Non-Combatant attacking Corrupted

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

I still hope that combatant CCs don't work on non-combatants. CCs working there would completely destroy the "risk vs reward" of the situation, because just CCing your target gives you no risk, while giving you the highest potential of reward. But hitting them with weak attacks until the mobs might finally kill them is truly a risky move, because mobs would either have to do 25+% HP hits to players or you'd be walking a razor's edge balance of "will this next hit kill my target or will the mob kill him before that?"

And that's not even counting any potential self-heals your target might have.

NiKr wrote: »

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

I still hope that combatant CCs don't work on non-combatants. CCs working there would completely destroy the "risk vs reward" of the situation, because just CCing your target gives you no risk, while giving you the highest potential of reward. But hitting them with weak attacks until the mobs might finally kill them is truly a risky move, because mobs would either have to do 25+% HP hits to players or you'd be walking a razor's edge balance of "will this next hit kill my target or will the mob kill him before that?"

And that's not even counting any potential self-heals your target might have.

Easier to hope that almost all CC does minor damage before applying its effect.

Azherae wrote: »

Easier to hope that almost all CC does minor damage before applying its effect.

Oh, I'm expecting it to do dmg. But I'd still want the CC effect itself to not trigger on the non-combatant or to just have no effect at all. Imo that's way more fair towards the pver and way more fun for the pvper (well, for me it would be). The adrenaline of "will this next attack make me red or will the mob finish them off" would be way higher than the one of "I'll just keep CCing my target until the mob brings it down". And imo pvp is all about that adrenaline. Obviously the ideal situation is where your target just fights back and you have a good proper fight, but in case the don't - you'd have the fun and risky action of trying to go around their decision in the most beneficial way.

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.

[/quote]

Any opinions on what a group of lower level Greens should do when a Red comes and sits in the middle of their farming/gathering/chilling spot?

For example if a few Green players on the beach fishing, see a Red come up to them, doesn't even start fishing, just stands there.

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.

Either? Both? I'm just trying to get an idea of where your concept of gameplay is, since we don't all have the same assumptions.

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.

It has been "thought through" in practice of several years by Steven, because he played with this exact system and liked it.

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.

Greens don't act as combatants in the situation of them attacking a red. They act as if they're killing a mob, because the system tells them "red = mob". You're looking at this rule outside of the rule itself.

It's like looking at the rule of "if you get hit you'll feel pain" and disagreeing with it just because you don't like it. Except with the game's case, you can just avoid participating in the game or avoid being on that side of the rules, while in the case of feeling pain irl - you kinda can't avoid it, unless you have a broken brain that doesn't register signals from your nerves.

Is it unfair that any green can just attack you? Of course. Was it unfair towards your victim that you just killed them w/o them fight back? Of course. Did you have a choice of not killing your victim and not getting into the "mob" state? Of course!

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.

I am not saying that we need to assume anything related to it.

However, you touch on the main point. As the Green players, would it make sense to NOT assume that?

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.

But again, you're looking at it outside of the game's rules. The rules state that killing a green gives you corruption. And they also state that fighting a red (mob) doesn't flag you as a combatant, keeping you green. So if the red then goes onto killing that green - he'll just get more corruption, just as the rules state.

The reason for that is the method of removing corruption and the system punishing you for having said corruption. The methods are "gain XP" or "die". Any player is free to help you with the "die" option. If you fight back against them - you're preventing them from enacting the system's desire to punish you. Which means you're trying to avoid said punishment.

And during that avoidance, the basic rules of gaining corruption and flagging stay the same. Killing greens gives corruption and greens attacking reds doesn't flag them. Which means that if you, as a red, kill greens that are trying to enact punishment onto you - you get more corruption. The rules of interaction haven't changed, your state has. The system sees you as a mob, so only BHs can flag against you, while everyone else can just attack and kill you w/o any repercussions. Iirc in L2 you could even lose your flagged status while fighting a red, because the process of fighting them didn't register as you being a "combatant" ( @JamesSunderland @George_Black correct me if I'm misremembering).

The "self-defense" only works for greens and combatants, because their state hasn't crossed the threshold of rights given to any player. But the Reds have limited rights, with self-defense against greens not being one of them.

And just to reiterate, the "why" behind that rights limitation is "to punish you". That's all the reason the devs need tbh.

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.

Then let's try this, I'm not really trying to make you agree, just seeing where your thoughts are.

Greens fishing on a coast together, this is a 'non-threat space'. Like being in a park on a Sunday.

"Convicted murderer on the run, known to be wanted by the police, dead or alive" walks up to them and just stands around. Maybe waves. Maybe sets up their BBQ grill.

They feel unsafe now, perhaps? They remember the 'Dead or Alive' markers on the posters. Let's assume a system where they have some penalty for attacking at all. Specifically 'penalty will apply on the side of the Green if they attack'.

They decide to take the penalty and attack, the Red goes 'wtf I was just enjoying my park day, what's wrong with you people?' and defends themselves with their cleaver and bbq fork.

They should have called for the Police or a Bounty Hunter, right? Maybe all left the area if they were so afraid that this random person just grilling in the park was somehow a THREAT to them just because they randomly killed someone before.

If the Red was attacked by the Bounty Hunter, and killed the BH in 'self-defense', the Red gains no additional Corruption (idk why this is). If they kill any greens in self-defense, it's a problem.

You're missing one weird discrepancy here, I think. The entire design is for gameplay fun purposes, because the most sensible thing would be for the Red to accept death from a Bounty Hunter without fighting back, at worst, running away, because the Red should get more Corruption for killing the Bounty Hunter . A force of justice/police is coming to deliver it and the Red resists? Worse punishment.

So, if Intrepid were to change the rules to 'You don't get Corruption if Greens attack you first and you fight back and win since that's Consensual PvP on their part, but you get more Corruption for not letting Bounty Hunters just kill you since you're now resisting justice', would that be better?

Azherae wrote: »

If the Red was attacked by the Bounty Hunter, and killed the BH in 'self-defense', the Red gains no additional Corruption (idk why this is). If they kill any greens in self-defense, it's a problem.

The BHs flag themselves up for pvp against the Corrupted. I see this as a way to counter groups with designated Reds. The corrupted can still fight back w/o further corruption because they're fighting against a flagged person (flagged from their pov), while their friends can only heal/buff them, because if they'll attack the BH (a green from their pov) - they'll get corruption themselves.

It's an inverse of roles. A Red is a ffa for greens, while a BH is a ffa for Reds. With the combatant state being the golden middle from all sides.

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.

Ok, but if SOMEONE does not kill the Red, there's no justice. Justice needs an agent. Either Bounty Hunters are that agent, or Greens are that agent.

Pick one, I personally don't care which. Since fighting the agent is 'fighting against justice', you get additional Corruption for resisting.

Intrepid chooses that Greens are the agent of Justice and Bounty Hunters are rewarded by coin, as you pointed out.

If you would like there to be an additional state that is 'JusticeBound' who you cannot kill without additional Corruption because the aim of Justice is to kill the Red, that's also fine, people can sign up for that. But for justice to happen, the Red Must Die.