Which reduces the amount of pvp and times this would happen and making people rely on the other system for pvp that gives them a lot more weight. Growing the social dynamics, drama and politics between nodes and guilds as those are the main means to war on other people for owpvp.
Exactly. Which is the whole point of the corruption system. It still lets you kill whoever you want whenever you want, but it punishes you severely for doing so, which makes you either find another route (as you've listed) or you just do your best with the consequences of your actions. You run away and avoid other players as much as possible, while killing mobs to remove corruption.
You're meant to suffer as a red, which makes you more social because sociability will lead you to more ways of fighting other people w/o huge detriments to you. But if you try use that sociability to circumvent the corruption system - it punishes you even more, because your party has to suffer the same consequences too now.
The system works just as intended and works just fine. And is beneficial to the overall structure of the game and to the main goal of "bringing the social life back to mmos". Which is the exact reason why I'm against what OP suggested.
@hleV Does this explain for you between the last three post with Nikr and I why the corruption system is so punishing, to allow pvp be more focused on the other system but still allow people to pk whoever they want?
No, they're summoning a Protector. As the Red, you could just run away from them before it finishes summoning and it never pursues you. They summon it literally for 'security to make sure they don't have a Murderer near them', and it performs the purpose because the Murderer, knowing they would lose to this being, runs away.
PvP only happens if the Murderer chooses to stay in range, or they both agree to that and the Green cancels the Prayer.
If the protector attacks red, then it's PvP. Until then it's nothing.
Red has the choice to run away out of the range of Green's protector, or negotiate/assure Green that the Protector is not necessary and no PvP even needs to happen. Acceptable?
Bro, i really dont know why you're pushing justice and prayer and protectors so hard here man... like... im on your side.... but... find a better argument.
Well because I really should just sleep, it's simple.
I am not willing to assume that @hleV is actually being completely selfish and disingenuous here, and I can see their point.
If the answer is 'no, any action taken in pre-emptive self defense by the Green is PvP and I shouldn't be punished for killing them', then I can go 'ok, selfish and disingenuous'.
If the answer is 'this is ok, I just want that when a Green decides to chase me down to kill me just because I happened to meet them on the road, I can defend myself', then it's valid enough to me. I can agree that it's not necessary for 'being hounded by an army of Greens through the world because you can't even log off' to be a thing, it isn't really that fun and maybe not adding too much to the game.
The problem is that if hleV is starting from the perspective of 'Greens just wanna grief me' then even this explanation will get caught up in weeds because then I have to explain 'ok the Protector moves slower than a player' or 'Ok the protector's range doesn't change' or 'ok Protector summoning has a cooldown' because everything will be viewed by hleV as 'this is a tool for Greens to grief me' instead of for protection.
But making assumptions about people is easier, so...
zzz
I see your aim, with that explination, but your purposed conversation leading to that is kinda out of left feild, so its hard to corrilate your posts to a goal of conversation. It felt very leading and without substance, making it hard to respond too. I dont mean to be hostile, and if you need sleep, you sleep.
No, they're summoning a Protector. As the Red, you could just run away from them before it finishes summoning and it never pursues you. They summon it literally for 'security to make sure they don't have a Murderer near them', and it performs the purpose because the Murderer, knowing they would lose to this being, runs away.
PvP only happens if the Murderer chooses to stay in range, or they both agree to that and the Green cancels the Prayer.
If the protector attacks red, then it's PvP. Until then it's nothing.
Red has the choice to run away out of the range of Green's protector, or negotiate/assure Green that the Protector is not necessary and no PvP even needs to happen. Acceptable?
Bro, i really dont know why you're pushing justice and prayer and protectors so hard here man... like... im on your side.... but... find a better argument.
Well because I really should just sleep, it's simple.
I am not willing to assume that @hleV is actually being completely selfish and disingenuous here, and I can see their point.
If the answer is 'no, any action taken in pre-emptive self defense by the Green is PvP and I shouldn't be punished for killing them', then I can go 'ok, selfish and disingenuous'.
If the answer is 'this is ok, I just want that when a Green decides to chase me down to kill me just because I happened to meet them on the road, I can defend myself', then it's valid enough to me. I can agree that it's not necessary for 'being hounded by an army of Greens through the world because you can't even log off' to be a thing, it isn't really that fun and maybe not adding too much to the game.
