A 4th player-combat-flagging-status

Depraved wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

hleV wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

PvEers will not play this game.

PvEers, especially PvE griefers, will have a field day in AoC if the corruption system remains as is.

PvE players want a great PvE experience not just the ability to survive in a PvP world. Or to grief PvPers.

PvP players want a great PvP experience not just the ability to survive in a PvE world. Or to grief PvEers.

They got the deep ocean and even on land, the footprint of the node after siege, to fight for loot.
But PvE-ers got nothing.
In this thread we talk about ganker PvP-ers vs gatherers PvP-ers.
You cannot sell this game to PvE-ers telling them to go collect resources like bots, even if they get more protection.

Not sure why Steven is sensitive to big youtubers. Does he really think he can bring many PvE players into the game?

I've seen yesterday an old post, which explains that Steven thinks sandbox games are made with little curated content. So starting from a PvP concept, tries to make it more attractive by adding caravans, sieges, guild wars... and calls the game a themebox.

pvers have everything. you have to pve in this game to progress. there isnt a progression path in this game that you can do withot pve. you might have to pvp sometimes during that progression though, or you might just talk to people and ally them. that is up to player. other players can be an obstacle which turns the game into a pvx experience.

if you want to do just pve and 0 pvp..oh well sucks to suck

I don't know how leveling will be in AoC.
If you say it is an important aspect for PvEers, I will take your word and hope IS makes a good job with the story to attract many players. Maybe that's why they say we will have a "comfortable" number of character slots.

Dolyem wrote: »

Sure, but with that change you'd get rid of OWPvP and a lot of risk vs reward as a result, so it's extremely unlikely if not impossible that he would go the full on opt-in route

I mean... Steven considers The Open Seas to be opt-in. That's open world.
Sieges and Caravans are also opt-in. Those are open world.

Raven016 wrote: »

I've seen yesterday an old post, which explains that Steven thinks sandbox games are made with little curated content. So starting from a PvP concept, tries to make it more attractive by adding caravans, sieges, guild wars... and calls the game a themebox.

It's not the Meaningful Conflict that makes Ashes a Themebox.
What makes Ashes a Themebox rather than a Sandbox is the dev curated stories and events; not the player-driven stories and events.

Dygz wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

I've seen yesterday an old post, which explains that Steven thinks sandbox games are made with little curated content. So starting from a PvP concept, tries to make it more attractive by adding caravans, sieges, guild wars... and calls the game a themebox.

It's not the Meaningful Conflict that makes Ashes a Themebox.
What makes Ashes a Themebox rather than a Sandbox is the dev curated stories and events; not the player-driven stories and events.

Indeed. I checked again and I misunderstood.
I am curious now how this themebox concept will be, if players will love it.

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

just regular open areas may be a much different experience unless respawns displace you in a similar manner, which I am not against.

Which is intended, because open areas would most likely be the places that majority of casual/non-pvp players will attend. And if PKers have issues easily PKing there - it's a win for the casuals and a win for Steven's goal of reduced griefing.

This is only a win if it is deterring griefing without also making a non-griefing kill a death sentence in terms of punishment. I'd actually be fine with shorter death runs in open areas as opposed to dungeons, but I'd still say any non-combatant engaging a corrupted player should not reward more corruption. But the shorter run back adds for much more urgency on the corrupteds part out in the open. Where in the dungeon you are much more inclined to defend yourself should you get engaged by other players.

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

In my words I refer to it as a certain amount of non-combatant kills within a small amount of time against a single player. You could get 10 PKs, all against different players in 30 minutes, that isn't griefing. Do all of that to a single player in 30 minutes, thats camping, which is griefing. Repetition requires the same variable over and over. With my earlier suggestion of variable corruption through tiers, you could potentially utilize a system that accumulates how many times you enter a Tier of corruption that could be designated as qualification to be a griefer at that point, increasing the amount of corruption you gain in that way and having to work that off instead. In that way you'd be able to differentiate PvPers from griefers, deter griefing specifically, and with those limitations in place you would also be theoretically spacing out non-combatant kills enough to maintain a healthy OWPvP system, and also prevent/deter PVE players from getting griefed by a player. Let me know what you think of this.

Imo this kind of system heavily benefits pvers, while still allowing for griefing but on an even bigger scale.

