Question about corruption

If a green player (has no corruption yet) starts attacking me, and I decide to fight back and I win the fight, wool I gain corruption even though it was defensive? What if the player that attacks me Already has corruption?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

The death penalty is not doubled when green.
Rather, the death penalty is halved when purple.

Caeryl

Dygz wrote: »

The death penalty is not doubled when green.
Rather, the death penalty is halved when purple.

It’s not arguable that green players have double the penalty of purple whether you say purple is 0.5 and green is 1.0, or purple is 1.0 and green is 2.0. It’s all the same.

That being said, green players taking a bigger hit than purple seems fine. Either you value payback via corruption, or you value the materials themselves more highly. Rewarding passive play and punishing all aggression would mean that instead of PvX, it’s would be a PvE game where everyone who focuses on PvP is penalized for even agreed-on PvP.

Dygz

You are correct - it is not arguable.
The death penalty for non-combatants is not double. It is the normal death penalty.
The death penalty for combatants is half normal.

Atama

Dygz wrote: »

You are correct - it is not arguable.
The death penalty for non-combatants is not double. It is the normal death penalty.
The death penalty for combatants is half normal.

What is normal? To someone who engages in consensual PvP frequently, the purple penalty is normal. Again this splitting hairs with semantics is ridiculous and wrong. “The glass isn’t half empty, it’s half full and never half empty!” That’s an ignorant statement.

Caeryl

Dygz wrote: »

You are correct - it is not arguable.
The death penalty for non-combatants is not double. It is the normal death penalty.
The death penalty for combatants is half normal.

Green is double purple. Purple is half of green.

Either both of those statements are true or neither are. You’re being ridiculous.

Atama

I will admit that if a player engages almost exclusively in PvE and runs around “green” all of the time, if he gets ganked the death penalty will feel normal. It would be no different than what that player experiences and should not feel like an extra penalty.

But the PvP system that IS has set up discourages non-consensual ganking through an increasingly harsh corruption system. Because of that, you should expect most of the PvP to be consensual; “purple on purple” action. Therefore from the PvP perspective, the “half penalty” should feel normal, meaning the “dying in PvP while green” penalty would seem like double the usual.

In a discussion on PvP death penalties if you start from the perspective of what is typical in PvE you are making a flawed argument. That’s like talking about minor league baseball team salaries and using the salaries of MLB teams as the “normal” salary amount, and then talking about how a particular player isn’t being paid very much even if he’s making double what anyone else on his team makes. You’re using the wrong perspective and confusing the subject.

Ferryman

Some of the planned corruption penalties sounds quite harsh, not sure though, because any testing have not done yet. I personally like open world PvP action, but I have still being okay with the set rules from the beginning. There is two reasons; I get that same preventive protection of this system like others, so I am going to be less ganked. I have also stopped to worry about the harsh system and I have tried to think of ways how I can still enjoy the open world PvP. I know some people will hate me after these upcoming comments, but hey, at least I am trying to stay within the rules.

Bountyhunting is one of the features, which I am excited to see in practise and maybe something I am going to focus with open world PvP, nothing special there though. I am going to use mainly alts for ganking so I do not need to worry about my reputation. I wear only gear what I am afford to loose. I can take more corruption and still be in safe, if I am wandering around in a group. I will select my targets wisely and attack mostly gatherers with mules (most profitable target). With a group (or 1 friend is enough, or skilled players can solo) I can do baiting and provoke people to attack me, and then fight back without getting any corruption. Cribbling down the road as combatant/corrupted and with my fat and juicy donkey is my favorite. Easy and desirable target for most people, but who would know about my friends in the bushes.

As a protection for my plans, my main goal with open OWPvP is profit, and I am trying to do that as fun way as I can. If possible, I am going to gank players who are from a different town/city and who has different ZOI. Can I slow down the progression of other towns/cities if I distract their gathering activities for example? I would like to see here a political aspect as well.

Does anyone have more tips and tricks for the open world PvP? Any loop holes?

Dygz

Atama wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

You are correct - it is not arguable.
The death penalty for non-combatants is not double. It is the normal death penalty.
The death penalty for combatants is half normal.

What is normal? To someone who engages in consensual PvP frequently, the purple penalty is normal. Again this splitting hairs with semantics is ridiculous and wrong. “The glass isn’t half empty, it’s half full and never half empty!” That’s an ignorant statement.

Normal is the base death penalty. Same death penalty you get when killed by mobs. As defined by the devs.
It's not semantics.
Doesn't matter what it "feels" like. What it feels like is subjective.
Objectively, greens get the normal death penalty. Purples get half the normal death penalty.

It's not even an argument. It's just plain facts:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_death
"A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties.
A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant."

https://youtu.be/eCvcB4S-tZM?t=2700

Atama

Okay, I understand, you’re unable to get it. I’m moving on. Luckily others can reason so they’ve gotten my point.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

It's not semantics.

You guys are arguing whether 1 vs 0.5 is the same as 2 vs 1.

That is literally the definition of semantics.