The problem is that if hleV is starting from the perspective of 'Greens just wanna grief me' then even this explanation will get caught up in weeds because then I have to explain 'ok the Protector moves slower than a player' or 'Ok the protector's range doesn't change' or 'ok Protector summoning has a cooldown' because everything will be viewed by hleV as 'this is a tool for Greens to grief me' instead of for protection.
But making assumptions about people is easier, so...
zzz
I see your aim, with that explination, but your purposed conversation leading to that is kinda out of left feild, so its hard to corrilate your posts to a goal of conversation. It felt very leading and without substance, making it hard to respond too. I dont mean to be hostile, and if you need sleep, you sleep.
Well, I still stay the same for now which a green player initiate fight on a red player should treat both as red player no matter who kills who, just green stays as green and red stays as red when they dead.
If need further tune, maybe green will have potential PK score which means when some day the green player become red the green player will start from higher corruption penalties than a pure green player, and if a green player initiate the fight and red fight back end with kill the green player that red will randomly gain less corruption score with RNG like less 10~70% corruption score than usual and maybe a small chance that clean amount of corruption score that slightly less than killed by green or refer other baseline of clean corruption score.(If the concern about green abusing the role to attack red is that heavy)
Which reduces the amount of pvp and times this would happen and making people rely on the other system for pvp that gives them a lot more weight. Growing the social dynamics, drama and politics between nodes and guilds as those are the main means to war on other people for owpvp.
Exactly. Which is the whole point of the corruption system. It still lets you kill whoever you want whenever you want, but it punishes you severely for doing so, which makes you either find another route (as you've listed) or you just do your best with the consequences of your actions. You run away and avoid other players as much as possible, while killing mobs to remove corruption.
You're meant to suffer as a red, which makes you more social because sociability will lead you to more ways of fighting other people w/o huge detriments to you. But if you try use that sociability to circumvent the corruption system - it punishes you even more, because your party has to suffer the same consequences too now.
The system works just as intended and works just fine. And is beneficial to the overall structure of the game and to the main goal of "bringing the social life back to mmos". Which is the exact reason why I'm against what OP suggested.
@hleV Does this explain for you between the last three post with Nikr and I why the corruption system is so punishing, to allow pvp be more focused on the other system but still allow people to pk whoever they want?
The corruption system is already punishing. To make sure it's punishing enough, the XP dept, amount of resources dropped, chance of equipped gear drop, stat dampening, can be adjusted as needed. The very conditional "greens are allowed to grief because defending against them is penalized", in my very honest opinion, has no place here, as part of punishment, and is potentially abusable. It's just bad system design, not serving much of a purpose that isn't already fulfilled by the other corruption penalties. We know that this exact part, the "green remains green when attacking red", is stated to yet to be tested, so unlike other systems, this one isn't "obviously correct" according to the devs.
What @NiKr posted (the post you quoted) is not negated, in any way, if my proposed change is implemented:
You can continue killing, but if you're doing this as a griefer (opponent doesn't fight back), you continue to suffer more severe penalties for that. In order to work the corruption off, you're gonna want to be avoiding people and running away from them so as not to risk being killed.
Only the part of "The system works just as intended and works just fine" is where I'll disagree. I'd love to hear from a developer if the decision to treat aggressive greens as victims was the point, or is this rule more meant for those cases where red is going on a murder spree, and is not just self-defending while working off their crime.
People need to stop treating this as if the proposal is to reduce punishment for red. This is to adjust one specific part of it, that in my opinion isn't correctly designed/fleshed out - to not punish corrupted for non-immoral activity of self-defense, while it would still punish all the same if the corrupted continued their wrong ways. And this isn't solely from the PKer's perspective. I wouldn't want to be a green attacked by red and have no option to flag myself as purple by fighting back, in order to reduce my losses on death.
@NiKr nah, if you were purple the only way to lose your flagging was for the timer to kick in.
You didnt automatically turn non-combatant for touching a red.
We know that this exact part, the "green remains green when attacking red", is stated to yet to be tested, so unlike other systems, this one isn't "obviously correct" according to the devs.
