Go to Ashara. The only reason people really want this is to grief others. Oh there's an awaken wizard who's been grinding here for hours... MUAHAHAHAHA.

War decs circumvent karma. Being a guildless karmbomber circumvents karma and mob-feeding isn't circumventing anything. Hence I tried to refine the idea and give everyone a high death penalty resistance on top of what everyone can muster. The system as I see it would circumvent the circumventing of karma :P 

Anyhow. Yeah. I'm again lying and blind and all that. 

Thanks, will do! :)

I'mma wrap it up here, for 2 reasons. One being the system is probably way too complex to be implemented in the current day and age of BDO.
2nd being that I deflect nothing, I answer to one critique after which you switch sides and critique something else, which I answer, but in the next post, you just swap sides and tackle my answer from one by one, as if I didn't answer them above in the opposite order. 

As presented, my experience was that of the underdog in the dfs, so I wouldn't want to empower the stronger player even further. As presented, my experience with being declared was used exactly to circumvent the karma system (and/or in an attempt to circumvent the pvp ones on seasonal servers). I don't see how a stronger player would be the victim in any scenario, tbh, except when dealing with guildless karmabombers, which my suggestion is trying to tackle. Also, gvg would never happen in a scenario where the target is in a small guild/lifeskiller/afk etc. The existing solution empowers strong guilds, empowers guildless players. Everyone else seems more at the mercy of the elements.

Oh, yeah! My other pvp experience with, let's say equal gear, while pleasant on its own, started badly with mob-feeding. Another issue I'm trying to tackle. So no, your criticsm is strong, but it's being done for the lols. And you don't provide any ideas on how to improve, because it's not your "job". No, your job is to belittle. You don't like the current system but you'd make no effort in helping to tweak the current suggestion either. What gives? With your deep understanding of the game's system, you could help refine it. But it's not why you're here for, so eh... Glhf, I guess? 

I'm sorry @Harth but I find myself finally downvoting your proposal.

Since your edit I see it as a content impossible to make and manage in game. Too much parameters not possible to achieve!

Also you said:

Karmabombing is the only way for many players to defend themselfves against high geared players who come to freely ruin their game and their grind.

It's one of the mechanics of the game that are available and like every mechanic, it's used. It may be used sometimes to bother someone but most of the times for self defense. When an invader wants to force dfs, if the dfs is refused he pk the guy who was already there. Karmabomb for someone who didn't attack or anything is one way (THE ONLY way) to defend their spot.

I thought you wanted to make a entertaining feature and I would have agreed to that. But now you wanna change the entire karma concept and your proposal seems to be in advantage for those who wanna grief on spots already taken.

If a griefer doesn't want to be karmabombed, then he can not kill. Nothing simpler than that.

But in addition, you say:

So it would concern every grinding zone (as you said the first time you answered me). So there would be no place anymore to farm in peace, even for those who decide to farm in lower zones to make rotations in peace, because anybody could come and grief, anybody could everywhere ruin the farm going on with your proposal.

I can only imagine how it would be challenging already to grind on high geared zones (like Elvia) because of such a system.

But now, if it has to be everywhere, people would keep using your system as they'd know there's no threat of losing karma. So they can bother everyone and make the farm time more toxic than ever for everybody.

"2nd being that I deflect nothing"

If I ever drop a critique it's because it was answered it in a satisfactory manner, or because you deflected and failed to answer it. It has only been the latter so far. If I ever add a critique it's because you added something/said something worth critiquing. There has been many.

Here's an example- You have said the following as examples of problem that will be solved under your suggestion. I have gone point by point saying that these problems will persist with no issue/stop whatsoever. 

" a. You get war dec'ed for refusing a duel.

   b. You get war dec'ed for not having said "r".

   c. You get war dec'ed for using potions during a duel.

   d. You get war dec'ed if you refuse a rematch.

   e. You get war dec'ed if the other player isn't satisfied with the outcome and intends to feed you to the mobs later down the line."

Your only reply to my points was debunked in the case of a, completely reliant on a change that you self admit you don't know how to fix for b, and the rest you just never commented other than saying that it's a problem with dfs. Any time this was bought up you deflect and ignore the question.

