I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk.
I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers.
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
There are more aspects to consider.
If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption.
Another aspect is the emotional response.
If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast.
Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc
If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios.
The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it.
So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system.
The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely.
So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision.
Well this all comes back to:
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist.
Wiki says:
Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52]
The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
How will it be balanced remains to be seen.
Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum.
Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP.
My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP.
So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it?
If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised.
corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there.
Of course it is.
Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent.
ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured.
i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks.
I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right?
So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me.
Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again.
But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say.
By now you are a non-combatant again, right?
If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption.
you didn't get what I said. we both clearly want to pvp, but I'm not going to attack you because you know you if you attack back gonna lose, so you will only attack after you find a favorable timing, lets say I have a few mobs on me or maybe you know I'm already low on health and mana. and I'm not going to kill you, even though I know you are waiting for an opportunity to kill me because id go red and I don't want to. my only options are to just sit there and wait until you leave, or keep farming and risk putting myself in a bad position and die to you or the mob.
we both clearly want to pvp but we wont because of corruption, we are just there waiting for the other person to make a mistake. so corruption is disincentivizing consensual pvp, not non consensual pvp.
Yeah I'm not clear on this. Surely if I attack you while you have mobs on you (and you remain non-combatant).. then I receive corruption.
Whereas if I attack you when you're ready, and you fight back, then neither of us receive corruption?
I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk.
I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers.
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
There are more aspects to consider.
If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption.
Another aspect is the emotional response.
If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast.
Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc
If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios.
The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it.
So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system.
The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely.
So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision.
Well this all comes back to:
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist.
Wiki says:
Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52]
The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
How will it be balanced remains to be seen.
Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum.
Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP.
My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP.
So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it?
If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised.
corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there.
Of course it is.
Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent.
ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured.
i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks.
I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right?
So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me.
Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again.
But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say.
By now you are a non-combatant again, right?
If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption.
you didn't get what I said. we both clearly want to pvp, but I'm not going to attack you because you know you if you attack back gonna lose, so you will only attack after you find a favorable timing, lets say I have a few mobs on me or maybe you know I'm already low on health and mana. and I'm not going to kill you, even though I know you are waiting for an opportunity to kill me because id go red and I don't want to. my only options are to just sit there and wait until you leave, or keep farming and risk putting myself in a bad position and die to you or the mob.
we both clearly want to pvp but we wont because of corruption, we are just there waiting for the other person to make a mistake. so corruption is disincentivizing consensual pvp, not non consensual pvp.
I'm pretty sure you two agree here.
I also agree with the definition of the problem but not the proposed solution, it's just adding more weird fiat, except it's roundabout and masked as 'freedom' which is the worst kind for me.
I'm agreeing with the conclusion just not the reasoning! At the moment. See if he clears it up for me.
I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk.
I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers.
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
There are more aspects to consider.
If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption.
Another aspect is the emotional response.
If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast.
Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc
If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios.
The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it.
So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system.
The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely.
So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision.
Well this all comes back to:
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist.
Wiki says:
Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52]
The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
How will it be balanced remains to be seen.
Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum.
Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP.
My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP.
So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it?
If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised.
corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there.
Of course it is.
Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent.
ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured.
i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks.
I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right?
So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me.
Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again.
But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say.
By now you are a non-combatant again, right?
If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption.
you didn't get what I said. we both clearly want to pvp, but I'm not going to attack you because you know you if you attack back gonna lose, so you will only attack after you find a favorable timing, lets say I have a few mobs on me or maybe you know I'm already low on health and mana. and I'm not going to kill you, even though I know you are waiting for an opportunity to kill me because id go red and I don't want to. my only options are to just sit there and wait until you leave, or keep farming and risk putting myself in a bad position and die to you or the mob.
we both clearly want to pvp but we wont because of corruption, we are just there waiting for the other person to make a mistake. so corruption is disincentivizing consensual pvp, not non consensual pvp.
I'm pretty sure you two agree here.
I also agree with the definition of the problem but not the proposed solution, it's just adding more weird fiat, except it's roundabout and masked as 'freedom' which is the worst kind for me.
Fair enough but I just don't understand where the cost is here.
It's an additional rule, yeah, kinda. But one to simplify things for that small section of players who be up for opting-in.
I've not heard any reason that it would affect those who don't opt-in.
I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk.
I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers.