Again though, this system is literally copy-pasted from L2, except with one addition of "you get your stats dampened when you have too much corruption". The "it's gonna be tested" is just a protective wording in case the current generation of gamers will hate the system so much that they'll refuse even trying the game out.
You can continue killing, but if you're doing this as a griefer (opponent doesn't fight back), you continue to suffer more severe penalties for that. In order to work the corruption off, you're gonna want to be avoiding people and running away from them so as not to risk being killed.
And you can do exactly that in the current system. You have to do exactly that in the current system. Except currently you have to do that because you know "if I keep killing greens - I'll be in more trouble, so I better move quickly", while in your suggestion it's just "I can take my time because I'll never acquire more corruption again, until I clear the current one".
In the current system any green is free to attack you because they're sure they can hasten your punishment no matter what the result of the fight is. They either win and you lose a big chunk of your corruption or they die and you gain even more corruption which just means that you'll now have to die more times to get rid of all the corruption. This interaction deters any of your future attempts at becoming red.
In your suggestion that would never be the case. Players would only ever get a single stack of corruption because no matter how many times they kill any of their attackers - they'll never receive more corruption due to the game seeing all of those attackers as combatants.
There's no potential spiral of corruption gain and no true deterrent against going red in the first place. Which, in turn, defeats the purpose of the corruption system.
NiKr nah, if you were purple the only way to lose your flagging was for the timer to kick in.
You didnt automatically turn non-combatant for touching a red.
Nah, not for touching. I meant it as this: you are flagged; you have 10 seconds left on the timer; you see a red and start fighting it; while fighting the red for more than 10 seconds you lose the flag and if the red kills you he gets more corruption.
Is that interaction true or did I forget how it worked?
In L2 if the red kills you before the timer turns you back to non-combatant, he gets no extra corruption.
If you turn back to non-combatant, well, he just killed yet another non-combatant.
This thread has gone for way too long, because of the wording given by Steven since the announcement of the flagging system..
Non-combatant..
Combatant...
Corrupted...
I wish it had stayed to green purple red and karma points. That way people wouldnt confuse corrupted players with the lore, nor would people claim that "gaining corruptiom for killing non-combatants that attack me is wrong".
Steven should have said: the game is open world pvp, but not a survival, it's an mmo. Here are some colors...
People hook onto the tiniest things, create a whole theory and are entitled to accomodations even though they miss the forest in the tree. Oh well.
Which reduces the amount of pvp and times this would happen and making people rely on the other system for pvp that gives them a lot more weight. Growing the social dynamics, drama and politics between nodes and guilds as those are the main means to war on other people for owpvp.
Exactly. Which is the whole point of the corruption system. It still lets you kill whoever you want whenever you want, but it punishes you severely for doing so, which makes you either find another route (as you've listed) or you just do your best with the consequences of your actions. You run away and avoid other players as much as possible, while killing mobs to remove corruption.
You're meant to suffer as a red, which makes you more social because sociability will lead you to more ways of fighting other people w/o huge detriments to you. But if you try use that sociability to circumvent the corruption system - it punishes you even more, because your party has to suffer the same consequences too now.
The system works just as intended and works just fine. And is beneficial to the overall structure of the game and to the main goal of "bringing the social life back to mmos". Which is the exact reason why I'm against what OP suggested.
@hleV Does this explain for you between the last three post with Nikr and I why the corruption system is so punishing, to allow pvp be more focused on the other system but still allow people to pk whoever they want?
The corruption system is already punishing. To make sure it's punishing enough, the XP dept, amount of resources dropped, chance of equipped gear drop, stat dampening, can be adjusted as needed. The very conditional "greens are allowed to grief because defending against them is penalized", in my very honest opinion, has no place here, as part of punishment, and is potentially abusable. It's just bad system design, not serving much of a purpose that isn't already fulfilled by the other corruption penalties. We know that this exact part, the "green remains green when attacking red", is stated to yet to be tested, so unlike other systems, this one isn't "obviously correct" according to the devs.
What @NiKr posted (the post you quoted) is not negated, in any way, if my proposed change is implemented:
You can continue killing, but if you're doing this as a griefer (opponent doesn't fight back), you continue to suffer more severe penalties for that. In order to work the corruption off, you're gonna want to be avoiding people and running away from them so as not to risk being killed.
