair" that blot has already acknowledged before?
I just find it silly that having an unfair advantage is fine when it's "you", but it's not fine when it's the opponent
The example that I mentioned on the previous page summed up to maybe 1-2% of my pvp interactions in the game across 12 years of playing. Everything else was guild wars and sieges. Ashes will have even more ways to participate in free pvp, so the % of the presented situation will be even lower.
I figured i didn't need to say anything else and you would understand that my comment is valid as it is your own point. Again you its not a flaw, you should not be looking for honorable pvp in the corruption system, let alone ow in general.
Using a system other than combat to handle that scenario, is not the default in any way.
An unflagged person might not be a pvper but I don't think a person who stopped pvping for 90 seconds after attacking someone suddenly stops being a pvper.
I get you prefer how it is and you might be right, it might be the perfect amount of time, but is that just because it's what you are used to?
And as I already said, I've experienced your exact situation a ton of times. It's a completely normal way to use this system, because the system is a tool that players can use, just as a tree is a tool to use against a ranged character when you're trying to dodge their attacks.
I understand that you've never played with this system, so it feels completely alien to you and weird and all of that. But I'm just telling you that expecting Steven to change the system into something even more pvpey is a lost cause, considering that he has already made pve tunes to this system and the ABSOLUTE MAJORITY of feedback on this system will be along the lines of "why in the living fuck are people attacking me?!?! PLz fIx".
But unless Steven decides to overhaul the pvp system completely - I believe that the current timer is just right for what he's going for with this design.
As a middle of the road compromise, I'd be totally ok if the flagging state had a longer timer if the attacker's last attack was against a green player at <50%hp. We're gonna see that shit either way, it seems, so why not at least use it to its fullest.
Imo any pvper who attacks a visible weaker passive player is a weakling coward, so I'm totally fine with him getting punished for doing so. This would also align with my reasoning for invisible hp values, so there's that too.
Would you still consider that exploit of the system?