Curse

DreamWind · May 23, 2008, 06:34 PM // 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

I'm going to ask you that you elaborate on this for me if you don't mind.

I believe that PvE players are hamstrung when they come to PvP because of their experience in PvE. In the process of leveling a character to 20, a player learns how to play PvE GW, and for the most part, they take that knowlege to RA or AB and are soundly thrashed by thinking adversaries

I think his point was that a lot of the people using stupid builds are simply other forms of griefers that can no longer be dealt with, and the rules were implemented to help the "carebears" as he called them. I don't necessarily agree, but it is another hilarious way of looking at it.

My point was that RA is supposed to be a training/testing ground, not a farming ground. Farming ground=People go nuts and need rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

Nothing you have to say from this point on is of any value to me.

Honestly, it isn't my fault I brought up a nearly indisputable point. NOBODY has even touched it yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shru

This entire thread has been repeating itself for the last 10 pages, there's not much more to say...
I've avoided it since the squabling/bickering started, but now it just needs a lock, I'm not sure there are any mods on this site bored enough to try and salvage this thread.

So, /lock please?

You are one of the many people in this thread who are simply saying "everybody likes it and the people who don't are nubs lock thread bye bye", which isn't productive and nobody cares.

Perhaps there is a reason this thread hasn't been locked? Legit points have been brought up. The only reason they would lock it is because people who like the hex start flaming those who don't.

doudou_steve · May 23, 2008, 09:04 PM // 21:04

dreamwind, i can't make the link between you telling RA is a new farming ground AND the OP saying dishonorable is the worst idea ever.

DreamWind · May 24, 2008, 11:38 AM // 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by doudou_steve

dreamwind, i can't make the link between you telling RA is a new farming ground AND the OP saying dishonorable is the worst idea ever.

Read the thread. I'm saying turning RA into farming ground was the only reason dishonorable exists. I also don't think dishonorable is the "worst idea ever"...just one thing in a list of bad ideas.

lacasner · May 24, 2008, 12:08 PM // 12:08

Take out dishonerable...then take out glad title in RA.

Problem solved, kthnxbye.

Red Sand · May 24, 2008, 01:27 PM // 13:27

This post is for DreamWind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

/signed (time for me to be flamed I love riverside... I can't stand the "OMG I MIGHT GET BANNED FROM PVP FOR BEING NAUGHTY" and the whole majority appeasement of the entire concept.

Post 85: You also stated that other peoples opinions were garbage, but gave no agument supporting your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'm kind of bored of this topic but I love how people get riled up about it so I'm continuing... Assuming I am a leaver (which I never said I was), what about my fun?

Post 114: This post you state dishonorable encourages negative behaviors and ask a rheotrical question where the small number of leavers could not have been providing that big of a disruption, so why implement dishonorable in the first place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

This thread is ridiculous. It is also amusing.

Me: Post 119: I didn't take this thread seriously then. I never should have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoriaArc

I've played thousands of RA matches since dishonorable was put in, and I've seen false reporting once, maybe twice, in all that time. With that rate of occurance, no one should be able to get a dishonorable hex just from false reporting (since you can only get 6 Dishonorable points from reports in a single match), and you are extremely unlikely to get falsely reported in multiple matches in the same hour.

Post 121: One of the best posts on this thread. Clearly explains that the problems of dishonorable are insignificant compared to the undesired behaviors that they were designed to discourage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

Anet has always kept RA for two basic reasons.

Post 129: Clearly explains the reasons for keeping RA random, and how dishonorable supports those reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I personally think griefing is worse now.

Post 131: Your post refuting Moria and strcpy's posts and explaining how leaving is beneficial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

The developers change the game, based on the actions of the players, in order to encourage or discourage a certain type of play.

Post 134: In answer to your question on why glad points were added in the first place. My problems begin here.

I believe that I was clear, concise and truthful in my statements, which caused you to quote me, and essentially draw me deeper into the argument.

I'm pretty sure that I have correctly figured out and explained why the developers put Dishonorable and Glad Points into RA and TA. In turn, you've demanded proof that the game is better now, but refuse to acknowlege that more interest in this area of PvP is better overall.

When you argued otherwise, I tried to give you an analogy that might put it into perspective for you: Community > Few. It went over your head.

