Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest. Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum. The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this. If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort. Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding. If you come across someone that does this, you have three options. 1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way. 2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption. 3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there. Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic. Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution... People putting in serious effort to gain some system based protection is not an exploit. As to your point about gear being destroyed rather than dropped on corrupt death, PvP is Ashes way of redistributing gear, destroying it goes against that. Gear dropping is less a penalty for the corrupt player, and more of a reward for the attacker. If the action is meant to be a system based protection system sure. But if it is not designed specifically for that reason, thats a potential exploit. And yes, you can still provide a reward for players such as materials or currency. But at the same time causing a punishment for the corrupted player while preventing another possible exploit is just a good idea. Or should we just say "nah its fine" and just ignore possible exploits to the systems we are being presented with? There is a massive difference between an exploit, and people having the time, ability and knowledge to work around a given system. If people were able to always get around the penalties of corruption, then sure, exploit. If they are able to gain corruption and then get themselves away to somewhere no one can interrupt them in order to work off corruption (note that this is only going to be worth it after gaining many kills worth of coreuption), then more power to them. That isnt an exploit, that is using the system as intended - and indeed is why the real penalty of death while corrupt is the increased experience debt - something this "work around" doesnt prevent. If Intrepid really think that there is something here that needs to be addressed, rather than removing the reward/incentive for people attacking that corrupt player, they have many, many other things already built in to the game that they can adjust.
Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest. Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum. The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this. If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort. Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding. If you come across someone that does this, you have three options. 1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way. 2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption. 3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there. Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic. Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution... People putting in serious effort to gain some system based protection is not an exploit. As to your point about gear being destroyed rather than dropped on corrupt death, PvP is Ashes way of redistributing gear, destroying it goes against that. Gear dropping is less a penalty for the corrupt player, and more of a reward for the attacker. If the action is meant to be a system based protection system sure. But if it is not designed specifically for that reason, thats a potential exploit. And yes, you can still provide a reward for players such as materials or currency. But at the same time causing a punishment for the corrupted player while preventing another possible exploit is just a good idea. Or should we just say "nah its fine" and just ignore possible exploits to the systems we are being presented with?
Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest. Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum. The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this. If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort. Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding. If you come across someone that does this, you have three options. 1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way. 2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption. 3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there. Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic. Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution... People putting in serious effort to gain some system based protection is not an exploit. As to your point about gear being destroyed rather than dropped on corrupt death, PvP is Ashes way of redistributing gear, destroying it goes against that. Gear dropping is less a penalty for the corrupt player, and more of a reward for the attacker.
Dolyem wrote: » Noaani wrote: » So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest. Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum. The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this. If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort. Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding. If you come across someone that does this, you have three options. 1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way. 2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption. 3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there. Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic. Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution...
Noaani wrote: » So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest. Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum. The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this. If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort. Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding. If you come across someone that does this, you have three options. 1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way. 2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption. 3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there. Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic.
SongRune wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green. Green can kill Red and stay green. They only go purple if they hit a Green or Purple. It's part of the penalty for being Red. (ref)
SirChancelot wrote: » My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green.
George_Black wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP. Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged. This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing. Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r. Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty. My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green. Clueless.
SirChancelot wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP. Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged. This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing. Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r. Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty. My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green.
CROW3 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP. Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged. This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing. Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r. Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty.
Dygz wrote: » If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP.
Dolyem wrote: » Just because someone is putting time into something doesn't mean that it isn't an exploit.
Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Just because someone is putting time into something doesn't mean that it isn't an exploit. Yes, this is true. Sticking with that high level gatherer, low level combat character, from Intrepids perspective, not only would this kind of thing not be unintended use of the game systems, it would be an actual designed use case. They will design the game with the idea in mind that at least some of the time, high level players will bring high level gatherers to specific areas to harvest materials for them. You don't put materials that require a high level gathering class in to areas with high level mobs without taking this in to account - it's not like Intrepid are amateurs or anything. As such, it is blatantly not an exploit. It is not even close - it is a designed use case. It is the idea and/or assumption that many PvP players have that this would even be considered an exploit and as such need the developers to hand them a way to deal with this situation that is telling of said players. It is an unflattering look - even for PvP players.