Only the part of "The system works just as intended and works just fine" is where I'll disagree. I'd love to hear from a developer if the decision to treat aggressive greens as victims was the point, or is this rule more meant for those cases where red is going on a murder spree, and is not just self-defending while working off their crime.
People need to stop treating this as if the proposal is to reduce punishment for red. This is to adjust one specific part of it, that in my opinion isn't correctly designed/fleshed out - to not punish corrupted for non-immoral activity of self-defense, while it would still punish all the same if the corrupted continued their wrong ways. And this isn't solely from the PKer's perspective. I wouldn't want to be a green attacked by red and have no option to flag myself as purple by fighting back, in order to reduce my losses on death.
It is suppose to be punishing that is the point to attempt to greatly reduce that kind of pvp. That is why its not incentivized. They don't want people pking everyone aroud the world with the corruption system.
The point i feel we were trying to get across is there other avenues of PvP that will be the main focus of it node / guild wars where you can fight without punishment. The point of the corruption system is to make sure that doesn't overtake more organized pvp.
We know that this exact part, the "green remains green when attacking red", is stated to yet to be tested, so unlike other systems, this one isn't "obviously correct" according to the devs.
Again though, this system is literally copy-pasted from L2, except with one addition of "you get your stats dampened when you have too much corruption". The "it's gonna be tested" is just a protective wording in case the current generation of gamers will hate the system so much that they'll refuse even trying the game out.
I have re-checked the wiki and the part that's gonna need testing is about players of any affiliation being able to attack a corrupted player. I'm not sure what that means, because in AoC, anyone can attack anyone, but yeah, I was mistaken here and it's not specifically about greens free-attacking reds and not flagging.
I have listened to the actual interview with Steven, the one that's marked as a reference in the wiki where it's described that greens remain greens against reds, and when asked "do you get combatant status when you attack a player who's corrupted?" Steven says "you do not". However, when talking about accumulating corruption score, he does mention that "if you go around and you killed 10 people who didn't fight back and you gain a corruption score of...", implying that your corruption score wouldn't increase if you killed someone who fought back.
You can continue killing, but if you're doing this as a griefer (opponent doesn't fight back), you continue to suffer more severe penalties for that. In order to work the corruption off, you're gonna want to be avoiding people and running away from them so as not to risk being killed.
Except currently you have to do that because you know "if I keep killing greens - I'll be in more trouble, so I better move quickly", while in your suggestion it's just "I can take my time because I'll never acquire more corruption again, until I clear the current one".
Yes for the "I'll never acquire more corruption again" (if you decided not to PK any more greens that didn't consent to PvP).
No for the "I can take my time".
You can still be hunted down and receive your punishment, not receiving additional penalty for self-defense doesn't change that.
In the current system any green is free to attack you because they're sure they can hasten your punishment no matter what the result of the fight is. They either win and you lose a big chunk of your corruption or they die and you gain even more corruption which just means that you'll now have to die more times to get rid of all the corruption.
Which is a bad system design that leaves you no choice against greens specifically, unless you can manage to escape.
This interaction deters any of your future attempts at becoming red.
So it is your honest belief that this specific rule that "reds are penalized for self-defense vs greens (who may want to flag, but can't against red), but can freely murder purples and BHs" is essential for the corruption system to work? As in, the other known penalties, however high they're cranked up to deter PKing, fail to make players think twice before PKing ever again?
In your suggestion that would never be the case. Players would only ever get a single stack of corruption because no matter how many times they kill any of their attackers - they'll never receive more corruption due to the game seeing all of those attackers as combatants.
There's no potential spiral of corruption gain and no true deterrent against going red in the first place. Which, in turn, defeats the purpose of the corruption system.
Nope. The system still properly works against mass PKing and won't put people who had reasons other than griefing to kill that one particular green in an endless loop of corruption gain with no way out other than death.
If you think that "no choice but death" is the right way to design a game system, then we can just leave it at that: agree to disagree.
So it is your honest belief that this specific rule that "reds are penalized for self-defense vs greens (who may want to flag, but can't against red), but can freely murder purples and BHs" is essential for the corruption system to work? As in, the other known penalties, however high they're cranked up to deter PKing, fail to make players think twice before PKing ever again?