Here's another more recent one- You have continously stated that dfs is used by a higher geared player to get a spot. by association, this suggestion to systemize dfs symbolizes you thinking that higher geared players are entitled to a spot. I then asked you "why do they deserve the spot over lower geared players? what entitles them ownership over a spot if the player currently grinding there has less gear? again, this seems like you are arguing to create a world where high geared players can can grind basically undisturbed whenever they like." of course you never answered this either, instead rather deflect and say that my criticism is contradictive when it isn't.

"I answer to one critique after which you switch sides and critique something else, which I answer, but in the next post, you just swap sides and tackle my answer from one by one, as if I didn't answer them above in the opposite order. "

swapping sides is something you need to do as you should consider all issues at multiple angles- a little life lesson for you as you have failed severely in this aspect. You think I am contradicting myself when I say your system fails when you belong in a guild and able to call a stronger player to help and it also fails when you belong in a guild that only has lower geared players that can't help. It don't. One shows that under your suggestion if you can call a friend/guildie for help your system fails as it is an example of problems that your system is supposed to fix, and the other shows that your system victimizes people for being lower gear and can't call for help under your system. These are not mutually exclusive and does not impact each other in anyway.

"As presented, my experience was that of the underdog in the dfs, so I wouldn't want to empower the stronger player even further."

so you say that you don't want to empower stronger players, yet you create a suggestion for a system where ONLY the stronger player is empowered? Please elaborate. 

"I don't see how a stronger player would be the victim in any scenario, tbh, except when dealing with guildless karmabombers, which my suggestion is trying to tackle."

Yet you don't realize that you are victimizing players with no gear, even if they aren't guildless karmabombers.

"Also, gvg would never happen in a scenario where the target is in a small guild/lifeskiller/afk etc. The existing solution empowers strong guilds, empowers guildless players. Everyone else seems more at the mercy of the elements."

so low geared players, and weak players in weak guilds are supposed to be just victimized by the higher geared players that most likely will be in strong guilds? that's your solution? also a side note here is that I mentioned gvgs prior to this to remind you not to trip over intended social interactions within the game in your little so called crusade to fix karma bombing and mob feeding.

"You don't like the current system but you'd make no effort in helping to tweak the current suggestion either. What gives? With your deep understanding of the game's system, you could help refine it. But it's not why you're here for, so eh... Glhf, I guess?"

Realize that I began posting here with saying your suggestion prior to many revamps was very reliant on war decs being also changed and that you should focus on trying to suggest changes to war decs before anything else.

"No, your job is to belittle."

if you call what I've been doing "belittling" so be it, just like you are completely fine belitting an entire population of lower geared players and are more than willing to sacrifice them as victims for high gear players. Sure you can call what I'm doing belittling your suggestion as much as you belittle low geared players by treating them as subhuman. Also remember- I wasn't the one that started the banter.

"So no, your criticsm is strong, but it's being done for the lols. And you don't provide any ideas on how to improve, because it's not your "job""

I don't believe that any amount of changes can help this suggestion without changing the very core components of it because no matter how you look at it it's just adding another way to circumvent karma loss for the players that need it the least.

It's okay for a suggestion to have flaws, as long as it is addressed or recognize and explained why it's still okay with it.  It's your job to look at the criticism/ when flaws are pointed out and either address it accordingly, by saying how it's not a problem or recognize it and reason why even with the criticism it's still better than what is currently in place. However, the core aspects of your suggestion is flawed to a point and not only does the current flawed system stay the same, but the suggestion introduces more abuse and you have done nothing to address most if not any of it, while brushing it off as inconsequential. 

Listen, playing devil's advocate for the sake of it is non-constructive and a big part of the reason why most of these threads devolve into self-gratifying debate. If you think the idea is so fundamentally flawed that there's no hope in improving it, simply say so, toss in your downvote, and move on. Anything more is just an attempt to tear someone down for trying to come up with an idea. You can't blame people for getting defensive when they're constantly being battered with unhelpful criticism.
 

As for real solutions, there have been several constructive counter-ideas offered up in response to some of the concerns that have been voiced:

1. "You pose this as a solution to players to war deccing, but you never explain how you fix the problems."

Potential Solution:  Grant immunity to all guild conflicts while under the flag, or let the flag take priority over war (aka the attacking guild still takes a karma penalty for killing you, regardless of war status). Sure guilds could get around this by calling in an unaffiliated player to take the karma hit, but... how often would that actually happen? With this restriction there would also no longer be any benefit to remaining guildless.

