What challenges should guild alliances face?
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Wow, way to twist what Farlander said! You've definitely lost rep with me.
What else to say to a person that's demanding an entire game to be made how he likes? All 3 planets. Completely disregarding (may as well say disrespecting) all other players that want to play this game.
Dude, that's -you-. If his posts are a demand to make the entire game his way, so are yours.
Rather, I just see another player with an opinion, to which he is entitled. In no way do I see his posts as you see them.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Dude, that's -you-. If his posts are a demand to make the entire game his way, so are yours.
You should consider that writing lies isn't a strong argument.
What I wrote is that I like the way this game is developed atm. 3 planets with different rules, allowing everyone to play how he likes in a certain zone. Nowhere have I asked for changing rules on Arboreus, to turn the safe zone off (even if I would personaly prefer to play without safe zones completely, but I respect the whole gaming community enough, to not ask for a full PvP world).
So please, don't write an obvious falsehoods as an argument. I respect the current plans of developers to make different planets with different rules so many people can play same game together, and still be able to enjoy it.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
That's an all-or-nothing argument, but this is a question of risk management. Friendly fire and collisions represent mechanics at high risk for griefing in an MMO.
Personally, I don't believe the cost is worth any benefit they might provide.
It’s not an “all or nothing argument” lol. It’s merely a fact.
There is absolutely no way to completely prevent griefing as long as Fractured is multiplayer and includes PvP content.
So any player has to accept the fact that griefing is inevitable. Two questions follow. First: how much griefing is tolerable? Second: what systems and mechanics can the devs program into the game to deter untrammeled griefing?
Those are valid questions worth asking and worth debating. But the premise, that griefing is inevitable, is beyond dispute.
You’re free to disagree, challenge, or improve upon the suggestions I and others have made, of course.
Now, as regards your spat with @Gothix, I’m sorry to say he’s right: no one on OUR side of the debate has insisted that their “rules” apply to all three planets. I share his respect for various play styles and also don’t want to impose my views of PvP onto Arboreus.
The other side of the debate, however....
-
I never said that griefing was going to be completely eliminated. I've played online games long enough to know that jerks are going to find a way to be jerks. If I see ways to prevent griefing I'm going to voice my opinions. I've not demanded that the game be my way or no way. I've asked that two game mechanics not be implemented. I've expressed my reasons why. And yes I was told by Gothix on several occasions to go ahead and quit Fractured to play solo games. He's been rude as hell in alot of his posts. He's that typical pvper that wants everything his way and will attack anyone that disagrees with him.
If friendly fire is turned on it will in fact affect all planets unless it is turned on in certain situations and places. Unless I have missed that point in the many posts then I apologize. The only solution I have seen is to allow sneaking past people. That in it's very nature means death in alot of situations. Speed is important escaping an attack.
So to clarify when do you see friendly fire being turned on? Where? If it is on all the time then someone could very easily go around towns spamming their AOE to kill everyone. The fact you say friendly fire means they are not going to flag as criminal. Unless you are saying it will flag as an aggressive action. If so AOE attacks will be as useless as they are in Pathfinder Kingmaker. If they don't flag as aggressive then we have a problem because that now enables people to kill in the no pvp zones.
As for collision mechanics it is an easy way to box players in. Normally when a creature is aggroed on a target they will not switch targets. So someone seeing you are low health just comes up and boxes you in. Happens all the time in games like UO. Again this is something that can happen in the nonpvp zone. I've not at one time talked about changing the pvp zones. I could care less what they do with the pvp planet.
I don't think I've been rude in my replies. At least that wasn't my intentions. I merely stated my opposition and concerns with the proposed changes. It seems to me that the disagreement is provoking hostility. Also on a few occasions now extrapolations on what I've said have been made. You incorrectly made statements about my posts that weren't there.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Dude, that's -you-. If his posts are a demand to make the entire game his way, so are yours.
