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.
It should probably be clarified that decreased PvP strength and gear drop aren't intended to be immediate. You have to kill a decent amount of greens before you get there. If you die to the first green you killed you aren't losing your gear. You probably aren't red after death either but we don't know how many deaths it takes to wash off corruption.
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.
It should probably be clarified that decreased PvP strength and gear drop aren't intended to be immediate. You have to kill a decent amount of greens before you get there. If you die to the first green you killed you aren't losing your gear. You probably aren't red after death either but we don't know how many deaths it takes to wash off corruption.
I'm willing to admit I am inaccurate here. The discord message I assume Warth's citation is from, is clear but the messaging has not always been consistent.
Due to the way discord works I don't know if that message was more recent than this Asmongold interview. But when messaging is inconsistent and IS themselves say it's subject to change, it's harder to have meaningful discussion.
It would therefore be more accurate for me to have said 'The risk and penalties are low on first kill and we don't know the specifics of the system. Given inconsistent presentation of past data this is a part of the system that could change a lot to the point of no risk of gear loss if it is your first green kill.'
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.
Having to spend time to get rid of the corruption is also punishment, now I'll admit I am not too well informed on if this is how it works, but will you gain exp until the corruption is cleared? if not, that is a pretty significant punishment, correct me if I am wrong.
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.
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 already did that though
Would you mind linking the exact post which you think ultimately justifies and explains the logic behind additionally punishing reds for only that one specific action in specific circumstances, but not in other seemingly not so different circumstances? I've either missed it or it doesn't exist.
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.
You need to read all 3 post together as it is a link of 3 of them. It is all in relation to the type of pvp they want to push in the game. Which is guild and node wars for owpvp that doesn't give you corruption.
You need to read all 3 post together as it is a link of 3 of them. It is all in relation to the type of pvp they want to push in the game. Which is guild and node wars for owpvp that doesn't give you corruption.
I did respond to those though, did I not? I do understand what's being said, but it doesn't solve the issue of inconsistency.
If red's penalty is supposed to include being unable to even kill in self-defense, then going by that logic, purples/BHs should also count as victims against a corrupted, just like greens are (even if they're the ones attacking).
I'm not talking victim PvE greens who mind their own business here, but aggressive greens, who don't even have the choice of flagging purple to reduce their own penalty in case they die. What purpose does it serve that only against greens specifically reds are penalized additionally but not others? It makes no sense, and I have yet to hear anyone addressing this specifically: that this rule only applies for reds vs greens only, when it would serve just as well for reds vs purples/BHs as well. I wouldn't want that, but at least it would make sense if the devs actually wanted reds to be penalized like that. It's an inconsistency that shouldn't be there.
If corrupted can continue to freely kill purples/BHs, even though "they're evil criminals who should be punished and normal rules don't apply to them", then they should be allowed to kill in self-defense against greens.
You need to read all 3 post together as it is a link of 3 of them. It is all in relation to the type of pvp they want to push in the game. Which is guild and node wars for owpvp that doesn't give you corruption.
I did respond to those though, did I not? I do understand what's being said, but it doesn't solve the issue.
If red's penalty is supposed to include being unable to even kill in self-defense, then going by that logic, purples/BHs should also count as victims against a corrupted, just like greens are (even if they're the ones attacking).
I'm not talking victim PvE greens who mind their own business here, but aggressive greens, who don't even have the choice of flagging purple to reduce their own penalty in case they die. What purpose does it serve that only against greens specifically reds are penalized additionally but not others? It makes no sense, and I have yet to hear anyone addressing this specifically, to make this rule only apply for reds vs greens only, when it would serve just as well for reds vs purples/BHs as well. I wouldn't want that, but at least it would make sense if the devs actually wanted reds to be penalized like that. It's an inconsistency that shouldn't be there.
This is why people are saying there is no issue to solve as that is intended to be like that in order to prevent as much chaotic pvp between players. Though you have some punishments for being red though the main is how uncomfortable it is suppose to make you feel having no choice but to gain more corruption to defend yourself. This way it makes it so less people will be willing to flag compared if you could pk and still defend yourself, lets see that reduced the consistencies in pvp this would happen by 60% and that is their design goal.
The inconsistency is meant to be there everyone sees it and so do I, but without it pvp would greatly increase and that isn't the goal of their system. The goal is to stop that pvp from happening and have people rely on the other more social pvp systems in place.
For you to want to change the system you would need to offer a better solution, not in the way of new flag types but a solution in reducing overall chaotic pvp between singular people, which takes away from more focused social pvp.
If corrupted can continue to freely kill purples/BHs, even though "they're evil criminals who should be punished and normal rules don't apply to them", then they should be allowed to kill in self-defense against greens.
@hleV
I think the diagram you quoted on the first page is somewhat not complete because it assumes a certain context. That context is fight near resources.
If a player kills another one who collects resources, then it becomes corrupted.
The system will punish that player not because he caused a death but because that death was caused close to where resources are being gathered.
Further away from resources the system is not applied anymore: caravans, sieges and for some reason in the ocean. I assume in the ocean there will be resources too. But maybe not.
So if we take the corrupted player away from resources and we place another skilled green player close to kill him, that green player will actually apply the punishment intended to protect the resource collection process, which the corrupted player has broken. There is no need to help even in this case the corrupted to survive if he cannot do that.
But killing and becoming corrupted is still allowed because the green player might be a "cheater", a crafter who wants to transport Tier 4 resources without paying for caravans. So if a player will figure out that somebody has valuable resources, he can try to take them and run. I think a good fighter will survive with a slight corruption. If not, then those Tier 4 materials change owner once more, but most likely not back to the greedy crafter.
For this last case, maybe the corrupted one should be able to flag the non-combatant. That is why I think that the diagram does not consider the context.
If the corruption will protect players so well, that caravans will not happen, then for sure the developers will do something with it.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
I think the diagram you quoted on the first page is somewhat not complete because it assumes a certain context. That context is fight near resources.