2. "You never addressed the form of abuse that your suggestion can incur:  someone with higher gear can just waltz into a zone that a lower geared player is currently grinding and kill them and their flag..."

*This has nothing to do with OP's suggestion, it's a form of abuse that has existed in the game since day one.*

Potential Solution: Add a severe karma penalty. This would vastly improve the situation for the weaker player by essentially letting the flag karma bomb the stronger player *for* them. For the sake of having actual numbers involved let's say the penalty is 120k-150k karma for killing a player under their flag - something similar to the penalty for killing a lifeskiller. This forces PKers to be incredibly selective about which spots they want to steal, and gives the weaker player the chance to fight for their spot without having to flag up. On the flipside: if a weaker player tries to grief a stronger player by grinding over their rotation, the stronger player now has the freedom to defend their spot without consequence.

3. "What entitles them ownership over a spot if the player currently grinding there has less gear? How do you decide who "owns" the current grind spot?"

*Again, this is an issue baked into the core of the game's design and has nothing to do with the suggestion itself.*

Potential Solution: The flag gives off a 'Spot Taken!' alert to any opponent entering its radius. Thus the flag decides who owns the current grind spot, that's the entire basis of a spot-claiming mechanic. 'First come first serve' is a mentality that the majority of the BDO community seems to share, is it not? Regardless of which side of the gear equation you are on.

4. "Again, I'm not against dfs as a system as a whole. I think the current owpvp is very flawed as well. What I am against is what you are trying to suggest, because it doesn't do anything but create more problems..."

That's fair and could very well be true. But I want to reiterate that there's no harm in tossing around ideas to try and improve on this game that we all love... even if PA's approach to development makes us all feel a little spiteful sometimes ^^; I'm guilty of that myself.

TLDR: I personally feel that an open world flag-claiming concept has a lot of potential and would like to continue discussing it, hard feelings aside :)

If i were just playing devil's advocate for the sake of it then i probably wouldn't spend hours replying.  I won't be saying that I don't enjoy breaking down everything OP says though. I wouldn't care as much even if it negatively affects me personally and probably wouldn't have commented at all. However, this idea is so flawed at a fundamental level in a very negative way and will affect the game negatively if it is passed the way OP wants it.  If any of my points of criticism is address I drop it, but as said before, I got more and more criticism rather than any answers.

If you haven't realized it, OP has removed any mentions of this as a solutions to war decs from the initial post with the only thing relating to it being an addendum that flag takes priorty over war decs. Instead of acknowledging it as a problem or admitting that he was wrong in saying that this can be a solution to war decs, he just deletes it but still says through replies and comments that because he thinks DFS is a catalyst to war decs, systemizing dfs is a solution to war decs. Not a bad approach if he wants less questions regarding that, but leaves a bad taste in the mouth knowing that now he's trying to hide his intent. Something else he was trying to hide was that he made this suggestion thinking of it as a tool reserved for higher geared players- see below my reply to point 2

1"Grant immunity to all guild conflicts while under the flag, or let the flag take priority over war (aka the attacking guild still takes a karma penalty for killing you, regardless of war status)."

As I said before, this just introduces another layer to war deccing, and not a solution at all. In the case of it just taking priority, then guild can just rotate whose killing flag holder. with the flag rotating between guilds and gvgs being a group activity, the fight can go for hours before anyone even risk going negative.  

The complete immune to pvp vs a decced guild is an interesting concept, but it requires an additional change of mobs not being damagable by anyone else but the current grind spot owner which introduces more mob feeding ability, something OP is trying to fix. 

Also this touches on a fundamental social activity for guilds. As I said before, conflicts in the form of gvgs over grinding spots is a positive interaction and is healthy for the game. it sparks competition and the want to better yourself, your gear and your guild. Even in the case of someone being on protection by their guild, they are still not completely immune to being attacked as someone can just flag up.

2"Add a severe karma penalty. This would vastly improve the situation for the weaker player by essentially letting the flag karma bomb the stronger player *for* them."

Even if you increase the karma hit to basically make the offender zero, it still doesn't change the problem at all. High player goes into grind spot, kills low geared player that can't fight back due to gear difference, and free grind spot acquired. 

*This has nothing to do with OP's suggestion, it's a form of abuse that has existed in the game since day one.*

Context matters here, as it has everything to do with OP's suggestion. Currently in game there are recourses that players with lower gear can take, and negative affects that affect the aggressor. OP has said time and time again that these recourses are the things he wants to take away, leaving lower end players just completely stranded while giving the higher geared player more power.