You should consider that writing lies isn't a strong argument.
What I wrote is that I like the way this game is developed atm. 3 planets with different rules, allowing everyone to play how he likes in a certain zone. Nowhere have I asked for changing rules on Arboreus, to turn the safe zone off (even if I would personaly prefer to play without safe zones completely, but I respect the whole gaming community enough, to not ask for a full PvP world).
So please, don't write an obvious falsehoods as an argument. I respect the current plans of developers to make different planets with different rules so many people can play same game together, and still be able to enjoy it.
As I see it, you're conflating rejecting friendly fire and collisions in PvP with wanting carebear PvE rules everywhere. I suppose I could also call that conflation a lie.
I want to play on Syndesia and Tartaros, and I -don't- want friendly fire or collisions in PvP. Ever.
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
That's an all-or-nothing argument, but this is a question of risk management. Friendly fire and collisions represent mechanics at high risk for griefing in an MMO.
Personally, I don't believe the cost is worth any benefit they might provide.
It’s not an “all or nothing argument” lol. It’s merely a fact.
There is absolutely no way to completely prevent griefing as long as Fractured is multiplayer and includes PvP content.
As I see it, you're arguing that because griefing can't be eliminated, there's no reason to not have friendly fire (or collisions). That's an all-or-nothing argument.
Simply saying, however, that griefing can't be eliminated is irrelevant to my argument. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and you'll spend the first 30% of your time solving 70% of the problem, and the remaining 70% of your time solving the remaining 30% of the problem.
Friendly fire and collisions are low-hanging fruit. They're in the first 70% of the problem, and not using them eliminates a great deal of potential griefing (as well as development time and cost).
Again, this is risk management basics.
Now, as regards your spat with @Gothix, I’m sorry to say he’s right: no one on OUR side of the debate has insisted that their “rules” apply to all three planets. I share his respect for various play styles and also don’t want to impose my views of PvP onto Arboreus.
I reject your premise; at best, it's an assumption and a strawman. I'm planning to PvP on Syndesia and Tartaros (and Arboreus if need be), and I'm arguing for what I want to see in PvP.
Farlander and I have just as much right as you to do that.
Trying to manipulate us into the perception of being "PvE-only players wanting to impose PvE everywhere", well, let's just say, that's not true. I hope that wasn't deliberate.
-
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
I never said that griefing was going to be completely eliminated. I've played online games long enough to know that jerks are going to find a way to be jerks. If I see ways to prevent griefing I'm going to voice my opinions. I've not demanded that the game be my way or no way. I've asked that two game mechanics not be implemented. I've expressed my reasons why. And yes I was told by Gothix on several occasions to go ahead and quit Fractured to play solo games. He's been rude as hell in alot of his posts. He's that typical pvper that wants everything his way and will attack anyone that disagrees with him.
As someone who was traditionally called "carebear" in the past, I truly get how you feel about griefing. It is a pain in the buttocks and causes stress to those who aren't traditionally in the same boat in terms of attitude. No one will argue with that, and we are open to debate over what can help prevent it. We tend to just disagree with the assessment that we should START with everything disabled. If we START at the more hardcore end of the aisle, at the very least we can work backwards into a happy medium, especially considering there are 3 different planets with presumably 3 majorly different rule sets in play for different styles of players.
If friendly fire is turned on it will in fact affect all planets unless it is turned on in certain situations and places. Unless I have missed that point in the many posts then I apologize. The only solution I have seen is to allow sneaking past people. That in it's very nature means death in alot of situations. Speed is important escaping an attack.
I don't think it has explicitly been said, but I do think it would be simple to allow for varying degrees of friendly fire. The sneaking comment was in regards to unit collision, I believe, though to be fair if 20 people surround you in a wilderness, you should most likely be dead no matter what (assuming no magic in play)
As for the 3 planets, I think variations of the rules can be used. No FF at all on ARB, for example. Perhaps a combo on Synd. FFA Everyone ded on Tart. Assuming each planet has its own coding, I'm sure something like friendly fire in that regard could be nothing more than a slider set at different points for each planet.
