Otr wrote: » Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » "last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario. We just have too differing of an opinion on what Reds are. To me - they're the weakest player in the game, who deserve what they get. Their victims didn't fight back, so the Red shouldn't be able to fight back either. The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done. Dolyem wrote: » The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned. And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain. As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption. This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor. If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get". And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place. I have some news for you: "there might not be any content that is guaranteed to have no PvP at it" Source:https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxzVVVzcryVUpXupNHYVTwbf-4wuQlc0rn?si=DEM1z0OcvbjLDlxG
Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » "last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario. We just have too differing of an opinion on what Reds are. To me - they're the weakest player in the game, who deserve what they get. Their victims didn't fight back, so the Red shouldn't be able to fight back either. The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done. Dolyem wrote: » The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned. And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain. As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption. This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor. If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get". And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place.
Dolyem wrote: » "last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario.
Dolyem wrote: » The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned.
That can happen only if corruption is balanced so that you start feeling the pain after you killed 100 greens or so.
That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing.
Caeryl wrote: » That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing. Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight.
Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing. Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight. every single green? Great PvP-ers. You said Red can clean corruption in the deep ocean so killing the green close to the border seems viable.
Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing. Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight. every single green? Great PvP-ers. You said Red can clean corruption in the deep ocean so killing the green close to the border seems viable. It would, if that was what you meant, and not the 'those people didn't let me have a gathering spot all to myself so I kill them on repeat each time they come back' that you clearly set up there
Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing. Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight. every single green? Great PvP-ers. You said Red can clean corruption in the deep ocean so killing the green close to the border seems viable. It would, if that was what you meant, and not the 'those people didn't let me have a gathering spot all to myself so I kill them on repeat each time they come back' that you clearly set up there Let's see where Steven put's the fishing spots in this PvX game which is unlike any other
Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » "last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario. We just have too differing of an opinion on what Reds are. To me - they're the weakest player in the game, who deserve what they get. Their victims didn't fight back, so the Red shouldn't be able to fight back either. The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done. Dolyem wrote: » The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned. And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain. As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption. This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor. If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get". And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place. Dolyem wrote: » All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant. Same as Azherae, I'm not sure why you so staunchly believe this. Not 100% of Greens will immediately jump on a Red. And even then, you'd still need those Greens to be in the immediate vicinity to even attempt said jump. AND EVEN THEN, depending on your class you'd have tools that let you escape. And you always have mounts that would make it way easier to create immediate distance from the PK spot, if you fear for your life right after the kill. Imo, this is exactly why Steven even went with the "BHs see PKers on the map" design. Cause he probably experienced the same thing I did in L2. Which is - PKers kept running away a ton of times. Especially in situations where the victim couldn't shout far enough for others to learn about the PKer in a certain spot or if there simply weren't anyone around at all. And with how big AoC's map will be - I'd imagine we'll have quite a few situations where PKers will be in such a deep location that they'll easily clear their corruption before someone comes. Well, unless what Steven said about the current plan for corruption clearing is truly as scary as I think it is, where clearing corruption even from your first PK will take good 30-50mins, where literally anyone on the map would have enough time to come kill you.
Dolyem wrote: » All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant.
Azherae wrote: » Do you also feel that this is a game type where CC will be so common and integral that classes without it will be unable to escape or create distance? Because "I can't CC because the enemy is green" is the same as "I can't CC because my CC isn't helpful/I don't have any". If the game is CC heavy, I agree with you somewhat, because the Green will also be likely to have a lot of it, but this disparity you're discussing gets larger when the game doesn't have much. I'd hope that at least the 1v1 TTK would offer some options for a player who is trying to escape, to actually do so, regardless of their state.
