Is self-defence even possible?

Hello everyone, here are many threads about the combat system and its flaws, but after reading them I still don't get the point behind that one part of it.

For example:
I am gathering ressources and a greedy player wants them too. So he decides to attack and probably kill me.
If I got it right he will be flagged as a combatant in this moment.

And now I got some options:
1st - Fight back = I will get flagged as a combatant
2nd - Run away = I would miss those ressources
3rd - Get killed = death penalty

So do I get it right, that no matter what I do if a player attacks me I get punished, too? Where Is the point behind that? If he attack me and I kill him in return, why should I get punished for his "mistake" ?

I can see people running around the world with low level characters, attacking normal players while gathering or leveling or what ever until they die or fight back to get them flagged.

Do I get it right or am I totally wrong?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Style

okay i need a bit more infos on this though as i dont quite understand it.

So if i were to gather, and someone attacks me they willl get flagged, then i will get flagged if i choose to fight back (self-defense), but if i die i get less punished than if i didnt do anything (or die running away) right?

that doesnt make sense whatsoever. Is there a way where i do NOT get punished if i didnt initiate anything? seems weird.

Baku1

Frank Castle wrote: »

that doesnt make sense whatsoever. Is there a way where i do NOT get punished if i didnt initiate anything? seems weird.

That's what I thought.
Why should I get punished for defending myself because someone attacked me?
He tried to kill me ( so he gets the combatant status), but when I killed him after he attacked me, then why should i get a penalty status?

That's like people decide to attack this Level 5 node in siege and after SUCCESSFULLY defending this node gets downgraded by 1 level is a Level 4 node now. What's the point behind that? It was protected successfully.

Style

well i do get the node thing. it doesnt make sense in real life but think about it. if the outskirts all get destroyed in war the city itself will become smaller once all the rubble has been removed. THAT i understand. I understand why, even if you defended it, there are consequences from a siege and your city didnt magically get no scartch during that war.

so yes. a successful defense from a metropolis, while still taking heavy dmg, will downgrade it a level and that makes sense (as far as there is like a % of dmg done to the city that has to be reached to downgrade it)

But if someone attacks me and i still get punished for defending myself. that doesnt make sense.

I do understand that it forces pvp more often rather than "sure go ahead and kill me its your loss anyway"
now its "oh shit imma beat the shit out of you!" yet you still died it shouldnt be as much of a punishment as if you did nothing. i get that.

Still doesnt make sense.

What would compensate it is, if the person who attackedd first gets punished harder if he died then at least he has to think twice to attack someone.

lets say Defending get 50% of the punishment
death while initiating the combat gets 150%
while corrupted its 400%

that in itself already makes you think if that resource is even worth trying to steal.
if both get punished the same its like "meh lets try this was me 15mins ago and i got punished just the same so whatever"

idk. do i make sense?

Style

okay i got it now nvm. this is the wiki

A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties, which include:[3]

Experience debt (negative experience).[4]
Skill and stat dampening.[3]
Lower health and mana.[3]
Lower gear proficiency.[3]
Reduction in drop rates from monsters.[5]
Durability loss.[3]
Dropping a percentage of carried raw materials.[3]
This includes a percentage of items carried on the player's mule.[6]
This also includes a percentage of the certificates a player is carrying.[7]

A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant.[3]

A corrupt (red player) suffers penalties at four times[8] the rate of a non-combatant, and has a chance to drop any carried/equipped items based on their current corruption score. This includes:[8][3]
Dropping weapons and gear.[8][9]

These dropped items may be looted by other players.[10]
Corrupt players respawn at random locations in the vicinity of their death, not at regular spawn points.[11]
Dampening (due to corruption) only affects PvP combat.[12]
Death penalties do not differ between PvP and PvE, but this is subject to change.[13]
Death by drowning is possible.[14

So what they are refering too is the death penality in and of itself

i assume that includes dying from monsters too.

so fighting back is a good thing (or tagging at least) so you dont get punished too much.

I dont like that the initiant doesnt get punished after attacking a non-combantent who decides to fight back. That should be changed in a way.

But this leaves you open to planning. You could let him kill you without fighting back and then he will become corrupted, then you could go on a hunt to kill him back which makes him lose 4x as much than what you did and you get a chance to get some gear from him.

Yuyukoyay

You also may be able to run away depending on the classes involved.

Jubilum

As I understand it if you are green and get attacked, fight back and by some miracle win the fight you loose nothing and after a couple minutes will return to green. So this would be the best result for a non-combatant.

WMC51

the more I hear people talk about this the more convoluted it becomes.

Why does a green take more of a penalty than a purple? I guess to lean toward encouraging people to fight back?

You don't want to pvp but if you stand there and die you take full death penalty or fight back and be flagged for X amount of time and the attacker doesn't get corrupted now.

Jubilum

WMC51 wrote: »

the more I hear people talk about this the more convoluted it becomes.

Why does a green take more of a penalty than a purple? I guess to lean toward encouraging people to fight back?

You don't want to pvp but if you stand there and die you take full death penalty or fight back and be flagged for X amount of time and the attacker doesn't get corrupted now.

Exactly. It is an attempt to force pvp instead of just a ganking. But, I'm all about forcing the attacker to decide if he really wants that corruption or not since they have the choice to stop the attack if you don't fight back.

