Guild Wars 2

[Evilsod]

By rolling a character on a server which has non-consensual PvP you are consenting to PvP, therefore there is no such thing as Non-consensual PvP.

Perhaps you should just apologise for calling someone a dick and a retard rather unneccessarily.

So if i played a game that had specified PvP only zones and never went in them i would be playing a non-consensual PvP game despite never consenting to playing PvP because i never went into those specific PvP only zones to play PvP?

Well dick was just skeptical because thats what you must be to want to go around and spoil other peoples fun (at least that seemed to be the trend on RF Online), but retard is sounding quite accurate... I've never palyed Daoc, infact i don't even know what it is, but your description doesn't sound anything close to non-consensual PvP at all, infact it sounds remarkably like non-instanced, consensual PvP.

 

[Tombstone]

Well dick was just skeptical because thats what you must be to want to go around and spoil other peoples fun (at least that seemed to be the trend on RF Online), but retard is sounding quite accurate... I've never palyed Daoc, infact i don't even know what it is, but your description doesn't sound anything close to non-consensual PvP at all, infact it sounds remarkably like non-instanced, consensual PvP.

Who says that I go around spoiling other peoples fun? I played UO for 4 years and not once did I initiate an attack on another player, I thoroughly enjoyed the pvp there, not for my own attacks but for the edge it presented to the gameplay, (I dont think its the right word for a game, but for the danger if you like)

Daoc is Dark Age of Camelot, widely regarded as one of , if not the, best PvP MMO to date.

See now off you go again with the retard comments, does my first paragraph there really sound like a dick or retard to you? Why the need to be so insulting?

 

[Fenris]

Evilsod give it a rest, Tomb has stated what he likes and it in no way makes him a dick or a retard, you no the other hand are making yourself look foolish.

 

[FNGsam]

lucky there isn't world pvp on these forums as well I guess...


or I guessmost people would say......take this to the GD and fight to the death

 

[Tombstone]

lucky there isn't world pvp on these forums as well I guess...

Heheh, red names for murderers and full looting would allow postcounts to be taken from victims ?

 

[Evilsod]

Who says that I go around spoiling other peoples fun? I played UO for 4 years and not once did I initiate an attack on another player, I thoroughly enjoyed the pvp there, not for my own attacks but for the edge it presented to the gameplay, (I dont think its the right word for a game, but for the danger if you like)

Daoc is Dark Age of Camelot, widely regarded as one of , if not the, best PvP MMO to date.

See now off you go again with the retard comments, does my first paragraph there really sound like a dick or retard to you? Why the need to be so insulting?

If the option is there it will get taken. Even if its only 5% of a side that do it thats plenty enough to kill you unless your own side is willing to sit around defending all the time. I certainly don't want to come on hoping to relax to find my PvEing areas overrun with morons killing everyone. I just wouldn't get the game in the first place.

You seem to be taking things very personally. Epsecially given that your example isn't even the form of PvP that inspires dickish behaviour, your inability to grasp the definition of non-consensual does stick though. Entering a PvP ONLY zone implies consenting to PvP. There is nothing else you can do there.

 

[Fenris]

You seem to be taking things very personally.

You called him a dick and a retard directly, I think he is well within his rights to take it personally.

Also I think it's you who is over reacting, I assumed that by "non-consensual" he meant you don't have to request to PvP with someone in the sense of a duel.

 

[Tombstone]

If the option is there it will get taken. Even if its only 5% of a side that do it thats plenty enough to kill you unless your own side is willing to sit around defending all the time. I certainly don't want to come on hoping to relax to find my PvEing areas overrun with morons killing everyone. I just wouldn't get the game in the first place.

You seem to be taking things very personally. Epsecially given that your example isn't even the form of PvP that inspires dickish behaviour, your inability to grasp the definition of non-consensual does stick though. Entering a PvP ONLY zone implies consenting to PvP. There is nothing else you can do there.