If a player kills another one who collects resources, then it becomes corrupted.
The system will punish that player not because he caused a death but because that death was caused close to where resources are being gathered.
Further away from resources the system is not applied anymore: caravans, sieges and for some reason in the ocean. I assume in the ocean there will be resources too. But maybe not.
So if we take the corrupted player away from resources and we place another skilled green player close to kill him, that green player will actually apply the punishment intended to protect the resource collection process, which the corrupted player has broken. There is no need to help even in this case the corrupted to survive if he cannot do that.
But killing and becoming corrupted is still allowed because the green player might be a "cheater", a crafter who wants to transport Tier 4 resources without paying for caravans. So if a player will figure out that somebody has valuable resources, he can try to take them and run. I think a good fighter will survive with a slight corruption. If not, then those Tier 4 materials change owner once more, but most likely not back to the greedy crafter.
For this last case, maybe the corrupted one should be able to flag the non-combatant. That is why I think that the diagram does not consider the context.
If the corruption will protect players so well, that caravans will not happen, then for sure the developers will do something with it.
Corruption has nothing to do with resources and nothing to do with caravans. There's no "cheating" and nothing of the sort. The diagram is as it is and completely encapsulates the rules of the system. Nothing more nothing less. Other pvp events like caravans, sieges, wars, open seas - all operate outside of the corruption system.
For you to want to change the system you would need to offer a better solution, not in the way of new flag types but a solution in reducing overall chaotic pvp between singular people, which takes away from more focused social pvp.
You're really focused on this baseless assumption that PKing is going to be rampant if PKers are not additionally penalized for self-defense killing greens, and that it renders the corruption system useless Increase the % of other penalties and the issue of too much PKing is solved, instantly. I don't even have to provide any solutions when all I'm asking is a fix for the issue caused by greens not getting flagged when attacking reds.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think the diagram you quoted on the first page is somewhat not complete because it assumes a certain context. That context is fight near resources.
If a player kills another one who collects resources, then it becomes corrupted.
The system will punish that player not because he caused a death but because that death was caused close to where resources are being gathered.
Further away from resources the system is not applied anymore: caravans, sieges and for some reason in the ocean. I assume in the ocean there will be resources too. But maybe not.
So if we take the corrupted player away from resources and we place another skilled green player close to kill him, that green player will actually apply the punishment intended to protect the resource collection process, which the corrupted player has broken. There is no need to help even in this case the corrupted to survive if he cannot do that.
But killing and becoming corrupted is still allowed because the green player might be a "cheater", a crafter who wants to transport Tier 4 resources without paying for caravans. So if a player will figure out that somebody has valuable resources, he can try to take them and run. I think a good fighter will survive with a slight corruption. If not, then those Tier 4 materials change owner once more, but most likely not back to the greedy crafter.
For this last case, maybe the corrupted one should be able to flag the non-combatant. That is why I think that the diagram does not consider the context.
If the corruption will protect players so well, that caravans will not happen, then for sure the developers will do something with it.
Corruption has nothing to do with resources and nothing to do with caravans. There's no "cheating" and nothing of the sort. The diagram is as it is and completely encapsulates the rules of the system. Nothing more nothing less. Other pvp events like caravans, sieges, wars, open seas - all operate outside of the corruption system.
What will happen if we remove the flagging system completely?
Wouldn't become a better game?
Why protect players who are supposed to be able to PvP anytime?
Or why not apply corruption to caravans too?
Why corruption works in a place and not the other one?
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
I don't even have to provide any solutions when all I'm asking is a fix for the issue caused by greens not getting flagged when attacking reds.
And I want a fix for the issue of purples being able to kill a green. That sounds very unfair towards the greens. Why do game's rules allow another player to kill a player? What's the reason behind that? Seems illogical.
The rules are the rules. There's already pvp-leaning exceptions to those rules, that being literally any and all pvp events/battlegrounds in the game, which are abundant. So a single point in the rules that allow the greens to punish a murderer easier seems fair to me.
What will happen if we remove the flagging system completely?
Wouldn't become a better game?
Why protect players who are supposed to be able to PvP anytime?
Or why not apply corruption to caravans too?
Why corruption works in a place and not the other one?
Removing flagging would just create a gankbox game with an even smaller playerbase than the one Ashes will have. And the push to make the pvp opt-in would be even greater than it already is. Just look at NW as the biggest example of that.
Pvp events are exempt from the corruption system exactly because they're PVP events. People who want to freely kill people w/o repercussions can permanently participate in those events and be merry. While all the pve people or just those who have had enough pvp for the day can be somewhat safe in the open world because the corruption system protects them. Yes, they can still be killed, but, as hleV has been whining about for the past several days, their killers will be severely punished.
I think the diagram you quoted on the first page is somewhat not complete because it assumes a certain context. That context is fight near resources.
If a player kills another one who collects resources, then it becomes corrupted.
The system will punish that player not because he caused a death but because that death was caused close to where resources are being gathered.
Further away from resources the system is not applied anymore: caravans, sieges and for some reason in the ocean. I assume in the ocean there will be resources too. But maybe not.
So if we take the corrupted player away from resources and we place another skilled green player close to kill him, that green player will actually apply the punishment intended to protect the resource collection process, which the corrupted player has broken. There is no need to help even in this case the corrupted to survive if he cannot do that.
But killing and becoming corrupted is still allowed because the green player might be a "cheater", a crafter who wants to transport Tier 4 resources without paying for caravans. So if a player will figure out that somebody has valuable resources, he can try to take them and run. I think a good fighter will survive with a slight corruption. If not, then those Tier 4 materials change owner once more, but most likely not back to the greedy crafter.
For this last case, maybe the corrupted one should be able to flag the non-combatant. That is why I think that the diagram does not consider the context.
If the corruption will protect players so well, that caravans will not happen, then for sure the developers will do something with it.
Corruption has nothing to do with resources and nothing to do with caravans. There's no "cheating" and nothing of the sort. The diagram is as it is and completely encapsulates the rules of the system. Nothing more nothing less. Other pvp events like caravans, sieges, wars, open seas - all operate outside of the corruption system.