You tried to twist the speed zone analogy for your argument and in doing so you showed me how truly unreasonable you are. No one was arguing with my analogy except you. No one is arguing with your point because they've come to realize that they are wrestling with a pig. Personally, I'm tired of getting dirty, so I've decided not to wrestle with you anymore.

That isn't to say that I am quitting, I'm clearly engaged on this thread, I'm just ignoring you. Every time you direct your words toward me, understand that I truly believe that nothing you have to say is of any value to me.

You have a great day now, yah hear?

Red Sand · May 24, 2008, 01:32 PM // 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamwind

I think his point was...

I asked Zahr Dalsk to elaborate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

Nothing you have to say from this point on is of any value to me.

DreamWind · May 24, 2008, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

This post is for DreamWind. Post 85: You also stated that other peoples opinions were garbage, but gave no agument supporting your opinion.

I have given plenty of arguments supporting my opinion. Before I got involved in this thread, 90% of the posts were people saying dishonorable was good, everybody who didn't like it was a noob, and the thread should be locked. I thought it was ridiculous and unfair. That is really the only reason I got involved when I didn't really care much to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

Post 114: This post you state dishonorable encourages negative behaviors and ask a rheotrical question where the small number of leavers could not have been providing that big of a disruption, so why implement dishonorable in the first place?

Which is still true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

Me: Post 119: I didn't take this thread seriously then. I never should have.

But you are still posting in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

Post 121: One of the best posts on this thread. Clearly explains that the problems of dishonorable are insignificant compared to the undesired behaviors that they were designed to discourage.

Post 129: Clearly explains the reasons for keeping RA random, and how dishonorable supports those reasons.

Post 131: Your post refuting Moria and strcpy's posts and explaining how leaving is beneficial.

Eh as far as I remember I completely refuted those, and I never said "leaving is beneficial" unless it was under the context of "leaving was made beneficial because of the changes that never should have been made".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

I'm pretty sure that I have correctly figured out and explained why the developers put Dishonorable and Glad Points into RA and TA. In turn, you've demanded proof that the game is better now, but refuse to acknowlege that more interest in this area of PvP is better overall.

When you argued otherwise, I tried to give you an analogy that might put it into perspective for you: Community > Few. It went over your head.

Of course I argued otherwise, because I thought you theory wasn't very good. Your argument for the changes to RA amounted to "the majority like it so it is good" or "more people are there so it is good". Both of those I completely disagree with (and have posted about it numerous times). If you can point me to where your argued something else supporting the changes, I'd love for you to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

You tried to twist the speed zone analogy for your argument and in doing so you showed me how truly unreasonable you are. No one was arguing with my analogy except you. No one is arguing with your point because they've come to realize that they are wrestling with a pig. Personally, I'm tired of getting dirty, so I've decided not to wrestle with you anymore.

I twisted the analogy because it was a bad example. It was extremely simplified for one. Not to mention it had already drawn conclusions that were being argued to begin with. It assumes that dishonorable is good (25mph) and no dishonorable is bad (75mph). It assumed far too much.

Basically that analogy along with some other things people posted earlier led me to respond with "if the majority like it, does that necessarily make it good?" To which nobody has yet to respond to (and you started "ignoring" me).

Lets assume that RA has more players because of the changes. Does more people in RA mean the changes were better for the game? A lot more people love WoW than Guild Wars. I believe Guild Wars is better than WoW. Thus is it my belief that more people love an inferior game. I could easily say the same comparing current RA (WoW) to past RA (GW). Not to mention more people in RA means less people in other areas of Guild Wars, which is another complete argument altogether.

Lets now make another assumption that most people like the changes. Does more people liking it mean it is better for the game? A lot of people like Ursan. I believe Ursan is destructive to Guild Wars. Thus it is my belief that a lot of people like something that is destructive to the game. I could easily say the same for the RA changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

That isn't to say that I am quitting, I'm clearly engaged on this thread, I'm just ignoring you. Every time you direct your words toward me, understand that I truly believe that nothing you have to say is of any value to me.

It must have some value, as I am one of the only people actually keeping this overly long thread alive, and you keep responding to my posts...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sand

I asked Zahr Dalsk to elaborate.

I wish he would. I'm getting bored and his post was one of only things that was entertaining in this thread.

HawkofStorms · May 24, 2008, 06:40 PM // 18:40

Winner, Red Sand.

/request close