Well the Daoc system, the one I hinted at originally, doesnt have your PvEing areas overrun with morons killing everyone, so thats not an issue. I dont mind being killed, if I did I certainly wouldnt have stayed in UO for 4 years with full looting of everything off my body

Obviously I am going to take things personally, wouldnt you? If you walked into a pub and a guy overheard your conversation and called you a dick and a retard wouldnt you take that personally??

You clearly see no problem with just calling a stranger a dick or a retard, so we will just have to agree that we dont see eye to eye and end it. Seem to be finding a lot of use for the ignore function lately on the forums

 

[Evilsod]

You called him a dick and a retard directly, I think he is well within his rights to take it personally.

Also I think it's you who is over reacting, I assumed that by "non-consensual" he meant you don't have to request to PvP with someone in the sense of a duel. Makes sense to me.

Actually i questioned whether he was 1 of those dicks who hunts for low levels to grief them and basically spoil any enjoyment in the game. He claims he isn't yet still takes offence. As the insult is clearly directed at people who are, taking offence from it is slightly odd.

 

[Tombstone]

I assumed that by "non-consensual" he meant you don't have to request to PvP with someone in the sense of a duel.

Essentially yes, I meant that you dont request, or have to flag. That you dont get a situation where an enemy is stood in front of you chopping wood and you cant attack him because of an out of game mechanic. I guess I could have said flagging rather than non-consensual but written eloquence is not always my strongest point and I may use the wrong word, nicer to ask for clarification than to be immediately insulted but hey, social graces are something widely lacking these days especially when the format involves anonymity. Nevermind, all dealt with now, dont need to deal with each other anymore.

 

[Evilsod]

Essentially yes, I meant that you dont request, or have to flag. That you dont get a situation where an enemy is stood in front of you chopping wood and you cant attack him because of an out of game mechanic. I guess I could have said flagging rather than non-consensual but written eloquence is not always my strongest point and I may use the wrong word, nicer to ask for clarification than to be immediately insulted but hey, social graces are something widely lacking these days especially when the format involves anonymity. Nevermind, all dealt with now, dont need to deal with each other anymore.

The style of the game means you go to certain areas to PvP. Therefore by entering those PvP only areas its a free for all and you've consented to whatever you come across. You still consent just on a larger scale. Its not entering a PvE area to be killed by PvPers its entering a PvP area to be killed by other PvPers...

 

[Tombstone]

Sorry Evil I have you on ignore so I cant see what you are saying. I'll make it easier and just say..

you're right, I agree. (assuming that was a post to me, if not just skip this post )

There, thats drawn a line nicely under that

 

[Evilsod]

Such a shame, being on the ignore list of someone who takes offence at things that don't even apply to him

And then still feels the need to reply...

 

[jonneymendoza]

im a bit iffy with pvp without concense. the reason why is because it could ruin the fun factor of people wanting to do a few quests on there own or with a mate.

people say you should group up with people but to be fair its not as simple and easy to do unless the game forces u to be in a group before u go out of the town like gw1

 

[Nemeses]

So if i played a game that had specified PvP only zones and never went in them i would be playing a non-consensual PvP game despite never consenting to playing PvP because i never went into those specific PvP only zones to play PvP?

Well dick was just skeptical because thats what you must be to want to go around and spoil other peoples fun (at least that seemed to be the trend on RF Online), but retard is sounding quite accurate... I've never palyed Daoc, infact i don't even know what it is, but your description doesn't sound anything close to non-consensual PvP at all, infact it sounds remarkably like non-instanced, consensual PvP.

for god sake if you don't like PvP roll on a care-bear server, then you wont need to whine about being killed, its funny its only the PvE player that whines about PvP, you never see a PvP player whining about PvE no MMo as far as I know has ever forced you to PvP, and by rolling on a PvP server you saying you want to PvP.

whine less

 

[krooton]

its funny its only the PvE player that whines about PvP, you never see a PvP player whining about PvE

That's because a PVP player can directly impact someone who wants to play PVE, which cannot be said vice versa.