What will happen if we remove the flagging system completely?
Wouldn't become a better game?
Why protect players who are supposed to be able to PvP anytime?
Or why not apply corruption to caravans too?
Why corruption works in a place and not the other one?
1. If you remove the flagging system then there are no penalties or deterrents to PKing and griefing, creating a hostile environment.
2. No it would not become a better game when all incoming players could be smacked down by max level players with no negative consequences to those PKing players.
3. Players, especially at lower levels, need some system in place to prevent the halting of their progress by other players. Rampant murderfests are not going to draw in new players for the same reason people generally don’t move into the worst parts of town unless they have no other choice.
4. Launching a caravan is a declaration that you accept the risk of being attacked. Building and launching a ship likewise is a declaration you accept the risk of being attacked. These are active choices made with this knowledge in mind, and are opt-in scenarios. That means they function within the corruption system insofar as signing onto a caravan is functionally the same as flagging yourself as a combatant, for the duration of the caravan’s travel.
5. Corruption is specifically in place to reign in murderhobos in Open World PvP. Areas that are designed to be fought over (caravans, node wars, arenas, etc) are not part of Open World PvP, and are instead all opt-ins. Thus there’s no need to apply a system that is in place for Open World (aka non-optional) areas.
What will happen if we remove the flagging system completely?
Wouldn't become a better game?
Why protect players who are supposed to be able to PvP anytime?
Or why not apply corruption to caravans too?
Why corruption works in a place and not the other one?
Removing flagging would just create a gankbox game with an even smaller playerbase than the one Ashes will have. And the push to make the pvp opt-in would be even greater than it already is. Just look at NW as the biggest example of that.
Pvp events are exempt from the corruption system exactly because they're PVP events. People who want to freely kill people w/o repercussions can permanently participate in those events and be merry. While all the pve people or just those who have had enough pvp for the day can be somewhat safe in the open world because the corruption system protects them. Yes, they can still be killed, but, as hleV has been whining about for the past several days, their killers will be severely punished.
Now that I know that the NPC dealing the killing blow is ok, I feel that things are as they should be.
Tier 3 and Tier 4 resources will have mobs around them.
Only if a player already won the fight against them will be somewhat protected but not much.
If the Tier 4 resource is very rare, no corruption will stop a late arrival to the battle scene to kill that player and take that resource.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
I think the diagram you quoted on the first page is somewhat not complete because it assumes a certain context. That context is fight near resources.
If a player kills another one who collects resources, then it becomes corrupted.
The system will punish that player not because he caused a death but because that death was caused close to where resources are being gathered.
Further away from resources the system is not applied anymore: caravans, sieges and for some reason in the ocean. I assume in the ocean there will be resources too. But maybe not.
So if we take the corrupted player away from resources and we place another skilled green player close to kill him, that green player will actually apply the punishment intended to protect the resource collection process, which the corrupted player has broken. There is no need to help even in this case the corrupted to survive if he cannot do that.
But killing and becoming corrupted is still allowed because the green player might be a "cheater", a crafter who wants to transport Tier 4 resources without paying for caravans. So if a player will figure out that somebody has valuable resources, he can try to take them and run. I think a good fighter will survive with a slight corruption. If not, then those Tier 4 materials change owner once more, but most likely not back to the greedy crafter.
For this last case, maybe the corrupted one should be able to flag the non-combatant. That is why I think that the diagram does not consider the context.
If the corruption will protect players so well, that caravans will not happen, then for sure the developers will do something with it.
Corruption has nothing to do with resources and nothing to do with caravans. There's no "cheating" and nothing of the sort. The diagram is as it is and completely encapsulates the rules of the system. Nothing more nothing less. Other pvp events like caravans, sieges, wars, open seas - all operate outside of the corruption system.
What will happen if we remove the flagging system completely?
Wouldn't become a better game?
Why protect players who are supposed to be able to PvP anytime?
Or why not apply corruption to caravans too?
Why corruption works in a place and not the other one?
1. If you remove the flagging system then there are no penalties or deterrents to PKing and griefing, creating a hostile environment.
2. No it would not become a better game when all incoming players could be smacked down by max level players with no negative consequences.
3. Players, especially at lower levels, need some system in place to prevent the halting of their progress by other players. Rampant murderfests are not going to draw in new players for the same reason people generally don’t move into the worst parts of town unless they have no other choice.
4. Launching a caravan is a declaration that you accept the risk of being attacked. Building and launching a ship likewise is a declaration you accept the risk of being attacked. These are active choices made with this knowledge in mind, and are opt-in scenarios. That means they function within the corruption system insofar as signing onto a caravan is functionally the same as flagging yourself as a combatant, for the duration of the caravan’s travel.
5. Corruption is specifically in place to reign in murderhobos in Open World PvP. Areas that are designed to be fought over (caravans, node wars, arenas, etc) are not part of Open World PvP, and are instead all opt-ima. Thus there’s no need to apply a system that is in place for Open World (aka non-optional) areas.
Yes but people can team to defend against other players just like during caravans.
What you call PKing and griefing I call defending resource location against thieves. Especially when gatherers harvest scarce resources too often and cause them to stop spawning increasing the scarcity.
In this context I see those who want to harvest too often as greedy.
What if a node sends gatherers into another node's area across the map, to cause shortage fast? They can harvest and throw resources away. Or delete them in the inventory if that is possible. Isn't that griefing? Griefing of well organized citizens.
Leveling up will happen somehow. Other rules can be introduced, where low level players and high level players are not able to harm each-other and also low levels to be unable to harvest Tier 4 materials. Else bots will do that very fast too.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
For you to want to change the system you would need to offer a better solution, not in the way of new flag types but a solution in reducing overall chaotic pvp between singular people, which takes away from more focused social pvp.
