A 4th player-combat-flagging-status

I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power
So what am I suggesting? Make a 4th player combat flagging status. Where a non-combatant who engages a corrupted doesn't give more corruption upon being killed, but also isn't flagged fully as a combatant, so someone else who isn't corrupted could still become corrupted from attacking them. Could call it vigilante status or something.
Why? Because the only ones who should grant corruption are the ones who aren't fighting back against you.

The other more simple solution is to make anyone attacking someone a combatant regardless of if the player has corruption or not, but that opens up players to being taken out by a corrupted players friends once they are flagged as combatant, hence my suggestion.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Ludullu

Ravicus wrote: »

I don't know why, but factions popped into my brain. Possibly factions could give reason for pk via factional enemies. Kind of like guilds at war, but this would cater to more of the loner who could join npc factions. I dunno, just spitballing.

Faction-based systems is literally the reason why people hate pvp in mmos. WoW has taught people that PKing anyone for "good reasons, based on factions" is a normal thing. And in most faction-based games it is a normal thing. But this doesn't fall under the honor PKing mentality, because the game doesn't stop you from killing the other side's noobs. If anything, it'll probably even award you for doing so.

Ashes will already have node and guild wars that will allow for endless PKing of the "right" people. But even this still doesn't pertain to the honor PKing ideas of design. Which is why I asked my question.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.

Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?

Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).

I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.

But generally:

-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.

-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.

- I have already established I believe that the griefing itself should be what is punished with corruption, not acts such as fighting those who are attacking you.

- Perhaps a flagging of outsider node citizens would be flagged to the node where the scenario of anti environmental management is taking place. So if an outsider gathers materials, they are flagged to that nodes citizens. Gives risk to gathering in enemy nodes, enables an OW PvP objective for the nodes citizens to defend. If its too open ended, mayors could even have the ability to mark a certain amount and type of resources in the node allowed and not allowed to be taken, marking certain things with a warning that will flag those outside players, or even the citizens themselves. This could potentially also help manage players clearing out mobs to grief low level players.

- I do believe some things wont be able to be worked around unless GMs get involved, such as friends killing their corrupted friends so they dont lose gear. I suggested awhile ago that to deter this, half of the materials a corrupted player drops should just be destroyed, some hate this because its less loot for whoever kills them, but its also a guarantee that even if their friends kill them, they are losing. I even suggested that instead of dropping gear itself, the gear dropped is salvaged into materials akin to its power. That way if a friend still kills them, they still lost that item.

- PvE griefing would be incredibly hard to track as far as I can tell. But maybe if you aggro a mob, they somehow become linked with you, and if they switch to a different target before they leash and you dont assist that person with a certain amount of dps or heals, it could count as corruption. This may be able to utilize whatever system they are using to track damage of raid bosses for which raid group does the most damage and gets the loot.

- Add a tier system to Corruption. Each tier having progressively worse punishments and taking longer to reduce. You could even have it where they dont necessarily reduce the tier as you work it off, they just stay at the highest point until killed or worked off. That may even out your issue with my argument for defending oneself. Obviously certain kills will progress a player much quicker into corruption rather than something as simple as a few same level kills spread out enough or against different players.

- Group corruption is a tough one, because this can be griefed itself in a large fight. the 4 flagging status would mostly prevent the need for this, because if you killed the player attacking a corrupted player, you would still gain corruption. I do also believe a player healing a corrupted player should gain some corruption, or just not be able to. This would also prevent groups from just fast tracking a corrupted player working off their corruption in a dungeon or something.

- I think the stat debuffs of a corrupted player should start as a small but noticeable one, and ramp up relatively quickly. These dont translate over to fighting bounty hunters from what I remember, but I am thinking once a corrupted player hits mid tier corruption, fighting a normally even matched player should be something they want to avoid at all costs.

Thats all I have for now as far as context goes. Let me know what you think. especially the 7th one

Depraved

Dolyem wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.

Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?

Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).

I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.

But generally:

-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.

-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.

so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it?

remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.

Solvryn

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.

Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?

Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).

Yeah, I'm actually working on that. I don't want to take away the corruption system (albeit I do want to rename it because the corruption flavor left when they took it off the ocean), but I've been looking at ways to expand it.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

Thats all I have for now as far as context goes. Let me know what you think. especially the 7th one

My main problem with this is coding it all into one simple-to-understand system

Yeah, those are some reasonable details that might make the overall interactions between players better, but considering the confusion of people who've never experienced L2's system - I feel like even if Intrepid manages to somehow implement all of your suggestions into one wholistic system, people will just call it too confusing and then complain when they suffer at the hands of PKers, who understand the system well, or they themselves become PKers for a seemingly unknown reason.

The current system is dumb easy at its core. You had the last hit on a green player - you're fucked. That's it. No overcomplications, no intricate details, no real confusion.