Say there's a group of casual players just doing their stuff, minding their own business. And there's a PKer dick who wants to mess with them. The PKer has a glass cannon character with low-mid tier gear, that he has multiple sets of.

In your system the PKer would be able to just come to the location of that party and kill them all w/o really gaining all that much corruption. And he could potentially do so multiple times (depending on your limit for what counts as griefing by the game). Hell, if your timers are somewhat short, he could cycle the victims in such a way that the "grief detector" doesn't even trigger, because his first victim was killed enough time ago for it to not be considered a repeated offense.

The character would obviously lose stats and potentially some gear, but the PKer has a ton of that gear and a build that allows him to die several times w/o becoming completely useless in battle. And considering that "non-griefing" kills would give lower amounts of corruption (in your system, if I understand it correctly), he wouldn't even have to die all that many times. Even if he "de-lvls" several times, his build will still allow him to kill the victims. And, once again, PKing means no retaliation, so you wouldn't even need all that much dmg.

But in the current system he'd, at best, make 5-6 kills and would already start feeling the effects. He'd have to die multiple times after each kill, so his decent into reduced stats would be much faster. His high amount of corruption after a single kill would also immediately mean that he might not even be able to kill another player.

Also also! In your suggestion, those casuals wouldn't even be able to properly defend themselves because the PKer might be skilled enough to kill anyone who attacks him when he's red. And he wouldn't even gain more corruption, because you consider that a bad thing for this system.

And as for the "benefit" I mentioned at the start, this system pretty much creates karmabombing for anyone who'd be willing to PK others several times instead of winning against them through pve.

The pver would just keep dying and returning to the same location. Pver doesn't care that his farm is not optimal, so completely removing his attacker from the location (due to a risk of getting recognized as a griefer by the system) would be the preferable way.

You could probably add some type of counter to such an action in the form of a movement tracker, where the victim would be tracked to see whether they kept returning to die at the hands of the same person, but I feel like this would complicate things even futher than your suggestion already does

And I know that the current system allows for karmabombing as well, but imo it also pushes PKing pvpers to try and win through pve.

Your system won't have consequences outside of singular interactions (repeatable kills within a timeframe being one of them) and it also allows for small genocides of groups. So any PKing pvper would see that and think "ah, so I can kill quite a few people and repeat that several times across a longer time period w/o getting properly punished, cool".

Current system would stop that line of thought at a fairly low number of PKs (well, if I my preferred balancing was implemented). So those same PKers would know immediately that PKing someone a few times would have a long-lasting impact on their gameplay, so it would be silly to even attempt it (obviously some still will).

In other words, my preferred system would force both sides to submit to the system rather than try to push for its extremes because it seems like a good idea. PKers would be crippled relatively fast and would be made to pve their way out of their PK count, while pvers would still be benefited (due to the overall lessened repetition of PKing) but could still be forcefully PKed from time to time.

Obviously the balancing would be a pretty tightrope walk of a design, but that's kinda inevitable when you're trying to appease both sides.

To clarify, kills would also have variables in my system as well. And to be honest, while I don't consider 10 separate players being killed as griefing, I'd say that in order to maintain a sense of balance, I'd simply have them ramp a bit. So for example, for each consecutive non-combatant PK you get within a certain time, let's say within 10 minutes of the last kill, each one ramps up the next in terms of corruption and resets that timer, so if you go on a spree, you exponentially ramp your corruption if you dont rake a breather. So you wouldn't necessarily be able to just go clear out an area en masse easily. It's also a low enough time to not be crazy restrictive. And it still allows for a player not griefing, to not be punished as badly as a griefer. This is one of several variables obviously but either way, I think we both agree that there should be more than just "kill the non-combatant and you're in serious trouble". But I will say after reading through some of Steven's quotes again, he seems to have an outlook more along the lines of 20ish kills before a corrupted player really starts to feel the penalties which is surprising.

And as a side-note. A PKer isn't a dick, only a griefer is.

And also, if a player with corruption is still able to outplay someone of equal level, then more power to that corrupted player they earned it.

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Sure, but with that change you'd get rid of OWPvP and a lot of risk vs reward as a result, so it's extremely unlikely if not impossible that he would go the full on opt-in route

I mean... Steven considers The Open Seas to be opt-in. That's open world.
Sieges and Caravans are also opt-in. Those are open world.

