Non Violent forms of PVP

[Soulwanderer]

It only penalises you if you abuse the level of freedom given by being an unreasonable arse.



I hope they do introduce it.

An unreasonable arse by whose definition? In a sandbox, the devs add the sand and let the players make what they will of it. By those rules, that game was not a sandbox. Griefing is defined as anything that causes another player distress? ~gag~

I find myself very distressed by by your concept of what a sandbox is. I guess that makes you a griefer.

[Banano]

The most effective form of non-violent PvP is also known as "General Chat."

[Belight]

If you are griefing me for your roleplaying ideals are you not stopping me from playing?

No, unless I'm exploiting some game mechanic that litterally stops you from playing the game then, absolutely not. (I absolutely do not support exploiting)

If I chose to wage war on you, and destroy your resources or dam your rivers... That doesn't stop you from playing the game. It mearly creates dynamic game content and a hurdle that you must over come. If you can't find a way to stop me or defeat me then that is your problem, not mine, nor the dev's, nor the game's.

That is the whole point of this thread.

[maelwydd]

An unreasonable arse by whose definition?

Exactly the same as EVERY game out there, the people who own it. They owned the servers, they decided who is being unreasonable (as outlined in their very detailed and even ruleset) and who they don't wish to come back.

Unsuprisingly the community was amazing and the fantastic and complex fight between good and evil far surpasses ANYTHING I have ever seen in a commerically run game.

In a sandbox, the devs add the sand and let the players make what they will of it. By those rules, that game was not a sandbox.

Well I disagree and so do the 20,000 odd people who play the game. The fact the game had a firm set of standards by which you had to play by (The basic rule is fun for all. And not suprisingly people who lacked any maturity or self control were quickly banned leaving a very high class of playerbase with some of the most evil characters I have ever had the pleasure to fight against).

Griefing is defined as anything that causes another player distress? ~gag~

Maturity....not for everyone.

I find myself very distressed by by your concept of what a sandbox is. I guess that makes you a griefer.

And that statment just makes you sound retarded.

[Vicid]

Maeldydd you're calling people immature because they want the players to sort out their problems rather than some all powerful GM. It isn't that we dislike consequences for being a dick in game... we want that very much! We just want to deal with it as players. Someone being a dick in game and pissing you off is why we have a political forum. Once players can actually find others accountable (I.E. no safe zones) then the player base can police itself.

Why is it that you need some GM to police a server for you? Do you think you or your friends will never be able to?

[ifireallymust]

Maeldydd you're calling people immature because they want the players to sort out their problems rather than some all powerful GM. It isn't that we dislike consequences for being a dick in game... we want that very much! We just want to deal with it as players. Someone being a dick in game and pissing you off is why we have a political forum. Once players can actually find others accountable (I.E. no safe zones) then the player base can police itself.

Why is it that you need some GM to police a server for you? Do you think you or your friends will never be able to?

So, just out of curiosity, would you have a problem with assassination as a valid mechanic for weakening tribal leaders with permadeath, or, if you're against permadeath, with severe stat loss that takes a long time to recover from?

[maelwydd]

No, unless I'm exploiting some game mechanic that litterally stops you from playing the game then, absolutely not. (I absolutely do not support exploiting)

If I chose to wage war on you, and destroy your resources or dam your rivers... That doesn't stop you from playing the game. It mearly creates dynamic game content and a hurdle that you must over come. If you can't find a way to stop me or defeat me then that is your problem, not mine, nor the dev's, nor the game's.

That is the whole point of this thread.

So by that logic, if I am free to build a jail and create my own laws on my own land to enable me to put you in jail (i.e. not exploiting a game mechanic) you should not have an objection, and yet you do. Please explain why?

[Soulwanderer]

Exactly the same as EVERY game out there, the people who own it. They owned the servers, they decided who is being unreasonable (as outlined in their very detailed and even ruleset) and who they don't wish to come back.

Unsuprisingly the community was amazing and the fantastic and complex fight between good and evil far surpasses ANYTHING I have ever seen in a commerically run game.



Well I disagree and so do the 20,000 odd people who play the game. The fact the game had a firm set of standards by which you had to play by (The basic rule is fun for all. And not suprisingly people who lacked any maturity or self control were quickly banned leaving a very high class of playerbase with some of the most evil characters I have ever had the pleasure to fight against).



Maturity....not for everyone.



And that statment just makes you sound retarded.

I'm sure it's very easy to find a group of people who agree with you if the penalty for not agreeing is banishment. I love the thought process here. "if I eliminate everyone with a differing viewpoint then I can't help but be right!"

I get that you want to think that the game you liked was a sandbox, and I'm not going to get dragged into the whole definition of a sandbox rhetoric that people love to debate on the boards. A game with arbitrary rules that are not hard coded into what the game does and does not allow seems a little lacking to me though. I'm sure you and your 20,000 friends had a lot of fun with it, but I'm also hopeful that this game won't be following in your vision of a sandbox. If we end up with that much of a nanny system you won't get to enjoy nearly so many players company as you're used to.

So, just out of curiosity, would you have a problem with assassination as a valid mechanic for weakening tribal leaders with permadeath, or, if you're against permadeath, with severe stat loss that takes a long time to recover from?

Bounties on any players are just another game mechanic. If it's done right, it'll work well. If not, it won't. If you just target tribal leaders and penalties are too harsh though you'll only end up with decent guilds creating separate accounts and only logging in the place holder tribe leader when only that toon can do something.

[Vicid]

Of course I am. Perma death is new to me to be honest but as long as players are able to find the assassin/his friends accountable (or try to) then it is fine

[Soulwanderer]

So by that logic, if I am free to build a jail and create my own laws on my own land to enable me to put you in jail (i.e. not exploiting a game mechanic) you should not have an objection, and yet you do. Please explain why?

If it's a mechanic built into the game and done well, then whatever. It's up to the devs to decide if it's a reasonable choice or not. I wouldn't see them letting it last for more than five minutes or so for fear of boring players into logging off... but I'm not in charge of the game. Still... it seems pretty useless with killing already a viable option.