Dolyem wrote: » Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » "last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario. We just have too differing of an opinion on what Reds are. To me - they're the weakest player in the game, who deserve what they get. Their victims didn't fight back, so the Red shouldn't be able to fight back either. The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done. Dolyem wrote: » The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned. And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain. As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption. This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor. If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get". And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place. Dolyem wrote: » All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant. Same as Azherae, I'm not sure why you so staunchly believe this. Not 100% of Greens will immediately jump on a Red. And even then, you'd still need those Greens to be in the immediate vicinity to even attempt said jump. AND EVEN THEN, depending on your class you'd have tools that let you escape. And you always have mounts that would make it way easier to create immediate distance from the PK spot, if you fear for your life right after the kill. Imo, this is exactly why Steven even went with the "BHs see PKers on the map" design. Cause he probably experienced the same thing I did in L2. Which is - PKers kept running away a ton of times. Especially in situations where the victim couldn't shout far enough for others to learn about the PKer in a certain spot or if there simply weren't anyone around at all. And with how big AoC's map will be - I'd imagine we'll have quite a few situations where PKers will be in such a deep location that they'll easily clear their corruption before someone comes. Well, unless what Steven said about the current plan for corruption clearing is truly as scary as I think it is, where clearing corruption even from your first PK will take good 30-50mins, where literally anyone on the map would have enough time to come kill you. Its not about either of our opinions about PKers. You can think PKing is despicable. I can think its just normal PvP. What matters is what corruption is meant to accomplish, and Steven has already told us it is to deter griefing. And as he defines it, PKing isnt griefing. You can certainly grief via PKing, but they are not the same. Its not supposed to stop players from PKing, as you say. It is to stop players from griefing. To argue that PKing has no place in ashes and should not have a healthy, keyword here is healthy, amount of it, is to argue to remove that entire aspect of risk when seeking rewards in the game. PKers and griefers alike would still be dealing with a substantial amount of risk. This whole argument is pointing out the very real possibility that corruption will have vastly disproportionate risk to any incentive of attacking other players. Objectively, using Stevens definitions, corruption will need to be balanced to mainly deter griefing, as opposed to deter griefing AND PvP, regardless of your or my own opinion of that PvP.
Dolyem wrote: » To argue that PKing has no place in ashes and should not have a healthy, keyword here is healthy, amount of it, is to argue to remove that entire aspect of risk when seeking rewards in the game.
Dolyem wrote: » You are being very disingenuous if you are saying a corrupted player has a chance to get away from CC immune players while also being able to get CCed themselves.
Dolyem wrote: » Do with that what you will, its not exactly a large census
Sathrago wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption yes, but how do you think someone can run from a green thats cc immune? I personally dont like it when protected players roam around using that protection as a weapon to further punish someone whos already going to lose a good amount of stuff when they die. If the red defends themselves they lose even more. It would be less of an issue if greens were not cc immune. Then you could pull some tricks to try and get away but as it stands if you happen to be the unlucky guy in your group to get a last hit you become the juicy piece of meat to everyone within that area. This change is for those kinds of players just trying to contend for a farming spot or drive someone off and happen to go red. Since there is no option to choose non-lethal attacks the least that could be done is making greens flag as purple if they initiate against a red. So you are penalized for defending yourself if you are red? It doesn’t pvp flag the aggressor? That’s….kind of lame. Especially since I see you say the green (I assume the traditional blue) is cc immune? Why would anyone ever be cc immune? That seems like bad design for a pvp focused game imo. I’m brand new here though so I don’t know the details and only going off what you guys are saying. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid.
Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption yes, but how do you think someone can run from a green thats cc immune? I personally dont like it when protected players roam around using that protection as a weapon to further punish someone whos already going to lose a good amount of stuff when they die. If the red defends themselves they lose even more. It would be less of an issue if greens were not cc immune. Then you could pull some tricks to try and get away but as it stands if you happen to be the unlucky guy in your group to get a last hit you become the juicy piece of meat to everyone within that area. This change is for those kinds of players just trying to contend for a farming spot or drive someone off and happen to go red. Since there is no option to choose non-lethal attacks the least that could be done is making greens flag as purple if they initiate against a red. So you are penalized for defending yourself if you are red? It doesn’t pvp flag the aggressor? That’s….kind of lame. Especially since I see you say the green (I assume the traditional blue) is cc immune? Why would anyone ever be cc immune? That seems like bad design for a pvp focused game imo. I’m brand new here though so I don’t know the details and only going off what you guys are saying.