So to clarify when do you see friendly fire being turned on? Where? If it is on all the time then someone could very easily go around towns spamming their AOE to kill everyone. The fact you say friendly fire means they are not going to flag as criminal. Unless you are saying it will flag as an aggressive action. If so AOE attacks will be as useless as they are in Pathfinder Kingmaker. If they don't flag as aggressive then we have a problem because that now enables people to kill in the no pvp zones.
Actual implementation of friendly fire can and should be debated. Will there be safe towns, safe harbors, all out brawls? I've seen them done every way from Tibia to MO. We assume friendly fire has the possibility of being in the game in some form (or at least had some plans to be last year), but the real argument comes from whether or not allies will be invincible towards each other here. In this case, we suggested having a war declaration feature that placed guilds in a permanent aggressive mode towards one another while the war declaration length lasted, removing consequences from murdering each other. We could debate how that would work and what would be involved and I'd be happy to hash it out.
As for collision mechanics it is an easy way to box players in. Normally when a creature is aggroed on a target they will not switch targets. So someone seeing you are low health just comes up and boxes you in. Happens all the time in games like UO. Again this is something that can happen in the nonpvp zone. I've not at one time talked about changing the pvp zones. I could care less what they do with the pvp planet.
We can make creatures not have collision detection, I'm sure. It used to happen in Tibia too. I'm not too particular on the PVE, as I think other things like difficult mechanics, or AI that group up and attack and siege, would be more interesting than collision against a wolf butt. Again, variations could be used for each planet if necessary. This one is probably more of an ON/OFF switch than a slider, though.
-
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
He's been rude as hell in alot of his posts.
Dude, if you consider my posts (that are in fact extremely polite and well written) "rude as hell" you got some serious sensitivity issues, lmao. xD
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
He's that typical pvper that wants everything his way
In fact I wrote several times I'm quite happy with dev plans, and have asked for no changes to those plans anywhere. Now please show me where I have demanded (or even promoted) for free PvP on Arboreus, or perhaps removing of flags on Syndesia,...? No...? We can move along then. I'm definitely not someone asking for "everything my own way".
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
So someone seeing you are low health just comes up and boxes you in.
So anyone simply comes and "boxes you in"? That must be a very fat player, to so simply box you in from all directions. xD And if sometimes a large group comes (which would effectively take to box you in), and in the process you die to that animal... so what? You resurrect and move on... it's a horizontal game where it's not hard to acquire "stuff" anyway.
Also if you notice strange large group moving towards you, you should be smart and start kiting animal away from them, or abandon fight and try to escape before they reach you... because honestly if you stay at your spot, not caring about whats happening around you, consequences (death) are well deserved.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
As I see it, you're arguing that because griefing can't be eliminated, there's no reason to not have friendly fire (or collisions). That's an all-or-nothing argument.
Between statements like these and your refusal to acknowledge SBI's explicit admission that Albion's alliance system is widely criticized and the biggest topic of feedback, you "see" a lot of strange things. You may need your prescription adjusted!
My point here is that since griefing is inevitable regardless of whether or not friendly fire and collision mechanics are enabled, their inclusion should absolutely be considered if we can find workarounds for the most egregious griefing abuses.
But simply dismissing these features out of hand "because griefing" is inappropriate.
Simply saying, however, that griefing can't be eliminated is irrelevant to my argument. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and you'll spend the first 30% of your time solving 70% of the problem, and the remaining 70% of your time solving the remaining 30% of the problem.
Friendly fire and collisions are low-hanging fruit. They're in the first 70% of the problem, and not using them eliminates a great deal of potential griefing (as well as development time and cost).
Again, this is risk management basics.
The fly in your proverbial soup is that you've both arbitrarily and unilaterally constrained the goal. We agree that "perfect" is impossible and "good enough" is both desirable and attainable...
