Non-Combatant attacking Corrupted

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

Well because I really should just sleep, it's simple.

I am not willing to assume that @hleV is actually being completely selfish and disingenuous here, and I can see their point.

If the answer is 'no, any action taken in pre-emptive self defense by the Green is PvP and I shouldn't be punished for killing them', then I can go 'ok, selfish and disingenuous'.

If the answer is 'this is ok, I just want that when a Green decides to chase me down to kill me just because I happened to meet them on the road, I can defend myself', then it's valid enough to me. I can agree that it's not necessary for 'being hounded by an army of Greens through the world because you can't even log off' to be a thing, it isn't really that fun and maybe not adding too much to the game.

The problem is that if hleV is starting from the perspective of 'Greens just wanna grief me' then even this explanation will get caught up in weeds because then I have to explain 'ok the Protector moves slower than a player' or 'Ok the protector's range doesn't change' or 'ok Protector summoning has a cooldown' because everything will be viewed by hleV as 'this is a tool for Greens to grief me' instead of for protection.

But making assumptions about people is easier , so...

zzz

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

Again though, this system is literally copy-pasted from L2, except with one addition of "you get your stats dampened when you have too much corruption". The "it's gonna be tested" is just a protective wording in case the current generation of gamers will hate the system so much that they'll refuse even trying the game out.

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

And you can do exactly that in the current system. You have to do exactly that in the current system. Except currently you have to do that because you know "if I keep killing greens - I'll be in more trouble, so I better move quickly", while in your suggestion it's just "I can take my time because I'll never acquire more corruption again, until I clear the current one".

In the current system any green is free to attack you because they're sure they can hasten your punishment no matter what the result of the fight is. They either win and you lose a big chunk of your corruption or they die and you gain even more corruption which just means that you'll now have to die more times to get rid of all the corruption. This interaction deters any of your future attempts at becoming red.

In your suggestion that would never be the case. Players would only ever get a single stack of corruption because no matter how many times they kill any of their attackers - they'll never receive more corruption due to the game seeing all of those attackers as combatants.

There's no potential spiral of corruption gain and no true deterrent against going red in the first place. Which, in turn, defeats the purpose of the corruption system.

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

Nah, not for touching. I meant it as this: you are flagged; you have 10 seconds left on the timer; you see a red and start fighting it; while fighting the red for more than 10 seconds you lose the flag and if the red kills you he gets more corruption.

Is that interaction true or did I forget how it worked?

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

The penalty comes only if you die while red. BHs can look for you, but unless they were close to you or you were too far from any valuable mobs - they'll be probably too late to get you before you clear your corruption through XP gain. So there's a much higher chance that a random green that think he's strong enough will try killing you.

In the current system you're disadvantaged against him because you'll get more corruption. So you either have to run away or have your friends heal you while you kill mobs with that green attacking you constantly. In case of running away you give the BHs more time to try and catch you, which justifies that system (I've got my own problems with it). In the case of you being with a group of people, there's a high chance that the green attacker also has a group of people with them, at which point you're dead either way because you'll just get attacked by 8 people all at once, no matter if they flag up against you or not. Imo this is what makes the whole system work as intended and even makes the BH system work on top of that.

In your suggestion, if you're alone and the green is alone, you can just fight back w/o any problems and immediately keep farming the mobs. You do not get more corruption so the time to remove your present corruption is really short. This invalidates the BH system and doesn't punish the red in any way. And again, if you're attacked by a group of greens there'd be no difference between the 2 systems. To me this system doesn't work because it doesn't deter people from going red, because they know they can just keep killing mobs w/o ever gaining more corruption in the process. And, in turn, that would invalidate the BH system because in order for any BH to catch you in time, they'd have to be very close to your initial murder location.

Now both of those example operate under the assumption that killing mobs will be at all valid as a way to remove corruption. We don't have the details about that part of the balancing of this system, and we won't know anything concrete until after extensive testing of it. If after the testing the balancing comes down to "dying is the only valid way to remove corruption, because killing mobs would require you to avoid people for an hour, after just one kill" - I wouldn't really care how the greens interact with the red because the end result will always be "red dies". While the balancing I'd personally want would be smth like "30% of the time the red becomes green through XP gain and 70% it's death at the hands of BHs because the red was on the run from the greens and they lost him".

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

If you can't outrun some greens it's either a skill issue or decision making one. If you PKed a green in a crowd of people - you deserve to die. If you killed a green somewhere in a dungeon and couldn't remove your corruption before any new greens come for you (or didn't relocate in time) - it's a skill issue and you still deserve to die.

Otherwise, I've explained my position on what I want from the system already.

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

CCs have diminishing effects and time to kill is planned to be around a minute. If that's not enough for a red to avoid a single green - he should've definitely not become a red. So yeah, again, I see no issues with the current system. It has worked in the past, it can work again.

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

I mean, if one slow is long enough and strong enough to prevent you from running away - we got a bigger problem than just some reds getting what they deserve.