Non Violent forms of PVP

[maelwydd]

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.

Well you see you do make a valid point here.

"It's up to the devs to decide if it's a reasonable choice or not"

As I pointed out above where this idea of a 'nanny state' came in, the people in charge are in control of what will or will not be allowed irrespective of them hardcoding their desire or personally managing it.

And they will do the same on ANYTHING within their control, including "griefing" which is something they have already addressed and stated will be carefully managed to maintain a balance and if it becomes unbalanced (either way) they will take action.

SO the really important thing to remember here is, whatever I think and whatever you think is balanced is irrelevent because ultimately (and this is one of the early points I made in this thread) the devs have the ultimate decision.

And just to pick up on this last comment: -

Still... it seems pretty useless with killing already a viable option.

If I am NOT allowed to have this option then surely, using your own deffinition, the game wouldn't be a sandbox game. I should have as much freedom to imprission you if I am able just as you are free to grief someone. If you don't think that is fair then agree it shouldn't be allowed, but you must remove both sides to maintain balance. Of course that is if you actually want balance and not, as you seem to imply, you only want to keep your side of it.

[Sirius]

I was unable to attend today's discussion. Can somebody bring me up to speed on what I missed in 8 words or less? (Bonus points if it's a haiku).

[maelwydd]

I was unable to attend today's discussion. Can somebody bring me up to speed on what I missed in 8 words or less? (Bonus points if it's a haiku).

Carebear wants to imprision gankers, gankers no likey!

[Soulwanderer]

If I am NOT allowed to have this option then surely, using your own deffinition, the game wouldn't be a sandbox game. I should have as much freedom to imprission you if I am able just as you are free to grief someone. If you don't think that is fair then agree it shouldn't be allowed, but you must remove both sides to maintain balance. Of course that is if you actually want balance and not, as you seem to imply, you only want to keep your side of it.

If it's in the code to be able to put some one in jail at any time for any reason, but then rules are arbitrarily made that you can only use that mechanic on weekends and only if the person you want to jail first crosses their eyes and dances a jig or you get banned regardless of what the mechanics allow you to do... then I would consider that playing under a nanny's supervision. It's also fairly amateurish, as most games from experienced companies will code in what you can and can't do. Griefing gets replaced with harassment which is usually pretty clearly defined as verbal abuse or stalkerish type behavior and you rarely see cases of it.

I get that they don't have the resources of a major company atm to implement everything they'd like and so they're going to try to manually respond to complaints... but how they handle those situations is going to give them a reputation one way or another among their own gaming community and others.



Or the short response to that would be that if you jail me, then to maintain balance you should have to be in jail too. Otherwise it wouldn't be balanced whereas PvP gives both players a chance to either kill or escape each other, after which it's over.

[maelwydd]

Or the short response to that would be that if you jail me, then to maintain balance you should have to be in jail too. Otherwise it wouldn't be balanced whereas PvP gives both players a chance to either kill or escape each other, after which it's over.

Sorry you arre wrong because you fail to understand (or are doing it to try and make your view appear stronger but it doesn't work) the balance.

YOU want to be able to PvP me. I can defend myself by PvP'ing back.
I want to be able to jail you. You should also be able to jail me.

There is a difference and if you cannot see it then there is little point (as always seems to happen when trying to explain balance to people who seem to see no problem with griefing) in continuing.

[Soulwanderer]

Sorry you arre wrong because you fail to understand (or are doing it to try and make your view appear stronger but it doesn't work) the balance.

YOU want to be able to PvP me. I can defend myself by PvP'ing back.
I want to be able to jail you. You should also be able to jail me.

There is a difference and if you cannot see it then there is little point (as always seems to happen when trying to explain balance to people who seem to see no problem with griefing) in continuing.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. You jail me, then I jail you as well. What we're in disagreement about is time frames. PvP is engaged by two parties at the same time until one or the other party is done engaging in it (death or escape). If you're really all hyped up on a duplication of that result for some reason, then the comparison would need to be two opposing parties in jail at the same time until their bromance is over. Congratulations! You won the jail game! 0.o

If I wanted to stop answering rationally and swoop down to meet you on your implied insults level, I'd say something along the lines of people who are too narrow minded to be able to see the whole picture of a game and the consequences of mechanics are naturally going to need this many posts to be able to understand why they're incorrect... but I think I'll stay above it. Your level is sticky.

[maelwydd]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. You jail me, then I jail you as well. What we're in disagreement about is time frames. PvP is engaged by two parties at the same time until one or the other party is done engaging in it (death or escape). If you're really all hyped up on a duplication of that result for some reason, then the comparison would need to be two opposing parties in jail at the same time until their bromance is over. Congratulations! You won the jail game! 0.o

If I wanted to stop answering rationally and swoop down to meet you on your implied insults level, I'd say something along the lines of people who are too narrow minded to be able to see the whole picture of a game and the consequences of mechanics are naturally going to need this many posts to be able to understand why they're incorrect... but I think I'll stay above it. Your level is sticky.

I swear if I were to ask you if this was a captial D you would disagree.

[Soulwanderer]

Sorry you arre wrong because you fail to understand (or are doing it to try and make your view appear stronger but it doesn't work) the balance.

YOU want to be able to PvP me. I can defend myself by PvP'ing back.
I want to be able to jail you. You should also be able to jail me.

There is a difference and if you cannot see it then there is little point (as always seems to happen when trying to explain balance to people who seem to see no problem with griefing) in continuing.

I swear if I were to ask you if this was a captial D you would disagree.

Not even a pretense of point/counter-point? Winning in PvP on the forums is more fun than doing it in game right now. =D

[maelwydd]

Not even a pretense of point/counter-point? Winning in PvP on the forums is more fun than doing it in game right now. =D

OK last time I will try and get you to understand, if you don't then big yourself up for winning at forum pvp....

I am in my village, you attack. (offensive action)
I capture you and put you into my jail. (defensive action)

You choose to attack and either
capture my village (reward)
or
get captured (risk)

If you decide to attack me I have a deterent against you, but you have the ultimate defence by not attacking. YOU have the choice to attack my village but have to balance that attack with the chance I put you in jail which is MY choice.

If I were to attack you we would simply use the same mechanics.

Balance here is risk vs reward. You risk jail by attacking me but could be rewarded by gaining my village. I have the same risk/reward choice in reverse.

Does that help you?

[Dontaze_Mebro]

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

You have no idea how true that turned out to be today.