...And it may be possible to achieve "good enough" by enabling friendly fire and collision mechanics to preserve a hardcore sandbox element while also encoding mechanics into the game that heavily deter untrammeled griefing.
In other words, you're potentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The only way citing "griefing" as a reason to not enable friendly fire and collision mechanics is justified is if the developers and community establish that these goals are mutually exclusive, which has not yet been proven.
Now, as regards your spat with @Gothix, I’m sorry to say he’s right: no one on OUR side of the debate has insisted that their “rules” apply to all three planets. I share his respect for various play styles and also don’t want to impose my views of PvP onto Arboreus.
I reject your premise; at best, it's an assumption and a strawman. I'm planning to PvP on Syndesia and Tartaros (and Arboreus if need be), and I'm arguing for what I want to see in PvP.
Farlander and I have just as much right as you to do that.
Trying to manipulate us into the perception of being "PvE-only players wanting to impose PvE everywhere", well, let's just say, that's not true. I hope that wasn't deliberate.
Well, actually, no:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Wow, way to twist what Farlander said! You've definitely lost rep with me.
What else to say to a person that's demanding an entire game to be made how he likes? All 3 planets. Completely disregarding (may as well say disrespecting) all other players that want to play this game.
Dude, that's -you-. If his posts are a demand to make the entire game his way, so are yours.
Rather, I just see another player with an opinion, to which he is entitled. In no way do I see his posts as you see them.
Right here, you insist that @Gothix - not you or @Farlander - is the one demanding "an entire game to be made his way."
That's either a poor attempt at revisionist history or you're deeply confused about the flow of conversation.
Gothix, @Bardikens, and myself recognize that Fractured will feature three different planets designed for three different styles of play. We have all three repeatedly stated we don't care what happens to Arboreus and that our proposals don't apply to it, because we recognize some players wouldn't enjoy the mechanics we're endorsing. What we're recommending is for arguably Syndesia and certainly Tartaros. We're trying to accomodate as many different people as possible.
You are insisting that your personal preferences be applied to all three planets because you want to PvP on both, despite the fact that all three planets were designed conceptually with three different play styles in mind.
Your argument in this thread and your argument alone offers no regard for the play style of others and accommodates only those players who think like you.
And I'll happily refer you to back to your own quotes to remind you.
-
clam down guys think before type
-
@dawnofcrow said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
clam down guys think before type
We are all perfectly calm, and posts are written well enough to point out that we indeed do think before we type.
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
As I see it, you're arguing that because griefing can't be eliminated, there's no reason to not have friendly fire (or collisions). That's an all-or-nothing argument.
Between statements like these and your refusal to acknowledge SBI's explicit admission that Albion's alliance system is widely criticized and the biggest topic of feedback, you "see" a lot of strange things. You may need your prescription adjusted!
As far as I'm concerned, Albion Online's alliance system has two key features:
- It's unlimited;
- It doesn't allow allies to attack each other.
I'm not entirely sure about option 1, but option 2 I'm completely fine with.
My point here is that since griefing is inevitable regardless of whether or not friendly fire and collision mechanics are enabled, their inclusion should absolutely be considered if we can find workarounds for the most egregious griefing abuses.
But simply dismissing these features out of hand "because griefing" is inappropriate.
Who's dismissing friendly fire or collision out of hand? Just because you don't like my reasons for rejecting them, doesn't mean they're not reasons.
Simply saying, however, that griefing can't be eliminated is irrelevant to my argument. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and you'll spend the first 30% of your time solving 70% of the problem, and the remaining 70% of your time solving the remaining 30% of the problem.
Friendly fire and collisions are low-hanging fruit. They're in the first 70% of the problem, and not using them eliminates a great deal of potential griefing (as well as development time and cost).
Again, this is risk management basics.
The fly in your proverbial soup is that you've both arbitrarily and unilaterally constrained the goal.