You're really focused on this baseless assumption that PKing is going to be rampant if PKers are not additionally penalized for self-defense killing greens, and that it renders the corruption system useless Increase the % of other penalties and the issue of too much PKing is solved, instantly. I don't even have to provide any solutions when all I'm asking is a fix for the issue caused by greens not getting flagged when attacking reds.
To want to change the system you need to think in its purpose and how it affects other aspects of the game. So a solution is needed. I suppose making the penalties be even worst could be another thing to the point people don't actively do it, and greatly increasing the time it takes to work off corruption to a minimum of 20 min.
For you to want to change the system you would need to offer a better solution, not in the way of new flag types but a solution in reducing overall chaotic pvp between singular people, which takes away from more focused social pvp.
You're really focused on this baseless assumption that PKing is going to be rampant if PKers are not additionally penalized for self-defense killing greens, and that it renders the corruption system useless Increase the % of other penalties and the issue of too much PKing is solved, instantly. I don't even have to provide any solutions when all I'm asking is a fix for the issue caused by greens not getting flagged when attacking reds.
What the hell did I just read?
You have been told that this system was working on another mmo since 2003.
You are the one "focused on this baseless assumption" that greens will grief red players and so red players should not get more corruption for killing aggressive greens.
Now in order to accomodate your baseless assumption, you want to increase the % of other penalties?
No, the Devs dont have to provide to you your suggested changes, because there is no issue to be fixed.
Again, the corruption system AS IT IS worked in another mmo since 2003.
I think the diagram you quoted on the first page is somewhat not complete because it assumes a certain context. That context is fight near resources.
If a player kills another one who collects resources, then it becomes corrupted.
The system will punish that player not because he caused a death but because that death was caused close to where resources are being gathered.
Further away from resources the system is not applied anymore: caravans, sieges and for some reason in the ocean. I assume in the ocean there will be resources too. But maybe not.
So if we take the corrupted player away from resources and we place another skilled green player close to kill him, that green player will actually apply the punishment intended to protect the resource collection process, which the corrupted player has broken. There is no need to help even in this case the corrupted to survive if he cannot do that.
But killing and becoming corrupted is still allowed because the green player might be a "cheater", a crafter who wants to transport Tier 4 resources without paying for caravans. So if a player will figure out that somebody has valuable resources, he can try to take them and run. I think a good fighter will survive with a slight corruption. If not, then those Tier 4 materials change owner once more, but most likely not back to the greedy crafter.
For this last case, maybe the corrupted one should be able to flag the non-combatant. That is why I think that the diagram does not consider the context.
If the corruption will protect players so well, that caravans will not happen, then for sure the developers will do something with it.
Corruption has nothing to do with resources and nothing to do with caravans. There's no "cheating" and nothing of the sort. The diagram is as it is and completely encapsulates the rules of the system. Nothing more nothing less. Other pvp events like caravans, sieges, wars, open seas - all operate outside of the corruption system.
What will happen if we remove the flagging system completely?
Wouldn't become a better game?
Why protect players who are supposed to be able to PvP anytime?
Or why not apply corruption to caravans too?
Why corruption works in a place and not the other one?
1. If you remove the flagging system then there are no penalties or deterrents to PKing and griefing, creating a hostile environment.
2. No it would not become a better game when all incoming players could be smacked down by max level players with no negative consequences.
3. Players, especially at lower levels, need some system in place to prevent the halting of their progress by other players. Rampant murderfests are not going to draw in new players for the same reason people generally don’t move into the worst parts of town unless they have no other choice.
4. Launching a caravan is a declaration that you accept the risk of being attacked. Building and launching a ship likewise is a declaration you accept the risk of being attacked. These are active choices made with this knowledge in mind, and are opt-in scenarios. That means they function within the corruption system insofar as signing onto a caravan is functionally the same as flagging yourself as a combatant, for the duration of the caravan’s travel.
5. Corruption is specifically in place to reign in murderhobos in Open World PvP. Areas that are designed to be fought over (caravans, node wars, arenas, etc) are not part of Open World PvP, and are instead all opt-ima. Thus there’s no need to apply a system that is in place for Open World (aka non-optional) areas.
Yes but people can team to defend against other players just like during caravans.
What you call PKing and griefing I call defending resource location against thieves. Especially when gatherers harvest scarce resources too often and cause them to stop spawning increasing the scarcity.
In this context I see those who want to harvest too often as greedy.
What if a node sends gatherers into another node's area across the map, to cause shortage fast? They can harvest and throw resources away. Or delete them in the inventory if that is possible. Isn't that griefing? Griefing of well organized citizens.
Leveling up will happen somehow. Other rules can be introduced, where low level players and high level players are not able to harm each-other and also low levels to be unable to harvest Tier 4 materials. Else bots will do that very fast too.
Either you didn’t read my post or you wildly misinterpreted what I wrote.
You aren’t “defending an area from thieves” if you’re attacking low level players trying to gather resources or complete a quest. None of the open world “belongs” to a player or group in the way a caravan belongs to the group that launched it. If you kill someone over your own misguided notion that you “own” an open-world area, then you are a PKer and the game will treat you as such.
Why in the world would Intrepid start messing around with untested experimental deterrents with mechanics that change from level to level, when we have a method that we know works across multiple games and doesn’t require mechanics lockouts on your characters?
Restricting character choices is never going to go over well, and corruption systems are the best compromise to balance player agency and fairness in a healthy way.
What if a node sends gatherers into another node's area across the map, to cause shortage fast? They can harvest and throw resources away. Or delete them in the inventory if that is possible. Isn't that griefing? Griefing of well organized citizens.
No it’s not. No resources “belong” to anyone. The exp of gathering is still going to your node because it happens in your node’s territory. What they do is quite literally no different than someone gathering resources for their guild to use, your node wouldn’t see it either way. They don’t need your node’s approval to use resources they gathered as they wish. You are free to fight over them, and those players would prefer to defend themselves because otherwise they just wasted their time in the node doing your work for you.
