Risk & Reward versus Corruption

I think there's already enough pvp systems in the game (a bit too much at this point imo). And I do agree with the need to counter overgathering, but I think that could be done through the already existing systems.

Link your greed meter idea to the Enemy of the State system and/or to the Node Wars system. If it's a solo player overfarming in the same node (not his own) - the system should track that and notify the mayor about it and make it easier/cheaper for him to make that overfarmer an enemy of the state. Now every citizen of that node can annihilate this overfarmer w/o corruption.

Do the same at node-citizenry scale to counter any nefarious deeds by one node against another node. Make the requirements to declare a war against the overfarming citizens easier for the side that's being overfarmed. Now you have yourself a whole war with a ton of free pvp w/o corruption.

TL;DR make the current systems better instead of just adding more bloat.

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

In this case, though, the Gatherer has explicitly given up some of their reward to create risk for the other player. It's the attacker that is experiencing 'risk vs Reward' in that case, the Gatherer is really moreso being passive.

If they have a full bag, and fight back, they will have a 75% full bag after, and their opponent (if winning) will get a reward of 25% of that full bag.

If they don't fight back, they will have a 50% full bag after, their opponent will get a reward of 50% of that full bag + 'Risk of being killed while red' to go with it.

The problem with the Risk vs Reward system in this case is that a Purple with an empty inventory is risking only exp (the baseline risk) if they die when jumping a Gatherer. The Gatherer's gain from winning this is... 'getting to keep the results of the time they spent'.

I don't see it discussed much, but the MAIN reason to 'not fight back' I think, is because if you fight back and lose, the attacker is still Purple/Green. They can have their friend come by, take all those materials, and it is fine because they can still trade due to not being Red.

You'd not fight back so that you have a higher chance of ensuring you can send friends/guildmates after the person to get more of your stuff back, but even so, it'd probably be about the same amount of stuff back as what you'd keep if you went purple.

If dying once isn't enough to remove Corruption though, then it's definitely better for a person who 'has a good set of PvP friends' to just accept it, since the Red player can't trade their loot away.

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

First of all, that gatherer would probably be in a guild or a citizen of a node and those can be warred by other guilds/nodes. So there are other ways of killing that player (enemy of the state feature too btw).

Second, "not fighting back" does not decrease your risk - it literally increases it. A green player loses more stuff than a purple player. So if that gatherer wanted to "avoid risk" (outside of just literally running away from any passerby) - they'd need to fight back.

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

Just to make sure, you don't equate Purple to Red, right? Because a corrupted player is a Red player and they can't in fact trade. But a Purple player is just a flagged for pvp player and they can do whatever they want.

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

I mean, you could literally just trade them your stuff if they can come to you

But I'll be definitely giving feedback to prevent the exploit you mentioned. Friends shouldn't be able to just kill you when you're red. They already can't flag on you, so why should they be able to help you avoid punishment.