As for your 7th suggestion, it just sounds like a more granular PK count. In theory it would probably be a good addition to the system. But I feel like in practice it would require the player nameplates to give us as much info about the target as possible, cause otherwise players wouldn't know who they're killing and why they got the consequences that they did.

Dolyem

Depraved wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.

Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?

Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).

I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.

But generally:

-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.

-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.

so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it?

remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.

I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter.

Veeshan

IMO you should be flagged as combatant no matter who you attack if you hit back you consent for a fight the only exception i think should be bounty hunter hitting a corrupted player however killing a bounty hunter shouldnt give further corruption if you are corrupted already.
I would even argue killing bounty hunter reduces your corruption slightly to incentives fighting back instead prioritising running away if you come across one.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Thats all I have for now as far as context goes. Let me know what you think. especially the 7th one

My main problem with this is coding it all into one simple-to-understand system Yeah, those are some reasonable details that might make the overall interactions between players better, but considering the confusion of people who've never experienced L2's system - I feel like even if Intrepid manages to somehow implement all of your suggestions into one wholistic system, people will just call it too confusing and then complain when they suffer at the hands of PKers, who understand the system well, or they themselves become PKers for a seemingly unknown reason.

The current system is dumb easy at its core. You had the last hit on a green player - you're fucked. That's it. No overcomplications, no intricate details, no real confusion.

As for your 7th suggestion, it just sounds like a more granular PK count. In theory it would probably be a good addition to the system. But I feel like in practice it would require the player nameplates to give us as much info about the target as possible, cause otherwise players wouldn't know who they're killing and why they go the consequences that they did.

I mean simple is good, but if you keep it too simple with corruption as it is, you're inadvertently making an on-the-fly opt-in PvP game, which will kill OW PvP. Its more or less impossible to have a simple system that separates griefing PKs from non-griefing PKs.

I do agree that coding will be a lot to ask from Intrepid. And as far as players being able to understand the system, just have a quick reference for what gives corruption and how much, as well as an explanation of the tiers. The rest of the game is already a lot to take in, so I don't see why you have to make corruption for dummies.

And I have talked a lot about nameplate info for PvP. This could be as simple as using yellow, orange, and red to show a players tiers of corruption. Yellow could be Tier 1-2, orange 3-4, and red 5-6. At least as a quick recognition feature.

HumblePuffin

Dolyem wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.

Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?

Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).

I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.

But generally:

-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.

-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.

so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it?

remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.

I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter.

Not exactly:

PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1]

Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4]

This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red.

Dolyem

HumblePuffin wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.

Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?

Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).

I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.

But generally:

-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.

-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.

so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it?

remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.

I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter.

Not exactly:

PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1]

Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4]

This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red.

Oh god, where did you find that? Thats a permanent increase to corruption gain for every kill you get. This alone will completely remove OW PvP within a month if you can't get rid of those.

Dolyem

A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future.[7][4]
This is a design shift from a religious quest being used to directly reduce the corruption score.

So a completely separate quest from working off your corruption is needed to reduce your PK score. I can't wait to set this one ablaze in testing.

HumblePuffin

It does say you may be able to work them off as well.

It may be possible to reduce this value through certain quests and/or consumables.[1]
A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future.[2][3]

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Definition:PK_value

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

I mean simple is good, but if you keep it too simple with corruption as it is, you're inadvertently making an on-the-fly opt-in PvP game, which will kill OW PvP. Its more or less impossible to have a simple system that separates griefing PKs from non-griefing PKs.

I know it's kind of a meme at this point, but it worked in L2

We still had people fighting each other even outside of guild wars and we still didn't have all that many PKers. Especially not that many "true PKers" who'd just kill anyone and everyone.

This mainly relied on the simplicity of the system, relatively short times of removing corruption and later on relative ease of decreasing your PK count. And those last two things are the exact stuff that can be tweaked and tested to make the system fit Steven's vision of "some PKing, but no griefing".

If anything, I think that complicating the PK count side of things would be fine, because that's the more intricate part of the system already. It could account for node allegiances or mayor-placed markers, it could account for incoming attacks from greens and not go up if you retaliate. All that good stuff that would be tested in A2.

HumblePuffin wrote: »

This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red.

Yeah, which is why I think that corruption gain values should be somewhat low, but PK count should increase them by quite a lot, the higher it is.

And count decreasement should be costly, both in money and in time. Those who PK very rarely can afford to spend some time/money, say, once a month to reduce their count back to zero. While those who want to keep PKing randomly would have to constantly refarm all the money/mats for the reduction and spend a ton of time on the process itself - hence reducing their griefing portion of the gameplay.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future.[7][4]
This is a design shift from a religious quest being used to directly reduce the corruption score.