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
There are more aspects to consider.
If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption.
Another aspect is the emotional response.
If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast.
Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc
If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios.
The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it.
So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system.
The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely.
So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision.
Well this all comes back to:
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist.
Wiki says:
Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52]
The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
How will it be balanced remains to be seen.
Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum.
Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP.
My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP.
So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it?
If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised.
corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there.
Of course it is.
Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent.
ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured.
i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks.
I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right?
So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me.
Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again.
But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say.
By now you are a non-combatant again, right?
If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption.
you didn't get what I said. we both clearly want to pvp, but I'm not going to attack you because you know you if you attack back gonna lose, so you will only attack after you find a favorable timing, lets say I have a few mobs on me or maybe you know I'm already low on health and mana. and I'm not going to kill you, even though I know you are waiting for an opportunity to kill me because id go red and I don't want to. my only options are to just sit there and wait until you leave, or keep farming and risk putting myself in a bad position and die to you or the mob.
we both clearly want to pvp but we wont because of corruption, we are just there waiting for the other person to make a mistake. so corruption is disincentivizing consensual pvp, not non consensual pvp.
Yeah I'm not clear on this. Surely if I attack you while you have mobs on you (and you remain non-combatant).. then I receive corruption.
Whereas if I attack you when you're ready, and you fight back, then neither of us receive corruption?
that's separate from consensual or non consensual pvp. we both want to pvp, that makes it consensual, doesn't it? but for strategic reasons no one attacks first or straight up treis to kill the other person before they attack back. maybe I wam going to hit you when you attack me and I have mobs on me, but I die before finishing my spell or it gets interrupted by a mob then you kill me. clearly consensual pvp yet you received corruption.
my point is, corruption isn't there to deter non consensual pvp, although sometimes it does.
I so damn dearly hope we get great AI on mobs that accounts for flag states and stuff and we get a great pvx game where the interaction being discussed has at least 3 more branches, rather than what's currently presented.
I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk.
I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers.
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
There are more aspects to consider.
If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption.
Another aspect is the emotional response.
If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast.
Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc
If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios.
The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it.
So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system.
The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely.
So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision.
Well this all comes back to:
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist.
Wiki says:
Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52]
The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
How will it be balanced remains to be seen.
Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum.
Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP.
My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP.
So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it?
If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised.
corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there.
Of course it is.
Disincentivise doesn't mean prevent.
ok lets say I'm farming, and you want to take the spot. you attack me then I kill you. you clearly want to pvp for the spot, don't you? you come back and stand there waiting for me to attack mobs so you can try to get me low enough so i die to the mobs or fight me after I'm injured.
i know this, but i cant kill you or i would get corruption. you obviously wont flag if i hit you because you know you are going to lose. you want to pvp me, but you want to mitigate your disadvantage somehow. we both clearly want to pvp and kill each other but no one wants to go red. how is corruption disincentivizing non consensual pvp? if anything, its disincentivizing consensual pvp in favor of some other strategy or some sneak or opportunistic attacks.
I'm assuming you're talking about the existing corruption system without the suggested addition of an opt-in pre-flag right?
So the situation is you're farming, I attack, you kill me.
Then I res up. Presumably we're both still combatants at this point? In which case you could kill me again.
But let's say I've run and recovered. And I want to PvP as you say.
By now you are a non-combatant again, right?
If I attack and kill you, and you don't fight back, then I received corruption.
you didn't get what I said. we both clearly want to pvp, but I'm not going to attack you because you know you if you attack back gonna lose, so you will only attack after you find a favorable timing, lets say I have a few mobs on me or maybe you know I'm already low on health and mana. and I'm not going to kill you, even though I know you are waiting for an opportunity to kill me because id go red and I don't want to. my only options are to just sit there and wait until you leave, or keep farming and risk putting myself in a bad position and die to you or the mob.
we both clearly want to pvp but we wont because of corruption, we are just there waiting for the other person to make a mistake. so corruption is disincentivizing consensual pvp, not non consensual pvp.
Yeah I'm not clear on this. Surely if I attack you while you have mobs on you (and you remain non-combatant).. then I receive corruption.