The penalty comes only if you die while red. BHs can look for you, but unless they were close to you or you were too far from any valuable mobs - they'll be probably too late to get you before you clear your corruption through XP gain. So there's a much higher chance that a random green that think he's strong enough will try killing you.
In the current system you're disadvantaged against him because you'll get more corruption. So you either have to run away or have your friends heal you while you kill mobs with that green attacking you constantly. In case of running away you give the BHs more time to try and catch you, which justifies that system (I've got my own problems with it). In the case of you being with a group of people, there's a high chance that the green attacker also has a group of people with them, at which point you're dead either way because you'll just get attacked by 8 people all at once, no matter if they flag up against you or not. Imo this is what makes the whole system work as intended and even makes the BH system work on top of that.
In your suggestion, if you're alone and the green is alone, you can just fight back w/o any problems and immediately keep farming the mobs. You do not get more corruption so the time to remove your present corruption is really short. This invalidates the BH system and doesn't punish the red in any way. And again, if you're attacked by a group of greens there'd be no difference between the 2 systems. To me this system doesn't work because it doesn't deter people from going red, because they know they can just keep killing mobs w/o ever gaining more corruption in the process. And, in turn, that would invalidate the BH system because in order for any BH to catch you in time, they'd have to be very close to your initial murder location.
Now both of those example operate under the assumption that killing mobs will be at all valid as a way to remove corruption. We don't have the details about that part of the balancing of this system, and we won't know anything concrete until after extensive testing of it. If after the testing the balancing comes down to "dying is the only valid way to remove corruption, because killing mobs would require you to avoid people for an hour, after just one kill" - I wouldn't really care how the greens interact with the red because the end result will always be "red dies". While the balancing I'd personally want would be smth like "30% of the time the red becomes green through XP gain and 70% it's death at the hands of BHs because the red was on the run from the greens and they lost him".
Nope. The system still properly works against mass PKing and won't put people who had reasons other than griefing to kill that one particular green in an endless loop of corruption gain with no way out other than death.
If you think that "no choice but death" is the right way to design a game system, then we can just leave it at that: agree to disagree.
If you can't outrun some greens it's either a skill issue or decision making one. If you PKed a green in a crowd of people - you deserve to die. If you killed a green somewhere in a dungeon and couldn't remove your corruption before any new greens come for you (or didn't relocate in time) - it's a skill issue and you still deserve to die.
Otherwise, I've explained my position on what I want from the system already.
If you can't outrun some greens it's either a skill issue or decision making one. If you PKed a green in a crowd of people - you deserve to die. If you killed a green somewhere in a dungeon and couldn't remove your corruption before any new greens come for you (or didn't relocate in time) - it's a skill issue and you still deserve to die.
Oh yeah, I really do hope that escape strategy is viable if you're skilled enough, and you're not permanently locked in a fight if just one guy lands a single hit/CC on you. I expect stealth classes will have a way easier time than others in this scenario.
Oh yeah, I really do hope that escape strategy is viable and you're not permanently locked in a fight if just one guy lands a single hit/CC on you. I expect stealth classes will have a way easier time than others in this scenario.
CCs have diminishing effects and time to kill is planned to be around a minute. If that's not enough for a red to avoid a single green - he should've definitely not become a red. So yeah, again, I see no issues with the current system. It has worked in the past, it can work again.
Oh yeah, I really do hope that escape strategy is viable and you're not permanently locked in a fight if just one guy lands a single hit/CC on you. I expect stealth classes will have a way easier time than others in this scenario.
CCs have diminishing effects and time to kill is planned to be around a minute. If that's not enough for a red to avoid a single green - he should've definitely not become a red. So yeah, again, I see no issues with the current system. It has worked in the past, it can work again.
I think he was talking more about effects like "getting hit from behind applies a slow"
That have been quite common
I think the part you are missing is stephen has already clarified that a green who dies in combat suffers twice the penalty of a purple player, if you are a red you should be happy a green targeted you, as you get twice the loot, if you don't want more corruption then leave, you are a criminal on the run, why should you ever feel safe around non friendly players. Greens likely won't engage reds as they are greenies to begin with they don't want to pvp or lose resources.