Opt-in in the sense that you are knowingly signing up for those. You don't get to decide how you are flagged in any of those. You can't hop into a caravan fight as a non-combatant. And this further proves my point of a possibility of an unintentional opt-in system if corruption is too strict. If you make it where engaging is too punishing, PvP is no longer a large risk in Open World. It needs to have risks in and of itself, but those need to be near equal to the risk of doing nothing.

Um. I don't really understand how a Non-Combatant fights unless it's against a monster.
If a Green enters the zoi of a Caravan, they can choose to flag as a Defender or Attacker.
And Corruption does not apply to Caravan raids.

There is already a plan to tweak Corruption so that it does not feel so punishing that the Bounty Hunter system is useless.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

And as a side-note. A PKer isn't a dick, only a griefer is.

Yeah, that's what I meant. A dude whose entire purpose is to just fuck people over.

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

And as a side-note. A PKer isn't a dick, only a griefer is.

Yeah, that's what I meant. A dude who's entire purpose is to just fuck people over.

Dygz wrote: »

Um. I don't really understand how a Non-Combatant fights unless it's against a monster.
If a Green enters the zoi of a Caravan, they can choose to flag as a Defender or Attacker.
And Corruption does not apply to Caravan raids.

There is already a plan to tweak Corruption so that it does not feel so punishing that the Bounty Hunter system is useless.

To be involved in the event, you must become a combatant. You can't be involved as either a non-combatant or a combatant, so to say you are opting for a status for this is more or less a cope. You would just as easily be able to do this on a PVE server. It has no real relation to the OWPvP flagging system. As for Open Ocean, its simply a lawless part of the world, there's no regulation to moderate griefing there which severely increases the risk factor, though I do have another idea to add a bit more risk there which I will pitch if it feels needed after some testing. Compared to the mainland, that is regulated with corruption to deter griefing gameplay, which as it is currently designed is walking a thin line between a system to keep OWPvP interactions balanced and fun, or overcompensating and outright turning PvP on the mainland into a death sentence. But I trust with enough testing it will indeed end up in a comfortable place that allows for sufficient PvP engagement and encouragement, while deterring players from griefing. But I will still toss ideas out there since I do believe that corruption as it is currently explained, needs a lot of work.

Dolyem wrote: »

To be involved in the event, you must become a combatant. You can't be involved as either a non-combatant or a combatant, so to say you are opting for a status for this is more or less a cope.

Right. By default everyone is a Non-Combatant.
If you want to defend or attack a Caravan, you have to opt-in to the PvP.
By design, an option pops-up which allows you to opt-in or ignore.

Dolyem wrote: »

You would just as easily be able to do this on a PVE server. It has no real relation to the OWPvP flagging system.

You could just as easily have that mechanic in a game like NWO or NW. I'm not sure that a PvE-Only server would include this type of PvP.
Meaningful Conflict (Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars) have little-to-no relation to the Corruption flagging system. I think we agree.

Dolyem wrote: »

As for Open Ocean, its simply a lawless part of the world, there's no regulation to moderate griefing there which severely increases the risk factor, though I do have another idea to add a bit more risk there which I will pitch if it feels needed after some testing.

Dolyem wrote: »

Compared to the mainland, that is regulated with corruption to deter griefing gameplay, which as it is currently designed is walking a thin line between a system to keep OWPvP interactions balanced and fun, or overcompensating and outright turning PvP on the mainland into a death sentence. But I trust with enough testing it will indeed end up in a comfortable place that allows for sufficient PvP engagement and encouragement, while deterring players from griefing. But I will still toss ideas out there since I do believe that corruption as it is currently explained, needs a lot of work.

Corruption doesn't turn PvP on the mainland into a death sentence - rather it strongly incentivizes PvPers to kill Combatants, rather than Non-Combatants. Meaningful Conflict is a much less risky path than PKing Greens.

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

To be involved in the event, you must become a combatant. You can't be involved as either a non-combatant or a combatant, so to say you are opting for a status for this is more or less a cope.

Right. By default everyone is a Non-Combatant.
If you want to defend or attack a Caravan, you have to opt-in to the PvP.
By design, an option pops-up which allows you to opt-in or ignore.

Dolyem wrote: »

You would just as easily be able to do this on a PVE server. It has no real relation to the OWPvP flagging system.