I really don’t understand this myth going around that staying green is a good choice. Flagging purple halves every death penalty you would face. Corruption can be worked off through allies and mobs. None of these penalties or boons are anything more than ways to balance the risks and rewards of attacking players who reached a resource before you did, to keep it from being too restrictive or lawless.
I think the diagram you quoted on the first page is somewhat not complete because it assumes a certain context. That context is fight near resources.
If a player kills another one who collects resources, then it becomes corrupted.
The system will punish that player not because he caused a death but because that death was caused close to where resources are being gathered.
Further away from resources the system is not applied anymore: caravans, sieges and for some reason in the ocean. I assume in the ocean there will be resources too. But maybe not.
So if we take the corrupted player away from resources and we place another skilled green player close to kill him, that green player will actually apply the punishment intended to protect the resource collection process, which the corrupted player has broken. There is no need to help even in this case the corrupted to survive if he cannot do that.
But killing and becoming corrupted is still allowed because the green player might be a "cheater", a crafter who wants to transport Tier 4 resources without paying for caravans. So if a player will figure out that somebody has valuable resources, he can try to take them and run. I think a good fighter will survive with a slight corruption. If not, then those Tier 4 materials change owner once more, but most likely not back to the greedy crafter.
For this last case, maybe the corrupted one should be able to flag the non-combatant. That is why I think that the diagram does not consider the context.
If the corruption will protect players so well, that caravans will not happen, then for sure the developers will do something with it.
Corruption has nothing to do with resources and nothing to do with caravans. There's no "cheating" and nothing of the sort. The diagram is as it is and completely encapsulates the rules of the system. Nothing more nothing less. Other pvp events like caravans, sieges, wars, open seas - all operate outside of the corruption system.
What will happen if we remove the flagging system completely?
Wouldn't become a better game?
Why protect players who are supposed to be able to PvP anytime?
Or why not apply corruption to caravans too?
Why corruption works in a place and not the other one?
1. If you remove the flagging system then there are no penalties or deterrents to PKing and griefing, creating a hostile environment.
2. No it would not become a better game when all incoming players could be smacked down by max level players with no negative consequences.
3. Players, especially at lower levels, need some system in place to prevent the halting of their progress by other players. Rampant murderfests are not going to draw in new players for the same reason people generally don’t move into the worst parts of town unless they have no other choice.
4. Launching a caravan is a declaration that you accept the risk of being attacked. Building and launching a ship likewise is a declaration you accept the risk of being attacked. These are active choices made with this knowledge in mind, and are opt-in scenarios. That means they function within the corruption system insofar as signing onto a caravan is functionally the same as flagging yourself as a combatant, for the duration of the caravan’s travel.
5. Corruption is specifically in place to reign in murderhobos in Open World PvP. Areas that are designed to be fought over (caravans, node wars, arenas, etc) are not part of Open World PvP, and are instead all opt-ima. Thus there’s no need to apply a system that is in place for Open World (aka non-optional) areas.
Yes but people can team to defend against other players just like during caravans.
What you call PKing and griefing I call defending resource location against thieves. Especially when gatherers harvest scarce resources too often and cause them to stop spawning increasing the scarcity.
In this context I see those who want to harvest too often as greedy.
What if a node sends gatherers into another node's area across the map, to cause shortage fast? They can harvest and throw resources away. Or delete them in the inventory if that is possible. Isn't that griefing? Griefing of well organized citizens.
Leveling up will happen somehow. Other rules can be introduced, where low level players and high level players are not able to harm each-other and also low levels to be unable to harvest Tier 4 materials. Else bots will do that very fast too.
Either you didn’t read my post or you wildly misinterpreted what I wrote.
You aren’t “defending an area from thieves” if you’re attacking low level players trying to gather resources or complete a quest. None of the open world “belongs” to a player or group in the way a caravan belongs to the group that launched it. If you kill someone over your own misguided notion that you “own” an open-world area, then you are a PKer and the game will treat you as such.
Why in the world would Intrepid start messing around with untested experimental deterrents with mechanics that change from level to level, when we have a method that we know works across multiple games and doesn’t require mechanics lockouts on your characters?
Restricting character choices is never going to go over well, and corruption systems are the best compromise to balance player agency and fairness in a healthy way.
What if a node sends gatherers into another node's area across the map, to cause shortage fast? They can harvest and throw resources away. Or delete them in the inventory if that is possible. Isn't that griefing? Griefing of well organized citizens.
No it’s not. No resources “belong” to anyone. The exp of gathering is still going to your node because it happens in your node’s territory. What they do is quite literally no different than someone gathering resources for their guild to use, your node wouldn’t see it either way. They don’t need your node’s approval to use resources they gathered as they wish. You are free to fight over them, and those players would prefer to defend themselves because otherwise they just wasted their time in the node doing your work for you.
I really don’t understand this myth going around that staying green is a good choice. Flagging purple halves every death penalty you would face. Corruption can be worked off through allies and mobs. None of these penalties or boons are anything more than ways to balance the risks and rewards of attacking players who reached a resource before you did, to keep it from being too restrictive or lawless.
Ideas like land management- and as you draw resources from your surrounding area- what type of effect does that have on the land; and then also how effectively can you draw those resources without having such a deleterious effect on the land, which might impact future resource gathering for some period of time: And it makes relevant the movement of these players who are collecting these goods from the environment, that they actually cannot always just do so in one particular area, as the land management begins to degrade. So it actually encourages movement across the world to discover new areas that might not be as perturbed as the ones you're coming from.
My assumption based on this section is that it is better to stop harvesting before you depleted the resources.
Citizens of that node could harvest them and if they are greedy they will.
But if they will restrain themselves, then others may still come and take those resources increasing scarcity, at least in that region. So don't say they do the work for the node and the mayor will be happy for that experience. There might be other ways to get experience and still keep the resources flowing in, nearby, for local processing and then exporting them.
And those citizens are not free to fight to protect them because the corruption system prevents that. They can kill a few but not many of them.
In this context, you are just a greedy gatherer, the real griefer and you call those who want to protect the land griefers.