I think he was talking more about effects like "getting hit from behind applies a slow"
That have been quite common
I mean, if one slow is long enough and strong enough to prevent you from running away - we got a bigger problem than just some reds getting what they deserve.
I still dont see the issue here. Many times people would go red in L2 and then try to PvE and fight off any attackers to protect their red group member. It would eventually lead to people going purple, either by attacking the healer or plainly just starting to fight all other players protecting the red.
This topic is yet again a sample of people missing the bigger picture, thinking in the usual solo gameplay that they have been accustomed to in games like wow eso ff14 etc etc.
"I am a lone guy. I kill some green. I become red. Greens start chasing me, and I can either die or get more corruption". Nobody mentioned that AoC will be a group gameplay.
Are we still humoring a thread on non-consensual PvP and the ways a Red is punished, by someone who can't even spell consensual right?
Someone who has asked for reasons why the system is the way it is, has been provided said reasons and has dismissed them every time?
At this point it's like arguing about logic to someone who's religious. They can justify whatever they want by supernatural (unreasonable) reasons, and it is thus impossible to change their point of view.
If he fears he'll be "griefed" by greens, let him not play the game. And he plays the game anyway, then let him be served justice by whomever he happens to piss off, their friends, and the horses they rode in on.
He has certainly earned a name for himself, hasn't he? I doubt he will play, the game isn't designed the way He wants it to be designed and he, rather obviously, considers that to be a really big deal. If he were to create a character, he would likely quit (with a lot of noise) while complaining that 1. The game is too hard 2. The game isn't fair 3. The game sucks and 4. Nobody likes him but he could easily be the top player on the server but he has more important things to do.
I do agree with hIeV, the system is biased towards green in the specified scenario of them being the aggressor for no logical reason.
The red player already gets his penalties when he killed the previous green, those penalties should already be more than plenty.
The only thing that happens in this scenario is that the choice of fighting back as the red player is a double negative which seems excessive to me. Not to mention that since it can be abused, it will be, to what extent however is another question.
1
Options
HinotoriMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I do agree with hIeV, the system is biased towards green in the specified scenario of them being the aggressor for no logical reason.
The red player already gets his penalties when he killed the previous green, those penalties should already be more than plenty.
The only thing that happens in this scenario is that the choice of fighting back as the red player is a double negative which seems excessive to me. Not to mention that since it can be abused, it will be, to what extent however is another question.
The penalties for being red haven't been fully applied. You need to work off your debt in fear of dying to combatants and the dreaded greenie. you signed up for it the second you killed a green.
I do agree with hIeV, the system is biased towards green in the specified scenario of them being the aggressor for no logical reason.
The red player already gets his penalties when he killed the previous green, those penalties should already be more than plenty.
The only thing that happens in this scenario is that the choice of fighting back as the red player is a double negative which seems excessive to me. Not to mention that since it can be abused, it will be, to what extent however is another question.
The penalties for being red haven't been fully applied. You need to work off your debt in fear of dying to combatants and the dreaded greenie. you signed up for it the second you killed a green.
Which part of your post addresses and justifies the special rule of "green vs red"? You're just generalizing "being red is bad" (which we all know and agree with) and not actually arguing the logic of that specific rule.
I do agree with hIeV, the system is biased towards green in the specified scenario of them being the aggressor for no logical reason.
The red player already gets his penalties when he killed the previous green, those penalties should already be more than plenty.
The only thing that happens in this scenario is that the choice of fighting back as the red player is a double negative which seems excessive to me. Not to mention that since it can be abused, it will be, to what extent however is another question.
Becoming red isnt really the penalty or at least its only part of it. Being does 5 things as is currently stands:
Increase your death penalties by 300% + the chance to drop gear upon death. (Only applied upon death)
Decrease your PvP strength
Remove the possibility to group/trade with other players.
Makes you attack-able by Green Folks without the threat of gaining corruption.
Make you traceable by Bounty Hunters
The first penalty is the true punishment. Penalty 2 - 5 merely exist to make the first more likely.
Comments
@hleV Does this explain for you between the last three post with Nikr and I why the corruption system is so punishing, to allow pvp be more focused on the other system but still allow people to pk whoever they want?