Dygz

Nope.
2 != 1
The argument is whether non-combatants have double the death penalty.
Non-combatants do not have double the death penalty.
Non-combatants have normal death penalty, while combatants have half the death penalty.

Semantics would be whether a glass is half full or half empty.
But, a full glass is not doubly full. It is just full.

Non-combatants get 100% of the death penalty. Like a full glass is 100% full.
Combatants get 50% of the death penalty. Like a half-full glass is 50% full.
Again, a full glass is not doubly full. And non-combatants do not get double the death penalty.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Semantics

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

---

Semantics is the discussion of the meaning of words.

The discussion of whether 1 vs 2 is the same thing as 0.5 vs 1 is *literally* a textbook example of lexical semantics - as in, you would find it in actual text books.

Discussing the meaning of semantics to someone that thinks they understand it but in fact don't is also an example of semantics.

A glass being half full or half empty is a discussion on optimism vs pessimism - potentially a philosophic discussion. The talk of a glass being double full is a discussion of physics pertaining to gravity and fluid dynamics. Either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.

Dygz

You keep using the word semantics.
I'm not talking about the meaning of words.
I'm stating that just like a whole chicken is different than half a chicken or two chickens.... normal death penalty is different than half death penalty or double death penalty.

First you state it's semantics.
Then you state it has nothing to do with semantics.
You are the one with no clue about what you're talking about. As usual.

Non-combatants do not receive 200% the death penalty.
Non-combatants receive 100% the death penalty.
Combatants receive 50% the death penalty.
Corrupted could receive 200% the death penalty.
I'm not discussing the words. I'm discussing the concepts.

Caeryl

Dygz wrote: »

You keep using the word semantics.
I'm not talking about the meaning of words.
I'm stating that just like a whole chicken is different than half a chicken or two chickens.... normal death penalty is different than half death penalty or double death penalty.

First you state it's semantics.
Then you state it has nothing to do with semantics.
You are the one with no clue about what you're talking about. As usual.

Non-combatants do not receive 200% the death penalty.
Non-combatants receive 100% the death penalty.
Combatants receive 50% the death penalty.
Corrupted could receive 200% the death penalty.
I'm not discussing the words. I'm discussing the concepts.

...You're kind of an idiot if you can unironically say "Non-combatants receive 100% the death penalty.
Combatants receive 50% the death penalty." while claiming someone's being dishonest when they tell you non-combatants get higher death penalties than combatants.

And yes, you're talking about the meaning of words, phrases etc etc, which have the same meaning, and then you're claiming one of them is wrong. Your past comment history doesn't seem to point to being a troll, but in this one you sure are going at it to prove otherwise.

Hardly anyone is even saying its a bad thing non-combatants lose more than a combatant, you're just being contrary for literally no reason.

Damokles

Guys, let semantics be semantics, you are drifting away from the main topic! XD

Dygz

Here is the quote I responded to:
"One of the issues I have with the corruption system is the greater penalty for greens."
It does not state "non-combatants get a greater death penalty than combatants."
I don't recall using the word dishonest.

What I said is that the death penalty is not greater for greens. The death penalty for greens is the same, normal death penalty.
The death penalty is lower for purples. Yes.
The death penalty is greater for reds.

Greens get 1x the death penalty.
Purples get .5x the death penalty.
Reds can get 2x the death penalty.

Non-combatants get the normal death penalty.
Combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty in order to encourage direct PvP combat.
Corrupted are penalized with an increasingly greater than normal death penalty in order to discourage forcing other players into unwanted PvP combat.
Because Ashes is a PvX game.

Caeryl

Dygz wrote: »

Here is the quote I responded to:
"One of the issues I have with the corruption system is the greater penalty for greens."
It does not state "non-combatants get a greater death penalty than combatants."
I don't recall using the word dishonest.

What I said is that the death penalty is not greater for greens. The death penalty for greens is the same, normal death penalty.
The death penalty is lower for purples. Yes.
The death penalty is greater for reds.

Greens get 1x the death penalty.
Purples get .5x the death penalty.
Reds can get 2x the death penalty.

Non-combatants get the normal death penalty.
Combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty in order to encourage direct PvP combat.
Corrupted are penalized with an increasingly greater than normal death penalty in order to discourage forcing other players into unwanted PvP combat.

Thank you for confirming you're trolling I guess

Dygz

You the one trolling.

Ferryman

Damokles wrote: »

Guys, let semantics be semantics, you are drifting away from the main topic! XD

Oh well, quite basic stuff in forums, almost every conversation turns to totally meaningless direction and the main point is lost or forgotten. And yes I am icluding also myself

Ferryman

Now if this argue needs a conclusion, lets go with Wiki:

"A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties"

"A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant"

"A corrupt (red player) suffers penalties at three or four times the rate of a non-combatant, and has a chance to drop any carried/equipped items based on their current corruption score"

So it seams that the starting point is green player with normal penalties and others are compared to that with different variables. Case closest, let's move on.

Child Item