You could just as easily have that mechanic in a game like NWO or NW. I'm not sure that a PvE-Only server would include this type of PvP.
Meaningful Conflict (Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars) have little-to-no relation to the Corruption flagging system. I think we agree.

Dolyem wrote: »

As for Open Ocean, its simply a lawless part of the world, there's no regulation to moderate griefing there which severely increases the risk factor, though I do have another idea to add a bit more risk there which I will pitch if it feels needed after some testing.

OK

Dolyem wrote: »

Compared to the mainland, that is regulated with corruption to deter griefing gameplay, which as it is currently designed is walking a thin line between a system to keep OWPvP interactions balanced and fun, or overcompensating and outright turning PvP on the mainland into a death sentence. But I trust with enough testing it will indeed end up in a comfortable place that allows for sufficient PvP engagement and encouragement, while deterring players from griefing. But I will still toss ideas out there since I do believe that corruption as it is currently explained, needs a lot of work.

Corruption doesn't turn PvP on the mainland into a death sentence - rather it strongly incentivizes PvPers to kill Combatants, rather than Non-Combatants. Meaningful Conflict is a much less risky path than PKing Greens.

You can opt-in to an event sure. Its like queueing up for a battleground. This is completely different from having a system that happens on a whim, where the only objective you have is the one that you have decided for yourself. There is no pop-up for OWPvP. There is only your choice to kill or not, and your ability to do so. My point I've been trying to make is that if you don't keep a relatively equal punishment for doing nothing, you are qllowing players to opt-out of PvP because there may not be enough risk. Inadvertently creating an opt-in system for OWPvP.

And just to iterate, corruption and OWPvP are also on the list of meaningful conflict. You just aren't meant to be able to avoid or engage in it without proper risk

Currently we dont know if corruption is a death sentence or not, we simply know what it is intended to be. Corruption is meant to disincentivize griefing. Just because someone decides to stand there and OPT-OUT of the PvP system doesnt mean the one who engaged should be deemed a horrible griefing player. Sure they should get some punishment to add to the risk, but not the punishment meant for a griefer. The system incentivizes players to fight back, not do nothing. And I think currently, doing nothing, when you are engaged by someone of equal level I should add, incurs only a minor penalty *in comparison to the penalties they generate against others*

Dolyem wrote: »

Just because someone decides to stand there and OPT-OUT of the PvP system doesnt mean the one who engaged should be deemed a horrible griefing player. Sure they should get some punishment to add to the risk, but not the punishment meant for a griefer.

Could be a nice griefing player.
Where the griefing threshold starts is a subjective thing. And depends who and when you ask.

Dolyem wrote: »

You can opt-in to an event sure. Its like queueing up for a battleground. This is completely different from having a system that happens on a whim, where the only objective you have is the one that you have decided for yourself. There is no pop-up for OWPvP.

There is an opt-in pop-up window for OWPvP in Ashes for Caravans.

Dolyem wrote: »

There is only your choice to kill or not, and your ability to do so. My point I've been trying to make is that if you don't keep a relatively equal punishment for doing nothing, you are allowing players to opt-out of PvP because there may not be enough risk. Inadvertently creating an opt-in system for OWPvP.

That is false.
It's either Open World or an Instance.
Your point is moot. Especially because Ashes has a few different opt-in paths for OWPvP - especially from Steven's perspective.

Dolyem wrote: »

And just to iterate, corruption and OWPvP are also on the list of meaningful conflict. You just aren't meant to be able to avoid or engage in it without proper risk

I don't know what you mean by "the list of of meaningful conflict". If you mean the wiki - that is intepreted by Lex as he tries to streamline pages and make it easy for people to read.
Maybe post a quote where Steven includes Corruption as part of Meaningful Conflict.
The only PvP in Ashes that is not Open World is 20% of dungeons and maybe some Arenas.

Dolyem wrote: »

Currently we dont know if corruption is a death sentence or not, we simply know what it is intended to be.

Obviously... because it still needs to be tested.

Dolyem wrote: »

Corruption is meant to disincentivize griefing.

Corruption is meant to punish non-consensual PvP and to disincentivize griefing.

Dolyem wrote: »

Just because someone decides to stand there and OPT-OUT of the PvP system doesnt mean the one who engaged should be deemed a horrible griefing player.