I see your aim, with that explination, but your purposed conversation leading to that is kinda out of left feild, so its hard to corrilate your posts to a goal of conversation. It felt very leading and without substance, making it hard to respond too. I dont mean to be hostile, and if you need sleep, you sleep.
Well, I still stay the same for now which a green player initiate fight on a red player should treat both as red player no matter who kills who, just green stays as green and red stays as red when they dead.
If need further tune, maybe green will have potential PK score which means when some day the green player become red the green player will start from higher corruption penalties than a pure green player, and if a green player initiate the fight and red fight back end with kill the green player that red will randomly gain less corruption score with RNG like less 10~70% corruption score than usual and maybe a small chance that clean amount of corruption score that slightly less than killed by green or refer other baseline of clean corruption score.(If the concern about green abusing the role to attack red is that heavy)
↓Good youtube channel to learn things about creating games.↓
Masahiro Sakurai on Creating Games:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1DvRY5PyHHt3KN9ghunuw
What @NiKr posted (the post you quoted) is not negated, in any way, if my proposed change is implemented:
You can continue killing, but if you're doing this as a griefer (opponent doesn't fight back), you continue to suffer more severe penalties for that. In order to work the corruption off, you're gonna want to be avoiding people and running away from them so as not to risk being killed.
Only the part of "The system works just as intended and works just fine" is where I'll disagree. I'd love to hear from a developer if the decision to treat aggressive greens as victims was the point, or is this rule more meant for those cases where red is going on a murder spree, and is not just self-defending while working off their crime.
People need to stop treating this as if the proposal is to reduce punishment for red. This is to adjust one specific part of it, that in my opinion isn't correctly designed/fleshed out - to not punish corrupted for non-immoral activity of self-defense, while it would still punish all the same if the corrupted continued their wrong ways. And this isn't solely from the PKer's perspective. I wouldn't want to be a green attacked by red and have no option to flag myself as purple by fighting back, in order to reduce my losses on death.
You didnt automatically turn non-combatant for touching a red.
In the current system any green is free to attack you because they're sure they can hasten your punishment no matter what the result of the fight is. They either win and you lose a big chunk of your corruption or they die and you gain even more corruption which just means that you'll now have to die more times to get rid of all the corruption. This interaction deters any of your future attempts at becoming red.
In your suggestion that would never be the case. Players would only ever get a single stack of corruption because no matter how many times they kill any of their attackers - they'll never receive more corruption due to the game seeing all of those attackers as combatants.
There's no potential spiral of corruption gain and no true deterrent against going red in the first place. Which, in turn, defeats the purpose of the corruption system.
Is that interaction true or did I forget how it worked?
If you turn back to non-combatant, well, he just killed yet another non-combatant.
This thread has gone for way too long, because of the wording given by Steven since the announcement of the flagging system..
Non-combatant..
Combatant...
Corrupted...
I wish it had stayed to green purple red and karma points. That way people wouldnt confuse corrupted players with the lore, nor would people claim that "gaining corruptiom for killing non-combatants that attack me is wrong".
Steven should have said: the game is open world pvp, but not a survival, it's an mmo. Here are some colors...
People hook onto the tiniest things, create a whole theory and are entitled to accomodations even though they miss the forest in the tree. Oh well.
It is suppose to be punishing that is the point to attempt to greatly reduce that kind of pvp. That is why its not incentivized. They don't want people pking everyone aroud the world with the corruption system.
The point i feel we were trying to get across is there other avenues of PvP that will be the main focus of it node / guild wars where you can fight without punishment. The point of the corruption system is to make sure that doesn't overtake more organized pvp.
Ferraris arent for everyone.
I have listened to the actual interview with Steven, the one that's marked as a reference in the wiki where it's described that greens remain greens against reds, and when asked "do you get combatant status when you attack a player who's corrupted?" Steven says "you do not". However, when talking about accumulating corruption score, he does mention that "if you go around and you killed 10 people who didn't fight back and you gain a corruption score of...", implying that your corruption score wouldn't increase if you killed someone who fought back.
Yes for the "I'll never acquire more corruption again" (if you decided not to PK any more greens that didn't consent to PvP).