If no negative effects would be mentioned then I agree that resources should be harvested as fast/often as possible to maximize output on the entire map for the greater good of all 10k players.
Once resources run out, war starts. Not for fun but for resources.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think people not from the Node will also restrain themselves from depleting the resources in the region.
Surveying is not just for the people from that region.
I think the diagram you quoted on the first page is somewhat not complete because it assumes a certain context. That context is fight near resources.
If a player kills another one who collects resources, then it becomes corrupted.
The system will punish that player not because he caused a death but because that death was caused close to where resources are being gathered.
Further away from resources the system is not applied anymore: caravans, sieges and for some reason in the ocean. I assume in the ocean there will be resources too. But maybe not.
So if we take the corrupted player away from resources and we place another skilled green player close to kill him, that green player will actually apply the punishment intended to protect the resource collection process, which the corrupted player has broken. There is no need to help even in this case the corrupted to survive if he cannot do that.
But killing and becoming corrupted is still allowed because the green player might be a "cheater", a crafter who wants to transport Tier 4 resources without paying for caravans. So if a player will figure out that somebody has valuable resources, he can try to take them and run. I think a good fighter will survive with a slight corruption. If not, then those Tier 4 materials change owner once more, but most likely not back to the greedy crafter.
For this last case, maybe the corrupted one should be able to flag the non-combatant. That is why I think that the diagram does not consider the context.
If the corruption will protect players so well, that caravans will not happen, then for sure the developers will do something with it.
Corruption has nothing to do with resources and nothing to do with caravans. There's no "cheating" and nothing of the sort. The diagram is as it is and completely encapsulates the rules of the system. Nothing more nothing less. Other pvp events like caravans, sieges, wars, open seas - all operate outside of the corruption system.
What will happen if we remove the flagging system completely?
Wouldn't become a better game?
Why protect players who are supposed to be able to PvP anytime?
Or why not apply corruption to caravans too?
Why corruption works in a place and not the other one?
1. If you remove the flagging system then there are no penalties or deterrents to PKing and griefing, creating a hostile environment.
2. No it would not become a better game when all incoming players could be smacked down by max level players with no negative consequences.
3. Players, especially at lower levels, need some system in place to prevent the halting of their progress by other players. Rampant murderfests are not going to draw in new players for the same reason people generally don’t move into the worst parts of town unless they have no other choice.
4. Launching a caravan is a declaration that you accept the risk of being attacked. Building and launching a ship likewise is a declaration you accept the risk of being attacked. These are active choices made with this knowledge in mind, and are opt-in scenarios. That means they function within the corruption system insofar as signing onto a caravan is functionally the same as flagging yourself as a combatant, for the duration of the caravan’s travel.
5. Corruption is specifically in place to reign in murderhobos in Open World PvP. Areas that are designed to be fought over (caravans, node wars, arenas, etc) are not part of Open World PvP, and are instead all opt-ima. Thus there’s no need to apply a system that is in place for Open World (aka non-optional) areas.
Yes but people can team to defend against other players just like during caravans.
What you call PKing and griefing I call defending resource location against thieves. Especially when gatherers harvest scarce resources too often and cause them to stop spawning increasing the scarcity.
In this context I see those who want to harvest too often as greedy.
What if a node sends gatherers into another node's area across the map, to cause shortage fast? They can harvest and throw resources away. Or delete them in the inventory if that is possible. Isn't that griefing? Griefing of well organized citizens.
Leveling up will happen somehow. Other rules can be introduced, where low level players and high level players are not able to harm each-other and also low levels to be unable to harvest Tier 4 materials. Else bots will do that very fast too.
Either you didn’t read my post or you wildly misinterpreted what I wrote.
You aren’t “defending an area from thieves” if you’re attacking low level players trying to gather resources or complete a quest. None of the open world “belongs” to a player or group in the way a caravan belongs to the group that launched it. If you kill someone over your own misguided notion that you “own” an open-world area, then you are a PKer and the game will treat you as such.
Why in the world would Intrepid start messing around with untested experimental deterrents with mechanics that change from level to level, when we have a method that we know works across multiple games and doesn’t require mechanics lockouts on your characters?
Restricting character choices is never going to go over well, and corruption systems are the best compromise to balance player agency and fairness in a healthy way.
What if a node sends gatherers into another node's area across the map, to cause shortage fast? They can harvest and throw resources away. Or delete them in the inventory if that is possible. Isn't that griefing? Griefing of well organized citizens.
No it’s not. No resources “belong” to anyone. The exp of gathering is still going to your node because it happens in your node’s territory. What they do is quite literally no different than someone gathering resources for their guild to use, your node wouldn’t see it either way. They don’t need your node’s approval to use resources they gathered as they wish. You are free to fight over them, and those players would prefer to defend themselves because otherwise they just wasted their time in the node doing your work for you.
I really don’t understand this myth going around that staying green is a good choice. Flagging purple halves every death penalty you would face. Corruption can be worked off through allies and mobs. None of these penalties or boons are anything more than ways to balance the risks and rewards of attacking players who reached a resource before you did, to keep it from being too restrictive or lawless.
Ideas like land management- and as you draw resources from your surrounding area- what type of effect does that have on the land; and then also how effectively can you draw those resources without having such a deleterious effect on the land, which might impact future resource gathering for some period of time: And it makes relevant the movement of these players who are collecting these goods from the environment, that they actually cannot always just do so in one particular area, as the land management begins to degrade. So it actually encourages movement across the world to discover new areas that might not be as perturbed as the ones you're coming from.
My assumption based on this section is that it is better to stop harvesting before you depleted the resources.
Citizens of that node could harvest them and if they are greedy they will.
But if they will restrain themselves, then others may still come and take those resources increasing scarcity, at least in that region. So don't say they do the work for the node and the mayor will be happy for that experience. There might be other ways to get experience and still keep the resources flowing in, nearby, for local processing and then exporting them.