Whereas if I attack you when you're ready, and you fight back, then neither of us receive corruption?
that's separate from consensual or non consensual pvp. we both want to pvp, that makes it consensual, doesn't it? but for strategic reasons no one attacks first or straight up treis to kill the other person before they attack back. maybe I wam going to hit you when you attack me and I have mobs on me, but I die before finishing my spell or it gets interrupted by a mob then you kill me. clearly consensual pvp yet you received corruption.
my point is, corruption isn't there to deter non consensual pvp, although sometimes it does.
Then it sounds like we do agree, except I assume this was meant to be "consensual PvP" and not "non-consensual PvP" right?
my point is, corruption isn't there to deter non consensual pvp, although sometimes it does.
You're saying corruption isn't intended to deter consensual PvP, but sometimes it does, accidentally. Yeah?
yes. we both want to kill each other (aka consensual pvp) but because of corruption, we don't.
You're saying corruption isn't intended to deter consensual PvP, but sometimes it does, accidentally. Yeah?
no =_=
corruption wasn't meant to deter NON consensual pvp, but it sometimes does. lets say in wow or aion or a faction based game, you can kill anyone from the other faction with no consequences, even if they didn't want to pvp (maybe they are pve players). in aoc, there will be consequences for doing the same...so sometimes you are disincentivized from doing so.
the purpose of corruption is far greater than this though, but a lot of the time, people who don't want to pvp benefit from it. also, lots of the time, people who want to pvp are held back by it (or delayed), which doesn't happen in a faction based game. you see each other, you both want to pvp, you try to kill each other right away.
yes. we both want to kill each other (aka consensual pvp) but because of corruption, we don't.
You're saying corruption isn't intended to deter consensual PvP, but sometimes it does, accidentally. Yeah?
no =_=
corruption wasn't meant to deter NON consensual pvp, but it sometimes does. lets say in wow or aion or a faction based game, you can kill anyone from the other faction with no consequences, even if they didn't want to pvp (maybe they are pve players). in aoc, there will be consequences for doing the same...so sometimes you are disincentivized from doing so.
the purpose of corruption is far greater than this though, but a lot of the time, people who don't want to pvp benefit from it. also, lots of the time, people who want to pvp are held back by it (or delayed), which doesn't happen in a faction based game. you see each other, you both want to pvp, you try to kill each other right away.
Yeah, the whole point of this thread is about this latter point, I think. That corruption can hold back consensual wpvp. Agree with that part.
But the understanding here is that is not deliberate... as in, that's not the purpose of corruption, is it? Why would you want to deter consensual PvPers?
Corruption is obviously intended to manage the situation of having PvP-minded people and PvE-minded people (very broadly defined!) on the same "PvX" server.
IE: to stop the PvPers chasing off the PvE population ($$$).
So the point is to penalise PvP when it's clearly non-consensual. It's not prevented completely, no, that would be too boring (aka PvE servers). But it is deterred.
yes. we both want to kill each other (aka consensual pvp) but because of corruption, we don't.
You're saying corruption isn't intended to deter consensual PvP, but sometimes it does, accidentally. Yeah?
no =_=
corruption wasn't meant to deter NON consensual pvp, but it sometimes does. lets say in wow or aion or a faction based game, you can kill anyone from the other faction with no consequences, even if they didn't want to pvp (maybe they are pve players). in aoc, there will be consequences for doing the same...so sometimes you are disincentivized from doing so.
the purpose of corruption is far greater than this though, but a lot of the time, people who don't want to pvp benefit from it. also, lots of the time, people who want to pvp are held back by it (or delayed), which doesn't happen in a faction based game. you see each other, you both want to pvp, you try to kill each other right away.
Corruption is obviously intended to manage the situation of having PvP-minded people and PvE-minded people (very broadly defined!) on the same "PvX" server.
IE: to stop the PvPers chasing off the PvE population ($$$).
I disagree. for example, corruption works to protect a low level pvper (lvl 20) from a high level pvper(level 50). its not necessary to protect pve players. why are they special? why do they need protection, especially on a non pve game?
it also helps the pve griefers to pve grief pvpers, and pvpers cant just straight up kill the pver.
So the point is to penalise PvP when it's clearly non-consensual. It's not prevented completely, no, that would be too boring (aka PvE servers). But it is deterred.
the point is to deter griefing and some other stuff (like a level 50 vs a lvl 20), or a group running around killing solo players for no reason.
i guess we just have different ideas of the word consent. like I explained, 2 people may be willing to pvp, but are waiting for the right opportunity to attack to avoid corruption.
what if you are pvping someone then I come from behind and kill you? you clearly consented to pvp by flagging, but you didn't consent to me killing you while you were pvping another random person, yet it happened. no corruption there yet non consensual pvp happened.
we probably just need to agree first on what consent means (damn this feels like its turning political ), but I believe that if you leave a safe zone, you agree to pvp.
yes. we both want to kill each other (aka consensual pvp) but because of corruption, we don't.