How?
We agree that "perfect" is impossible and "good enough" is both desirable and attainable...
...And it may be possible to achieve "good enough" by enabling friendly fire and collision mechanics to preserve a hardcore sandbox element while also encoding mechanics into the game that heavily deter untrammeled griefing.
In other words, you're potentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The only way citing "griefing" as a reason to not enable friendly fire and collision mechanics is justified is if the developers and community establish that these goals are mutually exclusive, which has not yet been proven.
Dude, I can cite whatever reasons I want to support my opinion.
I think for myself; I do not allow others to do so for me.Now, as regards your spat with @Gothix, I’m sorry to say he’s right: no one on OUR side of the debate has insisted that their “rules” apply to all three planets. I share his respect for various play styles and also don’t want to impose my views of PvP onto Arboreus.
That's irrelevant, and worse, really.
You've effectively accused us of wanting to impose PvE on all three worlds, which is inaccurate, and now you try to support making that accusation by saying you don't want PvP on Arboreus?Heads I win, tails you lose.
I reject your premise; at best, it's an assumption and a strawman. I'm planning to PvP on Syndesia and Tartaros (and Arboreus if need be), and I'm arguing for what I want to see in PvP.
Farlander and I have just as much right as you to do that.
Trying to manipulate us into the perception of being "PvE-only players wanting to impose PvE everywhere", well, let's just say, that's not true. I hope that wasn't deliberate.
Well, actually, no:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Wow, way to twist what Farlander said! You've definitely lost rep with me.
What else to say to a person that's demanding an entire game to be made how he likes? All 3 planets. Completely disregarding (may as well say disrespecting) all other players that want to play this game.
Dude, that's -you-. If his posts are a demand to make the entire game his way, so are yours.
Rather, I just see another player with an opinion, to which he is entitled. In no way do I see his posts as you see them.
Right here, you insist that @Gothix - not you or @Farlander - is the one demanding "an entire game to be made his way."
That's either a poor attempt at revisionist history or you're deeply confused about the flow of conversation.
Hmm. I actually concluded the opposite; perhaps I wasn't explicit enough in my hypothetical:
- If Farlander were actually demanding the entire game be made his way, so was Gothix (and I say that based on my reading of both of their posts);
- But, I saw Farlander's posts against friendly fire and collisions as simply a player expressing an opinion to which he is entitled.
- Implicitly, therefore, I also see Gothix's posts supporting friendly fire and collisions as a player expressing an opinion to which he is entitled. (Note, however, I'm not referring to the personal attacks of Gothix on Farlander.)
Gothix, @Bardikens, and myself recognize that Fractured will feature three different planets designed for three different styles of play. We have all three repeatedly stated we don't care what happens to Arboreus and that our proposals don't apply to it, because we recognize some players wouldn't enjoy the mechanics we're endorsing. What we're recommending is for arguably Syndesia and certainly Tartaros. We're trying to accomodate as many different people as possible.
You are insisting that your personal preferences be applied to all three planets because you want to PvP on both, despite the fact that all three planets were designed conceptually with three different play styles in mind.
Interesting perspective. My own is simply that I'm offering my opinion; it's the developers' game, they can do as they like with it.
Your argument in this thread and your argument alone offers no regard for the play style of others and accommodates only those players who think like you.
As far as I'm concerned, you and Gothix are trying to bully Farlander and I into shutting up, by introducing a "rule" entirely of your own conception, that if you plan to play at all on Arboreus, you can't have an opinion on PvP on the other worlds.
I reject that rule.
And I'll happily refer you to back to your own quotes to remind you.
Please do.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
personal attacks of Gothix on Farlander
Just lol... I think I'm done here. I've been nothing but perfectly polite in all my posts, and have certainly not used any personal attacks anywhere, and I refuse to waste my time on leading a discussion with people that outright throw in blatantly false accusations into discussion.