What? On the mainland, there is no mechanism to opt-out of the PvP system.
You can choose to remain Green. You can choose to not fight back.
Neither of those things are the same thing as opt-out.

Dolyem wrote: »

Sure they should get some punishment to add to the risk, but not the punishment meant for a griefer.

Corruption is a punishment to disincentivize non-consensual PvP. And that punishment scales upwards with higher PK score in order to disincentivize griefing. The punishment for a couple of non-consensual PvP kills is not as severe as the penalties for becoming a murder-hobo.

Dolyem wrote: »

The system incentivizes players to fight back, not do nothing. And I think currently, doing nothing, when you are engaged by someone of equal level I should add, incurs only a minor penalty *in comparison to the penalties they generate against others*

The Corruption system incentivizes players to fight other players who are interested in fighting back.
It disincetivizes killing Greens. Especially killing numerous Greens in quick succession.
And the system encourages Greens to flag Purple, when attacked on the Mainland by other players, by halving the death penalties for flagging Purple.

"Typically, you're not going to see players ganking each other very often in the sense that they murder you because the Corruption mechanic is a fairly meaty deterrent to that, but you will potentially see players participating in PvP and I think the flagging mechanic is going to be a healthy mechanic to deterring murder but incentivizing (consensual) PvP."
---Steven

"For the most part...if I go and kill Steven, I'm not really going to gain a lot out of it to offset the risk that Corruption entails. The intention is that the risk has to be wrth the reward. So, if I'm going to go kill someone randomly, it's probably not going to be enough for me. There's got be something at stake there for that to be meaningful for me."
----Jeffrey

https://youtu.be/dT7KJT_NYEk?si=ShWWZLkL8cGYksDb&t=2572
mark 42:52

Dygz wrote: »

"Typically, you're not going to see players ganking each other very often because in the sense that they murder you because the Corruption mechanic is a fairly meaty deterrent to that, but you will potentially see players participating in PvP and I think the flagging mechanic is going to be a healthy mechanic to deterring murder but incentivizing (consensual) PvP."
---Steven

Nice!

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

You can opt-in to an event sure. Its like queueing up for a battleground. This is completely different from having a system that happens on a whim, where the only objective you have is the one that you have decided for yourself. There is no pop-up for OWPvP.

There is an opt-in pop-up window for OWPvP in Ashes for Caravans.

for a specific event that happens to be out in the world. This is an objective based event. It's no different than walking up to a battlemaster and signing up for a battleground, in this case the battlemaster happens to be moving. It's separate from true OWPvP, which are only limited to whatever subjective goals those players have. The point is, you don't have a choice to not PvP in events like caravans. You have to PvP, you can't act as a non-combatant within that format. You can choose to not play that game sure, but to even participate you must PvP.

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

There is only your choice to kill or not, and your ability to do so. My point I've been trying to make is that if you don't keep a relatively equal punishment for doing nothing, you are allowing players to opt-out of PvP because there may not be enough risk. Inadvertently creating an opt-in system for OWPvP.

That is false.
It's either Open World or an Instance.
Your point is moot. Especially because Ashes has a few different opt-in paths for OWPvP - especially from Steven's perspective.

Instanced is definitely separate, but if something such as a flagging status bars you from participation, that is just an instanced event that can be observed in the open world by non-participants.
And how is my point moot? Giving players the option to ignore half of the games content at the expense of other players trying to experience the full game as it is intended is an inadvertent Opt-in OWPVP system.

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

And just to iterate, corruption and OWPvP are also on the list of meaningful conflict. You just aren't meant to be able to avoid or engage in it without proper risk

I don't know what you mean by "the list of of meaningful conflict". If you mean the wiki - that is intepreted by Lex as he tries to streamline pages and make it easy for people to read.
Maybe post a quote where Steven includes Corruption as part of Meaningful Conflict.
The only PvP in Ashes that is not Open World is 20% of dungeons and maybe some Arenas.

If you're going to sit there and try to argue you're right by saying the Ashes wiki is wrong, you need to touch grass. It lists meaningful conflict under Risk vs Reward

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Corruption is meant to disincentivize griefing.

Corruption is meant to punish non-consensual PvP and to disincentivize griefing.