Dygz wrote: » What is "it"?
Dygz wrote: » Actually, that is what they are saying.
SirChancelot wrote: » George_Black wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP. Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged. This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing. Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r. Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty. My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green. Clueless. What an exceptionaly wonderful attitude you have there... The world is definitely better of having you around Edit: *edited to remove actual opinion*
Dolyem wrote: » Clearly you didnt read about the discussion of bots exploiting what youre defending.
But you keep holding onto that "PVP bad" argument dude.
bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that. I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules. Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. Logging in is consenting to PvP. Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology. As others have said logging into an FPS and getting mad because other people shot you is the player not understanding the nature of the game. No such thing as non-consentual PvP in an OWPvP game. The idea is a logical fallacy. By choosing to log in you are saying to everyone else that logged in you are ok with unplanned random PvP. This helps keep the world interesting and exciting.
Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that. I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules. Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. Logging in is consenting to PvP. Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology.
bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that. I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules. Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. Logging in is consenting to PvP.
Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that. I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules. Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
Norkore wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that. I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules.
SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that.
Noaani wrote: » If "bots" put in enough time to get a low level character in this area, I would wager you are not dealing with actual bots. The reason I didn't bother mentioning anything in regards to that is because "if" they are indeed bots, the appropriate means of dealing with them is for Intrepid to take action on the account. The notion of changing an aspect of the game like this so that players can "deal with bots" is laughable. Killing a bot isn't dealing with them, and if anything, it makes it harder for Intrepid to take action on their account. I mean, if you report a bot, and then kill it, when Intrepid get around to looking at it, they have a character that is likely just sitting at the respawn point doing nothing - they are for all intents and purposes just some random AFK player.
Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Consensual PvP only. Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something. If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play? In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there... And to the people saying stuff like "You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that. I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules. Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. Logging in is consenting to PvP. Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology. As others have said logging into an FPS and getting mad because other people shot you is the player not understanding the nature of the game. No such thing as non-consentual PvP in an OWPvP game. The idea is a logical fallacy. By choosing to log in you are saying to everyone else that logged in you are ok with unplanned random PvP. This helps keep the world interesting and exciting. Now you are arguing against standard terminology which has been out there at least from the beginning of EvE online. Therefore, it is not a new thing or meant to offend anyone rather used to make difference between different owPvP rules. You can easily google this if you do not take my word of it. On top of that now this term non-consensual PvP has taken out of the context. We were originally talking about ingame PvP flagging rules which has nothing to do with logging in to the game. In open world game where no-one is forced to PvP and you need to flag to do so, has consensual PvP rules. These games can have arenas, battlegrounds or even caravans like in Ashes but the common thing is that players can choose if they want to participate or not to the PvP action.In open world games where players can be attacked by other players (typically in context of ganking) even if they do not want that at that moment has non-consesual PvP rules. Someone can be okay with that but this happens because the rules allows it.No, you consented to this based strictly on the games ruleset. Otherwise I agree with what you said. The games rules allow players to attack anyone at anytime. There maybe very harsh consequences for doing so or none at all. BUT the rules allow it. Just like in EVE you can attack a player in a high security sector at any time. Is it a good idea? Probably not but the rules still allow it. Thus, consensual and non-consensual PvP terms have used to make difference between certain rules and help with the defining.
Azherae wrote: » Okeydoke wrote: » Nikr is doing a pretty good job on pointing out some of the problems of pve servers. There's even more reasons than what he's said. There's also legitimate arguments for pve servers. The decision is made though. I think it's the right decision, but I probably have a bit more neutralish stance on it compared to some of my pro pvp comrades here. Then please, I honestly implore you, give me those 'more reasons than what he's said'. Because if someone goes to Steven and says 'Steven we NEED to make open world PvP opt-in until level 35, it still keeps most of the same functions of the game, you can still attack sub-35 people in Guild Wars and every other situation, but we need to protect the casuals', I would like to know that Steven has a truly good reason to deny this suggestion other than 'No, I promised the people!' Especially when like 50% of the people will definitely go 'yes that is a great idea do that!'