Cya around.
-
So, I was thinking about the original point of the thread, which could be stated as the following hypothetical:
- Do we want one alliance to be able to dominate the game?
My impression is that we all agree, perhaps even wholeheartedly: we don't want to see that.
So, I'd say we at least agree on the problem. Now, as to solutions, I can see three potential categories (with a fourth more exotic possibility; more on that later):
Caps and costs
Hard caps or costs can easily limit alliance size, and if alliances and guilds can only have limited members and towns, then it should be effectively impossible for a single alliance to dominate.
Personally, however, I'm leaning toward something Gothix has expressed elsewhere, which I'll state as this: rely as little as possible on hard-coded restrictions. Use them as a last resort.
Logistics
This is all about making it difficult to project power, difficult to show up with a thousand players to fight a battle with a hundred, difficult to steamroll an enemy city. Continent size, movement speed, supplies, fortifications, and so forth all have their place here, and a huge alliance would thus be less likely to dominate.
This is my favorite class of solution, and I haven't seen much disagreement (if any) here.
Tactical mechanics
This is all about making those battle odds of a thousand against a hundred much less uneven, so that the value of having a huge alliance is lessened. I would class friendly fire and collisions here, but it also includes things like ganking protection and attack spam resistance, and possibly things such as battle/siege schedules (depending on game design).
Both Wurm Online and Albion Online have ganking protection: increasing the resistances of a player based on the number of enemies targeting that player. I think this only applies to direct fire, not AoE. I haven't seen it make a huge difference myself, but maybe it helps. I note that it would seem to encourage the use of AoE.
Wurm Online also has spell spam resistance (because spells are relatively powerful in WO): if you get hit with a fireball, you get a temporary fire resistance buff. This does diminish the power of AoE.
The point of schedules is to prevent one elite team from jumping from battle to battle. I'm not sure, however, how much this helps prevent large alliances, since a large alliance can theoretically field more teams.
Now we've talked a lot about friendly fire and collisions as general PvP concepts, especially regarding griefing, but I wanted to revisit them simply in the context of diminishing the power of alliances.
Friendly fire appears primarily to be a way to lessen the utility of AoE. Does that, however, really increase the relative power of a hundred players facing a thousand? The best case scenario is the outnumbered force using AoE freely, and the attacking force unable to do so without a heavy cost.
But, the counters seem obvious: anti-clumping discipline, dumping AoE as the smaller force charges close enough to use their own AoE, and even running into the smaller enemy force to prevent them from using their AoEs without cost. Throw collisions into the mix, and you could also form ranks that couldn't be breached.
So, if friendly fire doesn't help much against lopsided odds, that means it's not much of a discouragement to forming a dominate alliance.
As to collisions, this seems far more useful to the thousand-player side in our hypothetical battle, because they'll be able to block the smaller enemy force against terrain (and keep them from infiltrating their ranks). Something like sneak probably wouldn't help in that case, and would be pretty unrealistic too, I might add.
Again, I'm not seeing how that discourages or hinders a massive alliance.
One more thing that's occurred to me: AoE is all about one player hurting many. Conceptually, this a tactical mechanic that should narrow the power gap between a smaller army and a larger, but the problem, of course, is that both sides have AoE.
I wonder if it would help to decrease the range of AoE attacks (or all ranged attacks) for a cooldown period if you've been moving. This could give the defender a realistic tactical advantage when being assaulted, since they would able to fire AoE at advancing troops before the enemy could return fire. -That- could narrow the power gap.
And in general, I think defenders don't get enough advantages, strategic or tactical, in these games.
War of the Gods
OK, here's the exotic solution I mentioned.
Let the player have unrestricted alliances, but if they abuse them, declare a War of the Gods on that alliance, in which terrifying avatars leading hordes of summoned creatures lay waste to the alliance's lands.Perhaps the developers themselves could even control the divine avatars!