And those citizens are not free to fight to protect them because the corruption system prevents that. They can kill a few but not many of them.
In this context, you are just a greedy gatherer, the real griefer and you call those who want to protect the land griefers.
Again, you are failing to understand that you do not own the resources present in the node. Gathering resources is an encouraged activity. It is never griefing to harvest a resource in any context even if it may have negative consequences for the future.
And what’s even stranger is you believe that mechanically preventing high level players from attacking low level players would help you with this perceived issue.
Competition between nodes is expected and encouraged. It is intended one node might sabotage the others so that their own can progress further. It’s no more griefing to strip out another node’s resources than is it to seige a node or for a guild to declare war on another guild. You can freely attempt to drive players away, at risk to you, and at risk to them.
Not all actions that bring negative consequences to other players are griefing as defined by Steven.
Corruption is designed to prevent meaningless PKing, not to prevent all PKing over resources or locations.
Remember that resource gathering in the area of a node helps that node advance. Therefore, if people from Node A go and gather resources in Node B, then Node B is moving towards the next higher level.
If I were mayor of Node A, I would encourage my own citizens to gather resources around my node and I would also encourage citizens of Node B & C & D & E to all come gather my resources since that advances my node ahead of theirs!
Comments
It should probably be clarified that decreased PvP strength and gear drop aren't intended to be immediate. You have to kill a decent amount of greens before you get there. If you die to the first green you killed you aren't losing your gear. You probably aren't red after death either but we don't know how many deaths it takes to wash off corruption.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Thats incorrect @JustVine
Same story of decreased PvP Efficacy. It scales up with increased corruption, but is applied starting at the first point of corruption you gain.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Here the direct source for reference.
https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/256164085366915072/992838834419142686
A citation from player flagging led me to this clip;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=33m26s&v=H0LQSMT83L0&feature=youtu.be
Asmon: So you have to do a lot of pking in order to lose (your) stuff right?
Steven: Yeah. (Procceeds to explain the life time kill system.)
Due to the way discord works I don't know if that message was more recent than this Asmongold interview. But when messaging is inconsistent and IS themselves say it's subject to change, it's harder to have meaningful discussion.
It would therefore be more accurate for me to have said 'The risk and penalties are low on first kill and we don't know the specifics of the system. Given inconsistent presentation of past data this is a part of the system that could change a lot to the point of no risk of gear loss if it is your first green kill.'
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I'm not doubting the citation. It's even on that page. But it isn't #52 so I just thought it was odd. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/images/thumb/d/d8/pvp_corruption_duration.png/350px-pvp_corruption_duration.png This is citation 52 on the corruption page.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Having to spend time to get rid of the corruption is also punishment, now I'll admit I am not too well informed on if this is how it works, but will you gain exp until the corruption is cleared? if not, that is a pretty significant punishment, correct me if I am wrong.
I already did that though
@hleV I've quoted you in this already
If red's penalty is supposed to include being unable to even kill in self-defense, then going by that logic, purples/BHs should also count as victims against a corrupted, just like greens are (even if they're the ones attacking).
I'm not talking victim PvE greens who mind their own business here, but aggressive greens, who don't even have the choice of flagging purple to reduce their own penalty in case they die. What purpose does it serve that only against greens specifically reds are penalized additionally but not others? It makes no sense, and I have yet to hear anyone addressing this specifically: that this rule only applies for reds vs greens only, when it would serve just as well for reds vs purples/BHs as well. I wouldn't want that, but at least it would make sense if the devs actually wanted reds to be penalized like that. It's an inconsistency that shouldn't be there.
If corrupted can continue to freely kill purples/BHs, even though "they're evil criminals who should be punished and normal rules don't apply to them", then they should be allowed to kill in self-defense against greens.
This is why people are saying there is no issue to solve as that is intended to be like that in order to prevent as much chaotic pvp between players. Though you have some punishments for being red though the main is how uncomfortable it is suppose to make you feel having no choice but to gain more corruption to defend yourself. This way it makes it so less people will be willing to flag compared if you could pk and still defend yourself, lets see that reduced the consistencies in pvp this would happen by 60% and that is their design goal.
The inconsistency is meant to be there everyone sees it and so do I, but without it pvp would greatly increase and that isn't the goal of their system. The goal is to stop that pvp from happening and have people rely on the other more social pvp systems in place.
For you to want to change the system you would need to offer a better solution, not in the way of new flag types but a solution in reducing overall chaotic pvp between singular people, which takes away from more focused social pvp.
@hleV
I think the diagram you quoted on the first page is somewhat not complete because it assumes a certain context. That context is fight near resources.
If a player kills another one who collects resources, then it becomes corrupted.
The system will punish that player not because he caused a death but because that death was caused close to where resources are being gathered.
Further away from resources the system is not applied anymore: caravans, sieges and for some reason in the ocean. I assume in the ocean there will be resources too. But maybe not.
So if we take the corrupted player away from resources and we place another skilled green player close to kill him, that green player will actually apply the punishment intended to protect the resource collection process, which the corrupted player has broken. There is no need to help even in this case the corrupted to survive if he cannot do that.
But killing and becoming corrupted is still allowed because the green player might be a "cheater", a crafter who wants to transport Tier 4 resources without paying for caravans. So if a player will figure out that somebody has valuable resources, he can try to take them and run. I think a good fighter will survive with a slight corruption. If not, then those Tier 4 materials change owner once more, but most likely not back to the greedy crafter.
For this last case, maybe the corrupted one should be able to flag the non-combatant. That is why I think that the diagram does not consider the context.
If the corruption will protect players so well, that caravans will not happen, then for sure the developers will do something with it.
What will happen if we remove the flagging system completely?
Wouldn't become a better game?
Why protect players who are supposed to be able to PvP anytime?
Or why not apply corruption to caravans too?
Why corruption works in a place and not the other one?
The rules are the rules. There's already pvp-leaning exceptions to those rules, that being literally any and all pvp events/battlegrounds in the game, which are abundant. So a single point in the rules that allow the greens to punish a murderer easier seems fair to me.