You're saying corruption isn't intended to deter consensual PvP, but sometimes it does, accidentally. Yeah?
no =_=
corruption wasn't meant to deter NON consensual pvp, but it sometimes does. lets say in wow or aion or a faction based game, you can kill anyone from the other faction with no consequences, even if they didn't want to pvp (maybe they are pve players). in aoc, there will be consequences for doing the same...so sometimes you are disincentivized from doing so.
the purpose of corruption is far greater than this though, but a lot of the time, people who don't want to pvp benefit from it. also, lots of the time, people who want to pvp are held back by it (or delayed), which doesn't happen in a faction based game. you see each other, you both want to pvp, you try to kill each other right away.
Corruption is obviously intended to manage the situation of having PvP-minded people and PvE-minded people (very broadly defined!) on the same "PvX" server.
IE: to stop the PvPers chasing off the PvE population ($$$).
I disagree. for example, corruption works to protect a low level pvper (lvl 20) from a high level pvper(level 50). its not necessary to protect pve players. why are they special? why do they need protection, especially on a non pve game?
Are you talking about what you want from corruption here?
Because corruption does "protect pve players" as in, it deters PvPers from killing PvEers.
Hence the "PvX" yeah? We're all accommodated on one server, is the dream. Just not in the boring PvE server "turn your flag on" way many people seem to be used to, sadly.
A price alone isn’t a deterrent - it depends on the amplitude of the price. If a crunch bar costs a dollar, that doesn’t deter me from buying it more than if it were free. If the same crunch bar is a thousand dollars that’s a deterrent.
A price alone isn’t a deterrent - it depends on the amplitude of the price. If a crunch bar costs a dollar, that doesn’t deter me from buying it more than if it were free. If the same crunch bar is a thousand dollars that’s a deterrent.
.... Of course it is!
It's maybe a less effective deterrent, but $2 would deter more customers than $1 would.
This is pointless.
Corruption is obviously designed to deter non-consensual PvP. Obviously.
How effectively it achieves that is up for debate, but that's obviously its purpose.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Lol well regardless, flagging in advance obviously increases your chance of dying to PvP, and that'd have to be incentivised somehow, eg via a buff to exp.
It's really not complicated.
I reckon I could propose that 2+2=4 here and the thread would light up with PvEers who've found a way to disagree.
Who said it was complicated? I said the way you originally presented the suggestion was not clear.
It's just a flawed suggestion on several levels.
Corruption is infinitely better. No need to try to improve upon it past what Steven has done compared to Karma. Just some tweaking likely during Alpha 2 and the Betas.
Yeah cool that's your playstyle then. Don't opt-in.
If I choose to be a mad man and opt-in (and the game rewards me a token exp buff to do so, which is very unlikely to compensate for all the downtime it will cost me), then it doesn't affect you either, does it?
If anything, it will give you more consensual PvP opportunities.
If you see me running by, with my eye on a herb, go for it.
You're a non-combatant, and can choose to attack if you like.
If that's your playstyle, just permaflag with no bonuses/rewards for doing so.
Permaflag because you're a mad man and it fits your playstyle.
I think "everyone" would be OK with that.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I've not heard any reason that it would affect those who don't opt-in.
It affects the majority of players because that minority playstyle gets a bonus (on top of the existing bonus/reward) for playing the way they like to play.
That is not fair gameplay. Especially for PvEers.
@blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
@blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
Nah, this is only true if you're bad at PvP risk assessment.
A permaflagged purple would have to die 2x as often as a green NonCombatant for it to even out.
And for it to REALLY even out, they'd have to die 2x as often in a situation where the PvP was so unfair to them that they would've preferred to be able to unflag.
If you permaflag and are getting killed twice as often because of it, you have the same problem as the NonCombatant green. You're in the wrong place.
@blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
Nah, this is only true if you're bad at PvP risk assessment.
A permaflagged purple would have to die 2x as often as a green NonCombatant for it to even out.
And for it to REALLY even out, they'd have to die 2x as often in a situation where the PvP was so unfair to them that they would've preferred to be able to unflag.