One downside, however, is that that sounds cool enough for an entire planet someday to goad the developers into it.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
The argument that I need to go play some single player game is the same argument used by players for decades in mmos when they want the ability to kill other players willy nilly
I also don't want to see some 13 yr old decide to go on a town killing spree because he's bored
In that case read a bit about the game before posting in the forums. You have an entire planet where noone can "killy you willy nilly".
And if you want an entire game (all 3 planets) to be made to your own personal liking (PvE mode), completely disregarding other peoples desires, then you are not even worth discussing with.
Remember, you are not developing this game, you are just a single player wanting to play it, among thousands others. And if you continue this path, demanding an entire game to be made "how you like" you aren't going to have much rep among gaming community, so you may as well go play a solo game.
Gothix, as far as I'm concerned, the above is a personal attack by you against Farlander. Your first statement is a standard put down, "read a bit about the game first", regarding something you almost certainly know he already knows (Arboreus is primarily PvE).
On its own, mild perhaps, if arrogant and condescending, but then you follow up by implying Farlander may want the game made to his own personal liking, and if so, that he's not even worth discussing with (thus reinforcing the whole arrogance attitude).
Why make that statement? Why even hint he might not be worth discussing with? What he wrote has nothing to do with a demand to make the game his way; he was merely expressing his opinion on his desires, to which he has a perfect right.
And I note you remove the condition in a later post, so you've effectively confirmed you believe he's not worth discussing with:
What else to say to a person that's demanding an entire game to be made how he likes?
Bottom line: you're accusing him of something he didn't do, and you've questioned his worth. If that isn't a personal attack, what is?
Again, if his posts represent a demand to make the game his way, then yours certainly are. Yet I didn't see his posts that way, or your posts that way, until you started trying to bully Farlander (and me) out of our opinions, which is an attempt to disregard our desires.
As far as I'm concerned, you're accusing us of what you're doing.
-
Please calm down everyone.
@Farlander Friendly fire is certainly not turned on everywhere. Beastman can't harm each other on Arboreus.
-
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
I've been in too many games where griefers just ruin them. They use the rules to their advantage to make the lives of other players miserably. Rules that were not intended to be used in the manner they use them. Then devs have to find work arounds because no one wants griefers in their games.
In real life a griefer would face consequences. They would be put in jail or even put to death. Devs can ban but rarely do players get banned for griefing because they were only using a loophole. If there is friendly fire dickheads will just go around killing their "friends" until they get booted from their guild/alliance. Then they will just hop around until someone catches on to their game. Even one incident can jeopardize an entire guild/alliance and ruin the fun for even more than the person they griefed.
@Roccandil maybe because Farlander has on multiple occasions (before I even started to post anything) kept calling players with whos play style he doesn't agree with, various derogative terms, including griefers, d*******s etc.
He has basically put a tag on any unwanted PvP event, as that being griefing. (sorry but this game includes PvP, if you want no part of it, you have whole planet to play on to avoid it, and if you travel elsewhere and meet PvP, you can not call that griefing, simply because you didn't wish for it.)
Followed by more insults for players that engage you in PvP and kill you...
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
So you can be walking in town and some dickhead allied player who decided he was bored with the game can come up and kill you unexpectedly.
Then he proceeded to claim we want to call him snowflake (which noone did), and then stipulated to Alexian that HE was that griefer.
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
If you want to call me a snowflake go ahead. I'd then suspect you are one of those players that enjoys making others upset
He was quite toxic in start of this discussion. My posts were extremely mild and polite in comparison, and I haven't used any insults at all, unlike him (he did it on multiple occasions).
Me reminding him that he is just a single player wanting to play this game, that he has entire area where he can be safe from PvP, and after the way he was posting (calling people d********s), he isn't going to have much rep with the community, is nothing but a simple fact. And I stand by all that.
So instead of standing behind him simply because you both support same mechanics, you might wanna also consider the way he was posting, instead of being blind to that part.