No for the "I can take my time".
You can still be hunted down and receive your punishment, not receiving additional penalty for self-defense doesn't change that.
Which is a bad system design that leaves you no choice against greens specifically, unless you can manage to escape.
So it is your honest belief that this specific rule that "reds are penalized for self-defense vs greens (who may want to flag, but can't against red), but can freely murder purples and BHs" is essential for the corruption system to work? As in, the other known penalties, however high they're cranked up to deter PKing, fail to make players think twice before PKing ever again?
Perfect.
Nope. The system still properly works against mass PKing and won't put people who had reasons other than griefing to kill that one particular green in an endless loop of corruption gain with no way out other than death.
If you think that "no choice but death" is the right way to design a game system, then we can just leave it at that: agree to disagree.
In the current system you're disadvantaged against him because you'll get more corruption. So you either have to run away or have your friends heal you while you kill mobs with that green attacking you constantly. In case of running away you give the BHs more time to try and catch you, which justifies that system (I've got my own problems with it). In the case of you being with a group of people, there's a high chance that the green attacker also has a group of people with them, at which point you're dead either way because you'll just get attacked by 8 people all at once, no matter if they flag up against you or not. Imo this is what makes the whole system work as intended and even makes the BH system work on top of that.
In your suggestion, if you're alone and the green is alone, you can just fight back w/o any problems and immediately keep farming the mobs. You do not get more corruption so the time to remove your present corruption is really short. This invalidates the BH system and doesn't punish the red in any way. And again, if you're attacked by a group of greens there'd be no difference between the 2 systems. To me this system doesn't work because it doesn't deter people from going red, because they know they can just keep killing mobs w/o ever gaining more corruption in the process. And, in turn, that would invalidate the BH system because in order for any BH to catch you in time, they'd have to be very close to your initial murder location.
Now both of those example operate under the assumption that killing mobs will be at all valid as a way to remove corruption. We don't have the details about that part of the balancing of this system, and we won't know anything concrete until after extensive testing of it. If after the testing the balancing comes down to "dying is the only valid way to remove corruption, because killing mobs would require you to avoid people for an hour, after just one kill" - I wouldn't really care how the greens interact with the red because the end result will always be "red dies". While the balancing I'd personally want would be smth like "30% of the time the red becomes green through XP gain and 70% it's death at the hands of BHs because the red was on the run from the greens and they lost him". If you can't outrun some greens it's either a skill issue or decision making one. If you PKed a green in a crowd of people - you deserve to die. If you killed a green somewhere in a dungeon and couldn't remove your corruption before any new greens come for you (or didn't relocate in time) - it's a skill issue and you still deserve to die.
Otherwise, I've explained my position on what I want from the system already.
I think he was talking more about effects like "getting hit from behind applies a slow"
That have been quite common
The Wolves of Verra
are recruiting: https://discord.gg/Rt8G3sNYac
This topic is yet again a sample of people missing the bigger picture, thinking in the usual solo gameplay that they have been accustomed to in games like wow eso ff14 etc etc.
"I am a lone guy. I kill some green. I become red. Greens start chasing me, and I can either die or get more corruption". Nobody mentioned that AoC will be a group gameplay.
Someone who has asked for reasons why the system is the way it is, has been provided said reasons and has dismissed them every time?
At this point it's like arguing about logic to someone who's religious. They can justify whatever they want by supernatural (unreasonable) reasons, and it is thus impossible to change their point of view.
If he fears he'll be "griefed" by greens, let him not play the game. And he plays the game anyway, then let him be served justice by whomever he happens to piss off, their friends, and the horses they rode in on.
Now he will insult us and call us carebears.
The red player already gets his penalties when he killed the previous green, those penalties should already be more than plenty.
The only thing that happens in this scenario is that the choice of fighting back as the red player is a double negative which seems excessive to me. Not to mention that since it can be abused, it will be, to what extent however is another question.
The penalties for being red haven't been fully applied. You need to work off your debt in fear of dying to combatants and the dreaded greenie. you signed up for it the second you killed a green.
Becoming red isnt really the penalty or at least its only part of it. Being does 5 things as is currently stands:
The first penalty is the true punishment. Penalty 2 - 5 merely exist to make the first more likely.