The game is primarily player driven. Conflicts between players will exist and those players can choose how they want to resolve their issues - do they want to battle it our or do they want to just talk about it. Nobody is forced to PvP in such conflicts.
Now, when it comes to game mechanics giving the choice of just 'talking it over' doesn't really make that much sense. Like the example with the dragon event. It's a world event and it does not affect only you. How would that work? Some people want to kill the dragon and take its treasures and others want to talk him out of destroying the node.
I can see there being such an option in solo quests that only affect your character and the progression of the quest only on your character. ESO probably has the best mix of such quests, there are a lot where you can kill or talk, persuade etc.
Ofc, in terms of guild wars or castle/node sieges there should be an option to end the war or lift/cancel the siege, but the more important aspectt is the player to player interaction that makes that happen.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The game is primarily player driven. Conflicts between players will exist and those players can choose how they want to resolve their issues - do they want to battle it our or do they want to just talk about it. Nobody is forced to PvP in such conflicts.
Now, when it comes to game mechanics giving the choice of just 'talking it over' doesn't really make that much sense. Like the example with the dragon event. It's a world event and it does not affect only you. How would that work? Some people want to kill the dragon and take its treasures and others want to talk him out of destroying the node.
I can see there being such an option in solo quests that only affect your character and the progression of the quest only on your character. ESO probably has the best mix of such quests, there are a lot where you can kill or talk, persuade etc.
Ofc, in terms of guild wars or castle/node sieges there should be an option to end the war or lift/cancel the siege, but the more important aspectt is the player to player interaction that makes that happen.
I believe the OP doesn't believe Ashes will be "realistic" enough without options to solve disputes through diplomacy rather than combat.
I believe the OP doesn't believe Ashes will be "realistic" enough without options to solve disputes through diplomacy rather than combat.
That's fine, but not every conflict makes sense for a peaceful resolution and even less so in a game that is meant to have a certain dynamic. The option should be there for some (sieges, wars etc), but in general if it concerns more than 1 player it becomes very difficult to figure out how to implement such an option.
This post was intended to demonstrate that the concept of "nodes" is far from new, even in gaming, but that I could definitely envision a game where it was... and that idea is one I like.
You really need to learn to say what it is you are thinking, rather than focusing on trying to incorrectly use words and phrases that you think make you sound smarter.
Pro tip; they don't. You just come across as a twat who may or may not have ideas, but absolutely can't communicate them if you do. As I've said before, as long as you post the way you do, your threads will all go the way way.
Look no further than your thread on Fractured. You dropped the preoccupation you seem to have with attempting to seem smarter than you are - no being a twat - and the thread is fine.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Look no further than your thread on Fractured. You dropped the preoccupation you seem to have with attempting to seem smarter than you are - no being a twat - and the thread is fine.
Good point. They’re not a bad poster when they’re not trying too hard and just talk like a person. That was a good thread I appreciated.
Also, you don’t need to link to casus belli for people to understand what you are referring to; it’s not that obscure of a term.
It must be a terrible burden to go through life thinking that anyone who says something you don't understand is "trying too hard" or "trying to look smart".
See, here's the thing.
You've not said anything I don't understand. You've said smart things in stupid ways, and you have used words, terms and phrases that should only be used in specific settings. This though, this is a burden.
That's fairly standard though, any time someone is unable to communicate properly, the burden always falls on the people listening, not the person talking.
Personally, I think you're both being asshats because I didn't fall all over myself trying to make you agree with me.
Why would that be a thing anyone would think?
You know you are not a good enough debater to be able to alter my position on anything, why would I care that you know this and so didn't waste your time trying?
I'm happy to let the thread speak for itself, those who actually have high school or better reading competency see what happened here (and elsewhere) juuuuust fine.
Yeah, they will.
They will absolutely note that when you write a post in a normal manner (such as this most recent one that I have quoted a few times above) that the thoughts you have are being transferred from your brain to others clearly and efficiently - which is the basic goal of communication.
They will also see that this allows for actual discussion on what it is you have to say, which is the basic point of discourse.
So yeah, I'm happy to let this thread (and others) speak for itself. People will see what has happened here juuuuust fine - but that won't reflect that well on your earlier posts.
1
Options
AlluringModerator, Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Remember to keep the discussion constructive folks, it doesn't need to devolve into insulting each other.
Thank you.
Comments
The game is primarily player driven. Conflicts between players will exist and those players can choose how they want to resolve their issues - do they want to battle it our or do they want to just talk about it. Nobody is forced to PvP in such conflicts.
Now, when it comes to game mechanics giving the choice of just 'talking it over' doesn't really make that much sense. Like the example with the dragon event. It's a world event and it does not affect only you. How would that work? Some people want to kill the dragon and take its treasures and others want to talk him out of destroying the node.
I can see there being such an option in solo quests that only affect your character and the progression of the quest only on your character. ESO probably has the best mix of such quests, there are a lot where you can kill or talk, persuade etc.
Ofc, in terms of guild wars or castle/node sieges there should be an option to end the war or lift/cancel the siege, but the more important aspectt is the player to player interaction that makes that happen.
I believe the OP doesn't believe Ashes will be "realistic" enough without options to solve disputes through diplomacy rather than combat.
That's fine, but not every conflict makes sense for a peaceful resolution and even less so in a game that is meant to have a certain dynamic. The option should be there for some (sieges, wars etc), but in general if it concerns more than 1 player it becomes very difficult to figure out how to implement such an option.
Pro tip; they don't. You just come across as a twat who may or may not have ideas, but absolutely can't communicate them if you do. As I've said before, as long as you post the way you do, your threads will all go the way way.
Look no further than your thread on Fractured. You dropped the preoccupation you seem to have with attempting to seem smarter than you are - no being a twat - and the thread is fine.
Also, you don’t need to link to casus belli for people to understand what you are referring to; it’s not that obscure of a term.
You've not said anything I don't understand. You've said smart things in stupid ways, and you have used words, terms and phrases that should only be used in specific settings. This though, this is a burden.
That's fairly standard though, any time someone is unable to communicate properly, the burden always falls on the people listening, not the person talking.
Why would that be a thing anyone would think?
You know you are not a good enough debater to be able to alter my position on anything, why would I care that you know this and so didn't waste your time trying?
Yeah, they will.
They will absolutely note that when you write a post in a normal manner (such as this most recent one that I have quoted a few times above) that the thoughts you have are being transferred from your brain to others clearly and efficiently - which is the basic goal of communication.
They will also see that this allows for actual discussion on what it is you have to say, which is the basic point of discourse.
So yeah, I'm happy to let this thread (and others) speak for itself. People will see what has happened here juuuuust fine - but that won't reflect that well on your earlier posts.
Thank you.