Incorrect, corruption is meant to punish griefing. There is no such thing as non-consensual PvP in a game that you log into knowing that you will be a part of PvP.

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Just because someone decides to stand there and OPT-OUT of the PvP system doesnt mean the one who engaged should be deemed a horrible griefing player.

What? On the mainland, there is no mechanism to opt-out of the PvP system.
You can choose to remain Green. You can choose to not fight back.
Neither of those things are the same thing as opt-out.

Only if there is enough risk to stay green. Currently I see there being either too little risk to stay green, or too much risk to ever engage one or kill one in a non-griefing manner. Just needs to stay balanced.

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Sure they should get some punishment to add to the risk, but not the punishment meant for a griefer.

Corruption is a punishment to disincentivize non-consensual PvP. And that punishment scales upwards with higher PK score in order to disincentivize griefing. The punishment for a couple of non-consensual PvP kills is not as severe as the penalties for becoming a murder-hobo.

The entirety of corruption is to deter griefing, its not meant to deter PvP. Again, no such thing as non-consensual PvP in Ashes. And like I said, punishing a player for last week's kills is a terrible idea, especially if the corrupted player died and paid the penalty. I made a compromise suggestion saying that if someone did not die during corruption you could have that be a factor, but if they don't get away with it, keep letting it pile up, forcing players to pay their dues eventually if they don't pay them through putting in time to reduce them. Keeps the focus on griefers instead of the low PKs revolving around non-griefing.

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

The system incentivizes players to fight back, not do nothing. And I think currently, doing nothing, when you are engaged by someone of equal level I should add, incurs only a minor penalty *in comparison to the penalties they generate against others*

The Corruption system incentivizes players to fight other players who are interested in fighting back.
It disincetivizes killing Greens. Especially killing numerous Greens in quick succession.
And the system encourages Greens to flag Purple, when attacked on the Mainland by other players, by halving the death penalties for flagging Purple.

"Typically, you're not going to see players ganking each other very often because in the sense that they murder you because the Corruption mechanic is a fairly meaty deterrent to that, but you will potentially see players participating in PvP and I think the flagging mechanic is going to be a healthy mechanic to deterring murder but incentivizing (consensual) PvP."
---Steven

"For the most part...if I go and kill Steven, I'm not really going to gain a lot out of it to offset the risk that Corruption entails. The intention is that the risk has to be wrth the reward. So, if I'm going to go kill someone randomly, it's probably not going to be enough for me. There's got be something at stake there for that to be meaningful for me."
----Jeffrey

https://youtu.be/dT7KJT_NYEk?si=ShWWZLkL8cGYksDb&t=2572
mark 42:52

The corruption system is currently supposed to ONLY deter griefing. But as it currently is I do think it unintentionally offers too much protection against non-combatant non-griefing kills.

The entire idea of disincentivizing attacking non-combatants is simultaneously disincentivizing engaging in OWPvP.

Dolyem wrote: »

for a specific event that happens to be out in the world.

For PvP events in the Open World. Yes. We agree.
Open World PvP events are opt-in.

Dolyem wrote: »

It's separate from true OWPvP, which are only limited to whatever subjective goals those players have. The point is, you don't have a choice to not PvP in events like caravans. You have to PvP, you can't act as a non-combatant within that format. You can choose to not play that game sure, but to even participate you must PvP.

True Open World PvP is PvP that takes place in the Open World rather than in an instance.
We literally do have a choice to not PvP in events like Caravans. There is literall a pop-up window for people in the vicinity to choose Defend/Attack/Ignore.
I don't know what "act as a Non-Combatant" is supposed to mean.
You can opt-in to participate in Caravan PvP. Yes. That happens if you choose Defend or Attack.

Dolyem wrote: »

Instanced is definitely separate, but if something such as a flagging status bars you from participation, that is just an instanced event that can be observed in the open world by non-participants.

Flagging status does not bar anyone from participating in Caravan PvP.
Anyone in the ZoI of the Caravan will have a pop-up that allows them to opt-in by choosing Defend or Attack. Or they can opt-out of Caravan PvP by choosing ignore.

Dolyem wrote: »

And how is my point moot? Giving players the option to ignore half of the games content at the expense of other players trying to experience the full game as it is intended is an inadvertent Opt-in OWPVP system.

I don't even know what you're attempting to communicate, there.