Pvp events are exempt from the corruption system exactly because they're PVP events. People who want to freely kill people w/o repercussions can permanently participate in those events and be merry. While all the pve people or just those who have had enough pvp for the day can be somewhat safe in the open world because the corruption system protects them. Yes, they can still be killed, but, as hleV has been whining about for the past several days, their killers will be severely punished.
1. If you remove the flagging system then there are no penalties or deterrents to PKing and griefing, creating a hostile environment.
2. No it would not become a better game when all incoming players could be smacked down by max level players with no negative consequences to those PKing players.
3. Players, especially at lower levels, need some system in place to prevent the halting of their progress by other players. Rampant murderfests are not going to draw in new players for the same reason people generally don’t move into the worst parts of town unless they have no other choice.
4. Launching a caravan is a declaration that you accept the risk of being attacked. Building and launching a ship likewise is a declaration you accept the risk of being attacked. These are active choices made with this knowledge in mind, and are opt-in scenarios. That means they function within the corruption system insofar as signing onto a caravan is functionally the same as flagging yourself as a combatant, for the duration of the caravan’s travel.
5. Corruption is specifically in place to reign in murderhobos in Open World PvP. Areas that are designed to be fought over (caravans, node wars, arenas, etc) are not part of Open World PvP, and are instead all opt-ins. Thus there’s no need to apply a system that is in place for Open World (aka non-optional) areas.
Now that I know that the NPC dealing the killing blow is ok, I feel that things are as they should be.
Tier 3 and Tier 4 resources will have mobs around them.
Only if a player already won the fight against them will be somewhat protected but not much.
If the Tier 4 resource is very rare, no corruption will stop a late arrival to the battle scene to kill that player and take that resource.
Yes but people can team to defend against other players just like during caravans.
What you call PKing and griefing I call defending resource location against thieves. Especially when gatherers harvest scarce resources too often and cause them to stop spawning increasing the scarcity.
In this context I see those who want to harvest too often as greedy.
What if a node sends gatherers into another node's area across the map, to cause shortage fast? They can harvest and throw resources away. Or delete them in the inventory if that is possible. Isn't that griefing? Griefing of well organized citizens.
Leveling up will happen somehow. Other rules can be introduced, where low level players and high level players are not able to harm each-other and also low levels to be unable to harvest Tier 4 materials. Else bots will do that very fast too.
To want to change the system you need to think in its purpose and how it affects other aspects of the game. So a solution is needed. I suppose making the penalties be even worst could be another thing to the point people don't actively do it, and greatly increasing the time it takes to work off corruption to a minimum of 20 min.
What the hell did I just read?
You have been told that this system was working on another mmo since 2003.
You are the one "focused on this baseless assumption" that greens will grief red players and so red players should not get more corruption for killing aggressive greens.
Now in order to accomodate your baseless assumption, you want to increase the % of other penalties?
No, the Devs dont have to provide to you your suggested changes, because there is no issue to be fixed.
Again, the corruption system AS IT IS worked in another mmo since 2003.
Either you didn’t read my post or you wildly misinterpreted what I wrote.
You aren’t “defending an area from thieves” if you’re attacking low level players trying to gather resources or complete a quest. None of the open world “belongs” to a player or group in the way a caravan belongs to the group that launched it. If you kill someone over your own misguided notion that you “own” an open-world area, then you are a PKer and the game will treat you as such.
Why in the world would Intrepid start messing around with untested experimental deterrents with mechanics that change from level to level, when we have a method that we know works across multiple games and doesn’t require mechanics lockouts on your characters?
Restricting character choices is never going to go over well, and corruption systems are the best compromise to balance player agency and fairness in a healthy way.
No it’s not. No resources “belong” to anyone. The exp of gathering is still going to your node because it happens in your node’s territory. What they do is quite literally no different than someone gathering resources for their guild to use, your node wouldn’t see it either way. They don’t need your node’s approval to use resources they gathered as they wish. You are free to fight over them, and those players would prefer to defend themselves because otherwise they just wasted their time in the node doing your work for you.
I really don’t understand this myth going around that staying green is a good choice. Flagging purple halves every death penalty you would face. Corruption can be worked off through allies and mobs. None of these penalties or boons are anything more than ways to balance the risks and rewards of attacking players who reached a resource before you did, to keep it from being too restrictive or lawless.
You do not want to understand.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Resources
Citizens of that node could harvest them and if they are greedy they will.
But if they will restrain themselves, then others may still come and take those resources increasing scarcity, at least in that region. So don't say they do the work for the node and the mayor will be happy for that experience. There might be other ways to get experience and still keep the resources flowing in, nearby, for local processing and then exporting them.
And those citizens are not free to fight to protect them because the corruption system prevents that. They can kill a few but not many of them.
In this context, you are just a greedy gatherer, the real griefer and you call those who want to protect the land griefers.
If no negative effects would be mentioned then I agree that resources should be harvested as fast/often as possible to maximize output on the entire map for the greater good of all 10k players.
Once resources run out, war starts. Not for fun but for resources.
Surveying is not just for the people from that region.
Again, you are failing to understand that you do not own the resources present in the node. Gathering resources is an encouraged activity. It is never griefing to harvest a resource in any context even if it may have negative consequences for the future.
And what’s even stranger is you believe that mechanically preventing high level players from attacking low level players would help you with this perceived issue.
Competition between nodes is expected and encouraged. It is intended one node might sabotage the others so that their own can progress further. It’s no more griefing to strip out another node’s resources than is it to seige a node or for a guild to declare war on another guild. You can freely attempt to drive players away, at risk to you, and at risk to them.
Not all actions that bring negative consequences to other players are griefing as defined by Steven.
Corruption is designed to prevent meaningless PKing, not to prevent all PKing over resources or locations.
If I were mayor of Node A, I would encourage my own citizens to gather resources around my node and I would also encourage citizens of Node B & C & D & E to all come gather my resources since that advances my node ahead of theirs!