If you permaflag and are getting killed twice as often because of it, you have the same problem as the NonCombatant green. You're in the wrong place.
Nah that's wrong.
Bearing in mind if you were permaflagged you'd be available for attack while doing anything; questing, struggling with mob spawns in a cave, collecting herbs, afk etc.
There's also the danger of being camped, and you don't have the option of running and hiding to wait out a flag timer.
Considering the corruption penalties for killing non-combatants, they are far less appealing targets.
Of course I will end up killing some while playing Ashes, but I will likely KoS any similarly-levelled combatants.
Being pre-flagged is very different gameplay Vs flagging when you fancy a bit of PvP and are fully buffed and prepared.
@blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
Nah, this is only true if you're bad at PvP risk assessment.
A permaflagged purple would have to die 2x as often as a green NonCombatant for it to even out.
And for it to REALLY even out, they'd have to die 2x as often in a situation where the PvP was so unfair to them that they would've preferred to be able to unflag.
If you permaflag and are getting killed twice as often because of it, you have the same problem as the NonCombatant green. You're in the wrong place.
Nah that's wrong.
Bearing in mind if you were permaflagged you'd be available for attack while doing anything; questing, struggling with mob spawns in a cave, collecting herbs, afk etc.
There's also the danger of being camped, and you don't have the option of running and hiding to wait out a flag timer.
Considering the corruption penalties for killing non-combatants, they are far less appealing targets.
Of course I will end up killing some while playing Ashes, but I will likely KoS any similarly-levelled combatants.
Being pre-flagged is very different gameplay Vs flagging when you fancy a bit of PvP and are fully buffed and prepared.
But why do you care about that? The entire point of the permaflagged 'madman' playstyle is so that you can always be attacked isn't it?
That's the content you're getting for your risk. It's not like it's confusing. You don't need a reward for choosing to put yourself at greater risk when you're already getting the reward from that risk (the PvP content you want to flag for).
@blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
It is a shame but you're not wrong.
Even if a decent % of players would enjoy the gameplay option, of course it would still need to be incentivised, otherwise people may as well just remain unflagged and jump in to the action when it suits (with all the impact that has on wpvp).
I think a token 5%, even 10% still wouldn't compensate for the increased action & risk you will be taking.
I really think it'd go a long way to improving things for "PvP server" people without impacting the PvEers.
@blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
It is a shame but you're not wrong.
Even if a decent % of players would enjoy the gameplay option, of course it would still need to be incentivised, otherwise people may as well just remain unflagged and jump in to the action when it suits (with all the impact that has on wpvp).
I think a token 5%, even 10% still wouldn't compensate for the increased action & risk you will be taking.
I really think it'd go a long way to improving things for "PvP server" people without impacting the PvEers.
Maybe a military node option?
It would just get abused, that's why we don't want it in the overall game.
Giving an incentive like that will just lead to some zerg guild locking down a dungeon so their permaflagged members can farm with an exp bonus.
Or is that something you actually want here? I don't think it was clear if you are in support of that aspect.
@blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
Nah, this is only true if you're bad at PvP risk assessment.
A permaflagged purple would have to die 2x as often as a green NonCombatant for it to even out.
And for it to REALLY even out, they'd have to die 2x as often in a situation where the PvP was so unfair to them that they would've preferred to be able to unflag.
If you permaflag and are getting killed twice as often because of it, you have the same problem as the NonCombatant green. You're in the wrong place.
IF we look at BDO to compare (old school bdo) where people were pretty competitive at spots and fighting over them. People would run up constantly to attack or Duel for Spot, running around purple is naturally going to have more people attacking you (unless you are going in a spot that is not competitive and losing out more xp than you actually are gaining).
Upon dying if you are going back to the spot it is expected you will have to pvp again or go to another spot (which you have to factor in that time loss on top of xp loss to getting back to your spot or finding a new spot). The whole point of corruption is so there is reduced corruption killing making it more rare, if you are running around purple than id expect the risk is much higher meaning potential to be dying much more than 2 times.
Granted this is all on paper but makes sense to me, even as a pvpers if I'm running around with my group and we see purple in my mind that is a target instantly. Where a green is on the much lower end. I also think would i run around as purple, most likely not because it paints a target on my back and I'd feel that is more of a disadvantage at the moment unless i see otherwise. Between xp and loot drops I'd rather reduce that and not have a target on me and pvp based on my own advantage to the situation.