Sathrago wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption yes, but how do you think someone can run from a green thats cc immune? I personally dont like it when protected players roam around using that protection as a weapon to further punish someone whos already going to lose a good amount of stuff when they die. If the red defends themselves they lose even more. It would be less of an issue if greens were not cc immune. Then you could pull some tricks to try and get away but as it stands if you happen to be the unlucky guy in your group to get a last hit you become the juicy piece of meat to everyone within that area. This change is for those kinds of players just trying to contend for a farming spot or drive someone off and happen to go red. Since there is no option to choose non-lethal attacks the least that could be done is making greens flag as purple if they initiate against a red.
Caeryl wrote: » Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption
Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing. Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight. every single green? Great PvP-ers. You said Red can clean corruption in the deep ocean so killing the green close to the border seems viable. It would, if that was what you meant, and not the 'those people didn't let me have a gathering spot all to myself so I kill them on repeat each time they come back' that you clearly set up there Let's see where Steven put's the fishing spots in this PvX game which is unlike any other Lakes, rivers, ponds, and sea. Only one of which is directly part of lawless territory. But again, it's plainly obvious your imaginary scenario wasn't about the lawless sea at all. Just this same strange, recurring entitlement mentality to harvesting areas.
Dolyem wrote: » And for fun, I just spontaneously asked 5 Players in the discord I am in who intend to PvP how they plan to deal with corruption as it currently is. And every single one of them either said they are avoiding engaging fights altogether, or they will utilize methods of being a nuisance via PvE, keeping opponents at a lower percentage of health if they are fighting NPCs (likely around 25% so they dont accidently kill them is what they said), and flat out body blocking or following/impeding the players such as racing them to whatever nodes they are gathering repeatedly to claim the area resources, even in groups so there is always someone of the others tail. Theyd be happy to utilize a kill or 2 to get the point across instead, but as is, they are planning to resort to different methods to get the same point across. And these are players who fully agree with Stevens definition of Griefing, and dont intend to ever camp players or grief with PKs. Do with that what you will, its not exactly a large census
Slipree wrote: » Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions.
ShivaFang wrote: » Honestly the system as currently described puts PKs in the same situation they put the player they killed - either fight, run, or die. A red player is never 'innocent' - they are guilty by virtue of whatever act made them red. There is no 'self defense' clause here. So yes, they either fight back and gain more corruption, run, or accept that this is the consequence of their actions and let the greens kill them.
Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing. Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight. every single green? Great PvP-ers. You said Red can clean corruption in the deep ocean so killing the green close to the border seems viable. It would, if that was what you meant, and not the 'those people didn't let me have a gathering spot all to myself so I kill them on repeat each time they come back' that you clearly set up there Let's see where Steven put's the fishing spots in this PvX game which is unlike any other Lakes, rivers, ponds, and sea. Only one of which is directly part of lawless territory. But again, it's plainly obvious your imaginary scenario wasn't about the lawless sea at all. Just this same strange, recurring entitlement mentality to harvesting areas. In a player economy, pvp driven game, why would you assume clans wouldn’t fight over resources? No I don’t want others getting all those tasty fish, so yes, I’d kill them to send them on their way. I’d at least offer them the chance to tuck their tails first however. Too bad this game isn’t full loot. I miss darkfall.
Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption yes, but how do you think someone can run from a green thats cc immune? I personally dont like it when protected players roam around using that protection as a weapon to further punish someone whos already going to lose a good amount of stuff when they die. If the red defends themselves they lose even more. It would be less of an issue if greens were not cc immune. Then you could pull some tricks to try and get away but as it stands if you happen to be the unlucky guy in your group to get a last hit you become the juicy piece of meat to everyone within that area. This change is for those kinds of players just trying to contend for a farming spot or drive someone off and happen to go red. Since there is no option to choose non-lethal attacks the least that could be done is making greens flag as purple if they initiate against a red. So you are penalized for defending yourself if you are red? It doesn’t pvp flag the aggressor? That’s….kind of lame. Especially since I see you say the green (I assume the traditional blue) is cc immune? Why would anyone ever be cc immune? That seems like bad design for a pvp focused game imo. I’m brand new here though so I don’t know the details and only going off what you guys are saying. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions.