Dolyem wrote: »

If you're going to sit there and try to argue you're right by saying the Ashes wiki is wrong, you need to touch grass. It lists meaningful conflict under Risk vs Reward

When you look at the wiki - you really need to be sure to go to the sources referenced, rather than rely on Lex's editorial interpretations.
So... it's up to you to supply actual quotes from Steven to support your claim.
Post an actual Steven quote where he includes Corruption PvP under Meaningful Conflict.

Dolyem wrote: »

Incorrect, corruption is meant to punish griefing. There is no such thing as non-consensual PvP in a game that you log into knowing that you will be a part of PvP.

I am correct. In Ashes, Non-Consensual PvP is punished with Corruption.
And the Corruption penalties increase with increased frequency of killing Greens.
When you kill a Green, you know that you will become subject to increased Corruption if you kill more Greens. Even "aggressive Greens". You auto-consent to that the moment you choose to kill a Green.

Dolyem wrote: »

Only if there is enough risk to stay green. Currently I see there being either too little risk to stay green, or too much risk to ever engage one or kill one in a non-griefing manner. Just needs to stay balanced.

I dunno what you mean by "only enough risk to stay Green".
Stay Green is normal "risk". Normal death penalties when you die. Same penalties as dying to a mob.
If you choose to kill a Green, you will be treated like a monster until you work off Corruption. The quickest way to work off Corruption is to die. So... quicker to let a Green kill you rather than increase your Corruption by killing more Greens.
But, sure, you could also let a Purple or a Bounty Hunter kill you.
The Corruption system is already balanced - just not in the manner you prefer.
We can expect some tweaks during Alpha 2 and the Betas.

Dolyem wrote: »

The entirety of corruption is to deter griefing, its not meant to deter PvP.

That is false. In addition to deterring griefing, Corruption is designed to deter murder.
Murder is killing a Non-Combatant.
The flagging system incentivizes killing Combatants. "Healthy PvP." (Consensual PvP)

Steven specifically states:
"I think the flagging mechanic is going to be a healthy mechanic to deterring murder..."
---Steven

Dolyem wrote: »

Again, no such thing as non-consensual PvP in Ashes.

Again, in Ashes, Non-Consensual PvP - murdering Non-Combatants - is punished by Corruption. That is irrefutable fact.

Dolyem wrote: »

And like I said, punishing a player for last week's kills is a terrible idea, especially if the corrupted player died and paid the penalty.

If you have paid the penalties, you probably won't be punished for last week's kills.
But... the game stronly deters murder-hobos. So... if you are a murder-hobo with tons of old kills, well... yeah, you will still be treated like a murder-hobo. Even if you took a week off of murdering people. Your PK score might still be high, even if you have worked off the Corruption.
Because you are supposed to be focused on killing Combatants, rather than non-chalantly murdering Non-Combatants.

Dolyem wrote: »

I made a compromise suggestion saying that if someone did not die during corruption you could have that be a factor, but if they don't get away with it, keep letting it pile up, forcing players to pay their dues eventually if they don't pay them through putting in time to reduce them. Keeps the focus on griefers instead of the low PKs revolving around non-griefing.

LMAO
OK. You offered a "compromise".

Dolyem wrote: »

The corruption system is currently supposed to ONLY deter griefing. But as it currently is I do think it unintentionally offers too much protection against non-combatant non-griefing kills.

No. The Corruption system is designed to deter murdering Non-Combatants and to deter griefing. And currently offers the intended deterrent for murdering Non-Combatants. The "protection" against murdering Non-Combatants is intentional.

Dolyem wrote: »

The entire idea of disincentivizing attacking non-combatants is simultaneously disincentivizing engaging in OWPvP.

Nope. It does not disincentivize engaging in OWPvP.
It incentivizes killing Combatants instead of Non-Combatants.
And incentivizes focusing on Meaninful Conflict: Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars... as well as the Open Seas. Where gamers can engage in PvP in the Open World with Corruption inactive.
OWPvP is not just about murdering Non-Combatants. Corruption is designed to help ensure that is relatively rare.
"Typically, you're not going to see players ganking each other very often in the sense that they murder you because the Corruption mechanic is a fairly meaty deterrent to that."
---Steven

Ganking is not the same thing as griefing.
But Corruption is designed to deter both.