So to me 5% is too little. But I'm not really arguing for any change that is just how I look at that amount.
@blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
Nah, this is only true if you're bad at PvP risk assessment.
A permaflagged purple would have to die 2x as often as a green NonCombatant for it to even out.
And for it to REALLY even out, they'd have to die 2x as often in a situation where the PvP was so unfair to them that they would've preferred to be able to unflag.
If you permaflag and are getting killed twice as often because of it, you have the same problem as the NonCombatant green. You're in the wrong place.
Nah that's wrong.
Bearing in mind if you were permaflagged you'd be available for attack while doing anything; questing, struggling with mob spawns in a cave, collecting herbs, afk etc.
There's also the danger of being camped, and you don't have the option of running and hiding to wait out a flag timer.
Considering the corruption penalties for killing non-combatants, they are far less appealing targets.
Of course I will end up killing some while playing Ashes, but I will likely KoS any similarly-levelled combatants.
Being pre-flagged is very different gameplay Vs flagging when you fancy a bit of PvP and are fully buffed and prepared.
But why do you care about that? The entire point of the permaflagged 'madman' playstyle is so that you can always be attacked isn't it?
That's the content you're getting for your risk. It's not like it's confusing. You don't need a reward for choosing to put yourself at greater risk when you're already getting the reward from that risk (the PvP content you want to flag for).
1) I didn't say I mind the risk, I think it improves the game, at least for me. But of course it comes with a cost. (And therefore would be something the game would have to incentivise, even if the incentive isn't huge).
2) It's not necessarily about me just wanting to be attacked all the time, it's about fixing the wpvp dynamic for those who enjoy wpvp without flagging (while not affecting those who don't)
@blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
It is a shame but you're not wrong.
Even if a decent % of players would enjoy the gameplay option, of course it would still need to be incentivised, otherwise people may as well just remain unflagged and jump in to the action when it suits (with all the impact that has on wpvp).
I think a token 5%, even 10% still wouldn't compensate for the increased action & risk you will be taking.
I really think it'd go a long way to improving things for "PvP server" people without impacting the PvEers.
Maybe a military node option?
It would just get abused, that's why we don't want it in the overall game.
Giving an incentive like that will just lead to some zerg guild locking down a dungeon so their permaflagged members can farm with an exp bonus.
Or is that something you actually want here? I don't think it was clear if you are in support of that aspect.
Nah of course not. I only gave the suggestion of a 5% buff to exp gain as an example for the sake of argument. The point was the option to pre-flag (permanently or otherwise) and that it would require an incentive.
Of course it's always a challenge to fix one problem without introducing new ones. Hence the difficulty of MMO balance.
@blat I understand your goal there though even if it was 1% people are still going to complain and say its not fair for pvers which is a bit silly.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
Nah, this is only true if you're bad at PvP risk assessment.
A permaflagged purple would have to die 2x as often as a green NonCombatant for it to even out.
And for it to REALLY even out, they'd have to die 2x as often in a situation where the PvP was so unfair to them that they would've preferred to be able to unflag.
If you permaflag and are getting killed twice as often because of it, you have the same problem as the NonCombatant green. You're in the wrong place.
IF we look at BDO to compare (old school bdo) where people were pretty competitive at spots and fighting over them. People would run up constantly to attack or Duel for Spot, running around purple is naturally going to have more people attacking you (unless you are going in a spot that is not competitive and losing out more xp than you actually are gaining).
Upon dying if you are going back to the spot it is expected you will have to pvp again or go to another spot (which you have to factor in that time loss on top of xp loss to getting back to your spot or finding a new spot). The whole point of corruption is so there is reduced corruption killing making it more rare, if you are running around purple than id expect the risk is much higher meaning potential to be dying much more than 2 times.
Granted this is all on paper but makes sense to me, even as a pvpers if I'm running around with my group and we see purple in my mind that is a target instantly. Where a green is on the much lower end. I also think would i run around as purple, most likely not because it paints a target on my back and I'd feel that is more of a disadvantage at the moment unless i see otherwise. Between xp and loot drops I'd rather reduce that and not have a target on me and pvp based on my own advantage to the situation.
So to me 5% is too little. But I'm not really arguing for any change that is just how I look at that amount.