Ty, and have a nice day.
-
Sorry @Specter , I'm just trying to correct false statements that have been directed at me, while keeping all my posts within TOS.
You will find no insults and alike in my posts anywhere.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
I've been in too many games where griefers just ruin them. They use the rules to their advantage to make the lives of other players miserably. Rules that were not intended to be used in the manner they use them. Then devs have to find work arounds because no one wants griefers in their games.
In real life a griefer would face consequences. They would be put in jail or even put to death. Devs can ban but rarely do players get banned for griefing because they were only using a loophole. If there is friendly fire dickheads will just go around killing their "friends" until they get booted from their guild/alliance. Then they will just hop around until someone catches on to their game. Even one incident can jeopardize an entire guild/alliance and ruin the fun for even more than the person they griefed.
@Roccandil maybe because Farlander has on multiple occasions (before I even started to post anything) kept calling players with whos play style he doesn't agree with, various derogative terms, including griefers, d*******s etc.
I agree with his point, if not his labels. He's absolutely right: there are indeed people who enjoy making life miserable for others. Griefers seems a reasonable and accurate term to describe them.
He has basically put a tag on any unwanted PvP event, as that being griefing. (sorry but this game includes PvP, if you want no part of it, you have whole planet to play on to avoid it, and if you travel elsewhere and meet PvP, you can not call that griefing, simply because you didn't wish for it.)
Now, that I don't see in what he said. I just got ganked in the black zone in Albion, but that's the risk.
That's not griefing. Stepping into a friendly's AoE so they take a karma penalty, however: that's griefing.Followed by more insults for players that engage you in PvP and kill you...
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
So you can be walking in town and some dickhead allied player who decided he was bored with the game can come up and kill you unexpectedly.
Again, while I might not use that label myself, he's right.
Then he proceeded to claim we want to call him snowflake (which noone did), and then stipulated to Alexian that HE was that griefer.
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
If you want to call me a snowflake go ahead. I'd then suspect you are one of those players that enjoys making others upset
If you're referencing this quote, he didn't say you all were calling him a snowflake; he simply said go ahead if you wanted to.
He was quite toxic in start of this discussion. My posts were extremely mild and polite in comparison, and I haven't used any insults at all, unlike him (he did it on multiple occasions).
I find it interesting that you took his accurate description of griefers personally. I did not find his posts toxic, but yours I did.
Me reminding him that he is just a single player wanting to play this game, that he has entire area where he can be safe from PvP, and after the way he was posting (calling people d********s), he isn't going to have much rep with the community, is nothing but a simple fact. And I stand by all that.
I disagree, but how you see it is your business. You, however, lost rep with me; he did not.
So instead of standing behind him simply because you both support same mechanics, you might wanna also consider the way he was posting, instead of being blind to that part.
He's fundamentally right. Instead of opposing him simply because you didn't like how he expressed himself, you might also want to consider his actual point of view, instead of being blind to that part.
Ty, and have a nice day.
You too.
-
Interesting is that viewpoint, not seeing as toxic when PvE promoter directly insulting PvP players calling them dickheads, but you see as toxic someone else politely suggesting that this PvE player could read about a game a bit (and realize few things that he missed), and pointing out that he is not the only player playing this game, without using any tag, label or insult whatsoever.
I guess you feel that players that like to PvP (and kill other players, because that is PvP) should be free to be insulted (because you label them as worthless people by your standards), but when someone suggests that PvE player reads about a game a bit, your sensitivity level rises 1000%.
Well... I expected nothing different honestly, I've seen it so many times in MMO after MMO. That mighty attitude of PvE players considering themself so virtuous and considering people that like to kill other players in PvP lowly and deserving of all tags and insults.
By the way, griefing is continuous, prolonged harassment, by systematically denying game play time to another player. Calling a single (or even few) AoE kill (karma or not) griefing is.. well, usual PvE player attitude I guess.