So a completely separate quest from working off your corruption is needed to reduce your PK score. I can't wait to set this one ablaze in testing.

I feel like you really didn't read up on the system before making the OP

Yet, again this is exactly how it was in L2 and it worked.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

I know it's kind of a meme at this point, but it worked in L2 We still had people fighting each other even outside of guild wars and we still didn't have all that many PKers. Especially not that many "true PKers" who'd just kill anyone and everyone.

This mainly relied on the simplicity of the system, relatively short times of removing corruption and later on relative ease of decreasing your PK count. And those last two things are the exact stuff that can be tweaked and tested to make the system fit Steven's vision of "some PKing, but no griefing".

If anything, I think that complicating the PK count side of things would be fine, because that's the more intricate part of the system already. It could account for node allegiances or mayor-placed markers, it could account for incoming attacks from greens and not go up if you retaliate. All that good stuff that would be tested in A2.

Yea no matter what it is going to get tested to see what the real problems are. But I stand by what I say will be issues. I do plan to specifically test these if you are down for getting together and running some scenarios.

NiKr wrote: »

Yeah, which is why I think that corruption gain values should be somewhat low, but PK count should increase them by quite a lot, the higher it is.

And count decreasement should be costly, both in money and in time. Those who PK very rarely can afford to spend some time/money, say, once a month to reduce their count back to zero. While those who want to keep PKing randomly would have to constantly refarm all the money/mats for the reduction and spend a ton of time on the process itself - hence reducing their griefing portion of the gameplay.

Honestly I think PK count should be per instance of corruption, not overall PK count. Once you work it off or are killed, reset it. Otherwise you are going to have people get to a point where they just dont ever go red ever again, and that is a bad thing because that means no OW PvP engagements. Like, oh I have to go spend a crap load of time and money because I smacked 30 gathers from other nodes ruining my nodes environment management over the course of a month, and now when I kill one of them I have corruption for 3 days? I love OW PvP and I can say, I would never bother flagging if that becomes the case, even with an army of PvE griefers before me. Because I will be wasting gold and time to keep up with it all. And I wouldnt even be griefing.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future.[7][4]
This is a design shift from a religious quest being used to directly reduce the corruption score.

So a completely separate quest from working off your corruption is needed to reduce your PK score. I can't wait to set this one ablaze in testing.

I feel like you really didn't read up on the system before making the OP

Yet, again this is exactly how it was in L2 and it worked.

I mean, thats hidden in a quote on the corruption page. All I got the first time I read it was "youll get more corruption as you continue to kill players" not "This score doesnt decrease once youre not corrupted"

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

Honestly I think PK count should be per instance of corruption, not overall PK count. Once you work it off or are killed, reset it. Otherwise you are going to have people get to a point where they just dont ever go red ever again, and that is a bad thing because that means no OW PvP engagements. Like, oh I have to go spend a crap load of time and money because I smacked 30 gathers from other nodes ruining my nodes environment management over the course of a month, and now when I kill one of them I have corruption for 3 days? I love OW PvP and I can say, I would never bother flagging if that becomes the case, even with an army of PvE griefers before me. Because I will be wasting gold and time to keep up with it all. And I wouldnt even be griefing.

I mean, if those 30 gatherers were from the same node - wardec it. If they were the same (or a few) person - enemy of the state them.

If they somehow were people from all across the server who just so magically managed to come to your node and overfarm it exactly in such a way where you had to PK them all at least once a day - I feel like there should be a separate social org that allows to stop the gathering process of a target, if you're deep enough into that org's progress. Cause otherwise I see no point in having hardcore corruption punishments when the game encourages you to kill others for overfarming your node.

In other words, I'd need to learn more about other game systems that might encourage PKing before having the final say on its balancing. L2 was easy in this manner because there were only mobs. We'll have to see what Intrepid comes up with.

Depraved

Dolyem wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.

Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?

Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).

I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.

But generally:

-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.

-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.

so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it?

remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.

I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter.

then there is no point..i could spend 10 hours killing you, as long as i cleanse the corruption first.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

I mean, thats hidden in a quote on the corruption page. All I got the first time I read it was "youll get more corruption as you continue to kill players" not "This score doesnt decrease once youre not corrupted"

I meaaaaaaan

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I mean, thats hidden in a quote on the corruption page. All I got the first time I read it was "youll get more corruption as you continue to kill players" not "This score doesnt decrease once youre not corrupted"

I meaaaaaaan

I mean, I saw PK value, and thought "yea, that make sense, the number of PKs that corrupted player accrued increasing the corruption as they go" never even would have guessed theyd go as extreme as "EVERY KILL YOU EVER GOT COUNTS TOWARD EVERY OTHER KILL YOU GET! HA!" lmao. Just another thing to chalk up to corruption being too extreme as it currently is. But like you said. Testing awaits.

Child Item