Completely agree. Tbh I threw out the 5% figure as a working example that no PvEer could have a problem with! To me 5% is so obviously a bad deal. (Outside of the system being gamed as in @Azherae's example)
Comments
Yeah I'm not clear on this. Surely if I attack you while you have mobs on you (and you remain non-combatant).. then I receive corruption.
Whereas if I attack you when you're ready, and you fight back, then neither of us receive corruption?
I'm agreeing with the conclusion just not the reasoning! At the moment. See if he clears it up for me.
Fair enough but I just don't understand where the cost is here.
It's an additional rule, yeah, kinda. But one to simplify things for that small section of players who be up for opting-in.
I've not heard any reason that it would affect those who don't opt-in.
that's separate from consensual or non consensual pvp. we both want to pvp, that makes it consensual, doesn't it? but for strategic reasons no one attacks first or straight up treis to kill the other person before they attack back. maybe I wam going to hit you when you attack me and I have mobs on me, but I die before finishing my spell or it gets interrupted by a mob then you kill me. clearly consensual pvp yet you received corruption.
my point is, corruption isn't there to deter non consensual pvp, although sometimes it does.
Then it sounds like we do agree, except I assume this was meant to be "consensual PvP" and not "non-consensual PvP" right?
You're saying corruption isn't intended to deter consensual PvP, but sometimes it does, accidentally. Yeah?
no =_=
corruption wasn't meant to deter NON consensual pvp, but it sometimes does. lets say in wow or aion or a faction based game, you can kill anyone from the other faction with no consequences, even if they didn't want to pvp (maybe they are pve players). in aoc, there will be consequences for doing the same...so sometimes you are disincentivized from doing so.
the purpose of corruption is far greater than this though, but a lot of the time, people who don't want to pvp benefit from it. also, lots of the time, people who want to pvp are held back by it (or delayed), which doesn't happen in a faction based game. you see each other, you both want to pvp, you try to kill each other right away.
Yeah, the whole point of this thread is about this latter point, I think. That corruption can hold back consensual wpvp. Agree with that part.
But the understanding here is that is not deliberate... as in, that's not the purpose of corruption, is it? Why would you want to deter consensual PvPers?
Corruption is obviously intended to manage the situation of having PvP-minded people and PvE-minded people (very broadly defined!) on the same "PvX" server.
IE: to stop the PvPers chasing off the PvE population ($$$).
So the point is to penalise PvP when it's clearly non-consensual. It's not prevented completely, no, that would be too boring (aka PvE servers). But it is deterred.
I disagree. for example, corruption works to protect a low level pvper (lvl 20) from a high level pvper(level 50). its not necessary to protect pve players. why are they special? why do they need protection, especially on a non pve game?
it also helps the pve griefers to pve grief pvpers, and pvpers cant just straight up kill the pver.
the point is to deter griefing and some other stuff (like a level 50 vs a lvl 20), or a group running around killing solo players for no reason.
i guess we just have different ideas of the word consent. like I explained, 2 people may be willing to pvp, but are waiting for the right opportunity to attack to avoid corruption.
what if you are pvping someone then I come from behind and kill you? you clearly consented to pvp by flagging, but you didn't consent to me killing you while you were pvping another random person, yet it happened. no corruption there yet non consensual pvp happened.
we probably just need to agree first on what consent means (damn this feels like its turning political
Are you talking about what you want from corruption here?
Because corruption does "protect pve players" as in, it deters PvPers from killing PvEers.
Hence the "PvX" yeah? We're all accommodated on one server, is the dream. Just not in the boring PvE server "turn your flag on" way many people seem to be used to, sadly.
Corruption is a punishment for griefing. That’s it. We’ll see if it’s an effective deterrent for killing rando greens in A2.
"Effective" yeah agreed. We'll find out how effective things are when the game exists.
But we know that corruption punishes any player who attacks and kills a non-combatant without response.
So by definition it's a deterrent, isn't it.
Not necessarily. Depending upon the impact of the punishment, it may just be the price of doing business.
Yes necessarily. That's literally what a deterrent is.
Or as you say "the price of doing business".
Price is a deterrent.
(Price goes up, demand goes down, etc?)
.... Of course it is!
It's maybe a less effective deterrent, but $2 would deter more customers than $1 would.
This is pointless.
Corruption is obviously designed to deter non-consensual PvP. Obviously.
How effectively it achieves that is up for debate, but that's obviously its purpose.
It's just a flawed suggestion on several levels.