Baku1

I even read some days ago, that if you attack someone and that player will defend themself you wont get any points that lead you to corruption (you are flagged but cant get corrupted if they fight back).

Is that true? In my mind that would be even more senseless.

Jubilum

If you are green and out wandering thru the woods and stumble across a red corrupted player if you decide to be the hero and make a citizens arrest on this nasty criminal and succeed in eliminating the threat you will not become corrupted. So yes you are correct. Not if you think about it the way I just described it.

Shaladoor

I'm trying to think of a way where two players might try to game the system if they were working together. So, what if it wasn't two random players engaging in PVP?

Let's assume they just wanted to have friendly PVP, like for a stream or something. As long as both players go combatant (purple), they can continue PKing each other with minimal death penalties because the PVP is consensual. No one suffers corruption. There might be a quest that requires a certain number of PVP kills, as well, so this all seems plausible.

But the issue here is why would a combatant (purple) player suffer less of a penalty than a non-combatant (green) player? Well if a purple kills a green, that's considered the worst possible scenario of all, and heavy penalties exist on both sides. If player A goes purple and player B goes purple, then PVP is consensual and only the player that loses gains a death penalty and that's just 50%. But if player A is purple and player B stays green, like I said, that's the worst case scenario, and player A gets corrupted with 400% penalty and player B stays green at 100% penalty. Overall, everyone is getting punished, but at the very least the corrupted player is suffering a MUCH much higher penalty than the green player.

But again, the question, why?

Well... in general, I think the idea is to punish situations where PVP is simply not wanted. Player A gets punished for killing player B, and player B gets punished for not fighting back.

It's clear why player A should get punished. But not so much player B. But everyone is claiming player B is completely innocent.

What if player B is hopping around in the middle of a PVP fight? What if player A and player B are working together to farm corruption, or quests or something? What if player B is somehow trying to trick or goad other players into attacking them by griefing and staying non-combatant? For example, what if player B is following player A around and gathering resources a split second before player A, or attacking the same mobs as A and intentionally slowing down player A's leveling, or trying to steal loot, whatever.

Bah! I ran out of time, I have to run. I'm just trying to point out that maybe player B (green) isn't ALWAYS innocent in these situations. And maybe the extra death penalty to player B (green) is simply there to help prevent gaming the system in some way or maybe it's extra incentive for player B to remove themselves from the situation?

WMC51

So non pvp will still be upset because the death penalty and pvpers are complaining about the corruption. Is it less of a middle ground and more the worst of both sides?

Kneczhevo

Corruption does not affect pvp zones (siege's, guild wars, arena's, node wars, etc.). The corruption system is designed to encourage pvp, but prevent griefing.

mcknightrider

If you're gathering resources and a greedy player attacks you you can just attack back and kill him. What's the issue here? That's pretty self explanatory, am I missing something you're not understanding about that?

Jubilum

mcknightrider wrote: »

If you're gathering resources and a greedy player attacks you you can just attack back and kill him. What's the issue here? That's pretty self explanatory, am I missing something you're not understanding about that?

If he attacks you he knows he will win. If he thinks you have a chance, or gets a fuzzy felling in his tummy about your skill. he will move to the next target. Hence really no point in fighting back unless it makes you feel better.

Caeryl

Frank Castle wrote: »

okay i need a bit more infos on this though as i dont quite understand it.

So if i were to gather, and someone attacks me they willl get flagged, then i will get flagged if i choose to fight back (self-defense), but if i die i get less punished than if i didnt do anything (or die running away) right?

that doesnt make sense whatsoever. Is there a way where i do NOT get punished if i didnt initiate anything? seems weird.

I don't understand this question. "Combatant" is a temporary state, it goes away after a small amount of time with no further input needed from you. If you win, you got drops from your attacker, and you keep your spot. If you die, you take only half the penalty you would've gotten from a PvE death (a "green" death).

If you're asking to be totally risk-free when out in the world, that's not how Ashes is designed to be played. It's a PvX game, fighting over resources is going to happen and you need to decide if that's a deal breaker for you or not.

BlizzardEntertainment

Baku wrote: »

1st - Fight back = I will get flagged as a combatant
2nd - Run away = I would miss those ressources
3rd - Get killed = death penalty

I guess the right choice depends how good you are at PvP.

But for you I'd say option 3 always!

Solonthebandit

Another thing to keep in mind is AoC is meant to be a social game. If you are out farming mobs / resources with a few buds the odds of you losing in consensual pvp diminish greatly.

AoC isn't a farming simulator, actions have consequences and sometimes the consequence of venturing out into the wild by yourself will be death and along with that death a loss potential loss of resources / progression.

Sounds like a very fun system to me

SepiDN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeKhbtog_pI

Just so if anyone is still wondering how the corruption system currently works. Video above is same as what there's currently planned for AoC. Explained in video format with different situations.

White name = green name obviously.

Also this game seems to strive for group contect mostly so you are rarely alone. Discussion like this often revolves around 1 guy killing 1 guy. That's rarely the situation when you reach higher level.

Baku1

Okay Thank you SepiDN

So I guess it would be most effective to just continue doing wht you ever did and don't fight back. Then if your Hp are droping low that attacker needs to decide if its worth getting corrupted and potentially drop a lot of equipment or just move on.

Child Item