Even after questioning his thought process and laying out straight for him what he's trying to saying in case he did it unintentionally, he doesn't change his view but double downs on it. See page 7, his reply to a my quote that starts with "you think dfs is usually between players of unequal gear". from this quote alone that he knows that his system is unfairly tilted to the favor of higher gear player, but he thinks that the only victims during grinding are these higher geared players and not the lower geared players. 

"The flag gives off a 'Spot Taken!' alert to any opponent entering its radius. Thus the flag decides who owns the current grind spot, that's the entire basis of a spot-claiming mechanic."

This idea is interesting, but it isn't relevant to the problem at hand. I also do agree with the fcfs sentiment. The problem is OP's view on who owns a spot. again see the quote on page 7. He doubles down whenever he gets the chance to on saying that he thinks whoever has higher gear should own the spot, regardless of any other circumstances. regardless of fcfs. This is a bad take. 

"That's fair and could very well be true. But I want to reiterate that there's no harm in tossing around ideas to try and improve on this game that we all love... even if PA's approach to development makes us all feel a little spiteful sometimes ^^; I'm guilty of that myself."

there is no harm in tossing ideas to improve the game yes. However, the problem here is that this idea instead of improving the game, it worsens it. OP seemingly have zero regard for lower geared players which also just happens to be the group most vulnerable to just quitting due to them just having invested less in the game- time, money, etc, and would be willing to just play another game.

"TLDR: I personally feel that an open world flag-claiming concept has a lot of potential and would like to continue discussing it, hard feelings aside :)"

delete any mention of karma then it would be interesting, at the very least for the warnings of spot taken. definitely not going to happen tho as it completely guts what OP is trying to do. as is though and with OP wanting the karma circumvention as a core part of the suggestion, it is not  something that should ever go into the game.

Because there's no restriction in drop rates. Because dfs is not the only broken system. You keep pushing for a solution to one problem that would solve all the issues in the world, from broken loot system to world hunger.

Name, war dec over spot (to circumvent the karma system), guildless karmabombing (to circumvent the karma system), mob-feeding (which is just utter trash behavior imo). I kept saying that, you kept hammering about how I favor the higher geared player. You're not deconstructing jack. You're just constantly twisting my words and flipping the narrative with literally one goal in mind. Griefing.

I would favor that tbh, having the conflict over the spot be resolved as much as possible between the contenders, not the entire server. But eh? It would probably upset a lot of people, especially if the flags would turn out to be an inadequate solution to contest/defend a spot.

While the blantantly obvious solution would be tweaking the drops and drop rates to be more in line with the gearscore requirement - as I've said, tying the drop chance to the AP caps - that was not a good idea, in Asd's opinion. 'Cause you see, that isn't cover in this thread, so I should not make the flag suggestion, but, instead, make one about drops disparity... To which he'll probably follow and break it down with arguments that would require this flag suggestion to be made and still end up telling me I made the wrong suggestion.

Also, your idea is nice! I'd add: multiply the karma hit by the amount of people in the flag zone and find a way to tie in the recommended AP for the zone, maybe, somehow. Such that, the further the player is from the AP recommendation, the bigger the karma hit gets. I can't discuss values of these hits, though. Can't really think how much would be acceptable, in a scenario where the attacker would have to maybe keep at it multiple times. (Which makes me think the flag resurrection mechanic would need a long cast, so that the invader can have at least a chance to wreck it).

PA owns the spots. On point, the desire is to make the activity of contesting one a bit more free of game-mechanics abuse. Take away karmabomber's weapons (the action itself and the benefit of being guildless), take away the bullies's advantages (be they war dec, zerging or just overpowering with no downside) and, as much as possible, prevent the other disgusting abuse of mob-feeding.

All existing mechanics - that you sometimes defend, sometimes oppose, depending if it's an odd or even minute of the hour - are aiming to circumvent or abuse the karma system. War decs, mob-feeding, karmabombing. All. But they're good. Cus they're doing what you claim you don't like my proposal for trying to do.

If anything, I'm thinking that using karma as currency for something could also open the way for other ways of actually giving it some added value and reason to exist.

No, I don't. Stop putting things in my mouth please. I dislike bullies, irl, in-game or on the forums. Bullies like you ;) 
Cheers!