Non-Combatant attacking Corrupted

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

Ok now I think I am at the point where I can explain to you why greens have a business there.

If you don't have the incentive to run, you will continue to attract more people to your area. This indirectly means that you have now created a situation in which wherever you go, you can 'bully' people who are doing PvE into taking their hunting grounds, not because YOU are that meaningful of an opponent, but because of all the people who you will attract to the area, probably kill you, and then start taking all the mobs of the PvEr because they are toughest in town and clear mobs faster. They don't even need to kill greens to have this 'bully effect'.

What this means in the bigger scope of things is that Reds now actually have reasons to team up with other reds to congregate in the same hunting grounds to lower the population in the area. And as a fellow red they have incentive to help you kill bounty hunters. So you get these pseudo war zones as the default meta for efficency in PvE. If you create an incentive for the Red to run by 'threat of being attacked by the PvEr's this prevents this scenario from happening while increasing the difficulty challenge for the bounty hunters (because chasing a red is more involved time wise than targeting a stationary one.)

I was surprised when I first read this thread, because this is what I thought the system WAS: Anyone who attacks anyone goes Purple, even if they're attacking a Red.

This system works. It's less punishing than some others, but I didn't see enough of a flaw to consider it invalid. From what I understood, corruption isn't supposed to stop ganking, or even make gankers lives miserable, only to stop ganking sprees .

If a guy went red and killed someone (for a grudge, money, whatever), they'd go grind it off. To all the greens in the area, the Red would just effectively 'act like a Purple' unless they were trying to gank more people. The system would discourage 'ganking more people' because it'd increase the time required to burn it off, and therefore the risk of eating those rough corrupted death penalties.

The system for diminishing stats as you got really red seemed to go along with this.

From there, all that would be required to achieve the goal of "discouraging ganking sprees while keeping ganking as a normal part of the game", would be to tune those sliders. (How much stuff you drop, and how long corruption lasts per kill.)

I was surprised to see Reds aren't allowed to defend themselves against Greens, to the point of wondering if it was a mistake on the chart, because it's a major change to the system that discourages ganking harder, and in a differently way, than I thought the system had intended. It does bring a "having to live as an outlaw" style gameplay, that I can totally see as intended, though.

You can't really argue with "if there's a ton of greens in the area when you gank someone, you should be ready to get hurt". I just found the "you should be ready to earn a ton more corruption" a bit surprising. It shifts the risk-reward balance significantly. It makes sense for serial gankers, maybe even for thieves, but it comes down pretty hard on the "I hate this guy in particular" crowd. I'll have to think more about the implications.

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

They have the choice to do that built in already. They can just flag as bounty hunter instead. No need to remove this part of the game design to solve this specific problem as far as I can tell.

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

I think you missed a post of mine above that explains why greens have a business in attacking you/why Reds need an incentive to run/disperse from an area.

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/362101/#Comment_362101

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

Maybe that's the part of the system that should change then.

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

Ok well NOW you and I are actually disagreeing on a fundamental design principle: 'Reds shouldn't be incentivized to run!' vs 'PvE get's to disrupted and Reds become incentivized to team up if they are not' which leads to two very different games. I think you and I can agree to disagree on that. The fact that you can't see why it does add something to the game is due to that design philosophy difference so I feel no need for you to justify to me why you think that and vice versa.

GG's as we say in the fighting game community.