Okeydoke wrote: » Nikr is doing a pretty good job on pointing out some of the problems of pve servers. There's even more reasons than what he's said. There's also legitimate arguments for pve servers. The decision is made though. I think it's the right decision, but I probably have a bit more neutralish stance on it compared to some of my pro pvp comrades here.
Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Clearly you didnt read about the discussion of bots exploiting what youre defending. If "bots" put in enough time to get a low level character in this area, I would wager you are not dealing with actual bots. The reason I didn't bother mentioning anything in regards to that is because "if" they are indeed bots, the appropriate means of dealing with them is for Intrepid to take action on the account. The notion of changing an aspect of the game like this so that players can "deal with bots" is laughable. Killing a bot isn't dealing with them, and if anything, it makes it harder for Intrepid to take action on their account. I mean, if you report a bot, and then kill it, when Intrepid get around to looking at it, they have a character that is likely just sitting at the respawn point doing nothing - they are for all intents and purposes just some random AFK player. But you keep holding onto that "PVP bad" argument dude. This is not something I have said, nor that I think. PvP is fine. I have, however, said that the bulk of open PvP players are bottom feeders, but that is about it.
bloodprophet wrote: » Lets go back to the brownie analogy. If one store sells brownies with nuts and the one right door does not. Should the one that does be forced into conformity because some people can't/won't eat brownies with nuts in them or should they be allowed to create their own product be honest in their advertising to make and sell a product that other people want to consume?
NiKr wrote: » Here's a good video that discusses why everyone who played older mmos love them so much, and imo this video supports the idea of limiting pvp to higher lvls.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Gaz8oxzJ4 Let the people enjoy the easier part of the game first and then impose difficulties on those who want to get even more enjoyment out of it. And if designed properly, you can hook more people in with a "you remember that one boss at lvl 10 that was fun and cool? Well here's an even cooler boss, but this time you'll have to work more to beat it and you'll have some competition before/during/after the fight too". Now, of course I hope that Intrepid manages to come up with such a design where those kinds of limitations on their system are not required, but this solution to the problem of "not everyone enjoys pvp/difficulties" is a bit better than just "you don't like it? leave" one. Though I do think that, in order to equate "pvp" and "just some progress difficulties that I can overcome" in people's heads, we do need to find a way to make pvp more appealing to people who have had bad experience with it in the past. Losing less stuff on death is definitely an attempt at that, but I dunno if that'll be enough.
NiKr wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Lets go back to the brownie analogy. If one store sells brownies with nuts and the one right door does not. Should the one that does be forced into conformity because some people can't/won't eat brownies with nuts in them or should they be allowed to create their own product be honest in their advertising to make and sell a product that other people want to consume? But I think that's at the core of Azherae's question. Is there a deeper reason to having nuts in your brownies than just "I like/want it that way"? Maybe, for whatever reason, nut allergies in the region have spiked and now your "brownies with nuts" shop can't sustain itself because you don't have enough customers, even though 10 years ago a similar shop was booming and made a ton of money and you yourself enjoyed it a lot. Does there need to be a deeper meaning then "Because that is the way I like it"? Watched an interview with an author I like. He was talking about doing a book tour. After giving his talk a guy in the front row tried to challenge him. "Your book doesn't do it for me! I don't like it." to which he replied "That's why they make a thousand flavors of ice cream." I don't like GW2. It is not for me should I go their forums and complain that their game is not designed for me and they NEED to fix it so I will play? or should I choose to be the bigger person and say well it is not for me and move on. Just accept not everything is for everybody? If you try to make your product appeal to everyone it will appeal to very few.
bloodprophet wrote: » Does there need to be a deeper meaning then "Because that is the way I like it"? Watched an interview with an author I like. He was talking about doing a book tour. After giving his talk a guy in the front row tried to challenge him. "Your book doesn't do it for me! I don't like it." to which he replied "That's why they make a thousand flavors of ice cream."