But then PVP players do whine in their own by saying a game is pointless without PVP and they won't play it as a result, just because they can't boost their perceived self-worth by pwning noobs.

 

[stoofa]

Maybe I am missing something somewhere - but where is the fun in a game with no risk?
Take your average MMORPG these days:

No (i shall call them PK'ers) - So no chance of that stranger you meet being able to attack you.
Camping - Everyone finds their favourite spot and just camps it, collecting resource after resource.
Cookie Cutter Characters - Sure there maybe x number of races and classes, but there is one combination that "rules" and that is what everone plays.

You wander out into the wilderness and there is absolutely no risk.
So you might die - what happens?
Respawn in town, all of your equipment ready for you, onwards.
I know people who use death in games as a quick way of getting back to town.

All the games are level baes which to begin with casues the "must get to the top level as quickly as possible" idea.
Then the whole skill system is flawed - you spend an hour doing nothing more than punching things, you go up a level and then get to increase say your sword skill.
So you can gain skills by using totally unrelated skills.

The games are set up as "Care Bear" lands.
No chance of "evil" interaction with each other unless you go to a pre-designated "arena" where you can attack one another.

No risk Vs reward because it is all reward without any risk - how can anyone say that they have ahd an exciting game, or done something exciting when there was absolutely no risk in doing what they did?

In the days of UO etc there were a lot of vocal people - "We hate PK'ers, they ruin the game".
But nearly every single one of them realised that it added a massive new dynamic to the game.
It also added an active economy, people were constantly buying from the crafters etc.
UO died because they added the "Care Bear" land that all of the modern games use.

As I said before, there will be an exciting MMORPG released that brings back those players who played MMORPG's 10+ years ago.
You ask any UO player about UO and they can go on for hours telling you what they got up to, some of their adventures, some of their deaths, etc.
Ask a WOW player and you'll get - Well I maxed my chacater in a month and we did so much loot camping.

 

[bushmins]

Blah

NWN persistant worlds were the best years of my pc gaming. Its why there are a select few people who beg for Dragon Age to be made the same.

I remember people always moaning about pk'ers, but they knew very well thats what made gaming so fun and its why a lot of pk'ers were not banned on decent servers, infact many builders would be the pk'er.
NWN online, you die you loose xp, money and possibly a lvl. You get pickpocket'ed you loose hard earned stuff! That really got the adrenalinereally pumping. Sadly people dont how much fun DA online would be if it was made like nwn, so hardly anyone is shouting for it.

 

[Tombstone]

You ask any UO player about UO and they can go on for hours telling you what they got up to, some of their adventures, some of their deaths, etc.

That one would be me

UO had so many features which MMOs that came after lacked, its an oddity to me when the far older game actually has more features than a newer game. Should we not be having games with more features rather than fewer features? I mean just look at how few MMOs after UO had basic things like being able to sit in a chair (not ON a chair but actually sit in it) or the ability to dye clothing/armour.

I should stop there though otherwise as you rightly say I could go on for hours about the wonder that was UO.

 

[Evilsod]

Maybe I am missing something somewhere - but where is the fun in a game with no risk?
Take your average MMORPG these days:

No (i shall call them PK'ers) - So no chance of that stranger you meet being able to attack you.
Camping - Everyone finds their favourite spot and just camps it, collecting resource after resource.
Cookie Cutter Characters - Sure there maybe x number of races and classes, but there is one combination that "rules" and that is what everone plays.

Ironic really given that this game is supposed to be a sequel to GW. A game that instanced outdoors so you'd only go with the people you teamed up (which could be infinitely better with a good guild team or infinitely worse with a bad pug).
Camping doesn't exist, farming does but then you don't have to do it.
Cookie cutter exists if you have no imagination. The game had a wealth of skills and combinations that worked.

The thing that worries me is they seem to have dumped all that...