Corruption is infinitely better. No need to try to improve upon it past what Steven has done compared to Karma. Just some tweaking likely during Alpha 2 and the Betas.
I don't mind if there's a perma-flag option for people, but they don't need any bonus for doing it. People will just do it to get the natural benefit.
Permaflag because you're a mad man and it fits your playstyle.
I think "everyone" would be OK with that.
That is not fair gameplay. Especially for PvEers.
Being flagged like that and unable to turn it off makes you a target, meaning there is a higher chance to lose more experience than you gain technically from deaths. Everyone is a pvxer when they play AoC, everyone has the chance to use it as well with all the risk that comes with it.
Nah, this is only true if you're bad at PvP risk assessment.
A permaflagged purple would have to die 2x as often as a green NonCombatant for it to even out.
And for it to REALLY even out, they'd have to die 2x as often in a situation where the PvP was so unfair to them that they would've preferred to be able to unflag.
If you permaflag and are getting killed twice as often because of it, you have the same problem as the NonCombatant green. You're in the wrong place.
Nah that's wrong.
Bearing in mind if you were permaflagged you'd be available for attack while doing anything; questing, struggling with mob spawns in a cave, collecting herbs, afk etc.
There's also the danger of being camped, and you don't have the option of running and hiding to wait out a flag timer.
Considering the corruption penalties for killing non-combatants, they are far less appealing targets.
Of course I will end up killing some while playing Ashes, but I will likely KoS any similarly-levelled combatants.
Being pre-flagged is very different gameplay Vs flagging when you fancy a bit of PvP and are fully buffed and prepared.
But why do you care about that? The entire point of the permaflagged 'madman' playstyle is so that you can always be attacked isn't it?
That's the content you're getting for your risk. It's not like it's confusing. You don't need a reward for choosing to put yourself at greater risk when you're already getting the reward from that risk (the PvP content you want to flag for).
It is a shame but you're not wrong.
Even if a decent % of players would enjoy the gameplay option, of course it would still need to be incentivised, otherwise people may as well just remain unflagged and jump in to the action when it suits (with all the impact that has on wpvp).
I think a token 5%, even 10% still wouldn't compensate for the increased action & risk you will be taking.
I really think it'd go a long way to improving things for "PvP server" people without impacting the PvEers.
Maybe a military node option?
It would just get abused, that's why we don't want it in the overall game.
Giving an incentive like that will just lead to some zerg guild locking down a dungeon so their permaflagged members can farm with an exp bonus.
Or is that something you actually want here? I don't think it was clear if you are in support of that aspect.
IF we look at BDO to compare (old school bdo) where people were pretty competitive at spots and fighting over them. People would run up constantly to attack or Duel for Spot, running around purple is naturally going to have more people attacking you (unless you are going in a spot that is not competitive and losing out more xp than you actually are gaining).
Upon dying if you are going back to the spot it is expected you will have to pvp again or go to another spot (which you have to factor in that time loss on top of xp loss to getting back to your spot or finding a new spot). The whole point of corruption is so there is reduced corruption killing making it more rare, if you are running around purple than id expect the risk is much higher meaning potential to be dying much more than 2 times.
Granted this is all on paper but makes sense to me, even as a pvpers if I'm running around with my group and we see purple in my mind that is a target instantly. Where a green is on the much lower end. I also think would i run around as purple, most likely not because it paints a target on my back and I'd feel that is more of a disadvantage at the moment unless i see otherwise. Between xp and loot drops I'd rather reduce that and not have a target on me and pvp based on my own advantage to the situation.
So to me 5% is too little. But I'm not really arguing for any change that is just how I look at that amount.
1) I didn't say I mind the risk, I think it improves the game, at least for me. But of course it comes with a cost. (And therefore would be something the game would have to incentivise, even if the incentive isn't huge).
2) It's not necessarily about me just wanting to be attacked all the time, it's about fixing the wpvp dynamic for those who enjoy wpvp without flagging (while not affecting those who don't)
Nah of course not. I only gave the suggestion of a 5% buff to exp gain as an example for the sake of argument. The point was the option to pre-flag (permanently or otherwise) and that it would require an incentive.
Of course it's always a challenge to fix one problem without introducing new ones. Hence the difficulty of MMO balance.
Completely agree. Tbh I threw out the 5% figure as a working example that no PvEer could have a problem with! To me 5% is so obviously a bad deal. (Outside of the system being gamed as in @Azherae's example)