Curse

MSecorsky · Jul 07, 2005, 02:27 PM // 14:27

It could potentially be rather simple to take care of... aside from the coding, which could be tough... Wrath of the Gods. Throw the obscenities, first warning, bolt from the blue, leaves you crippled for your entire stay in town. Second offense, your CD key is banned five minutes and you're blasted to the login page.

If you're waiting five minutes for the ban to expire, that can feel like a long time. Even the most ardent of the obscene will tire rather quickly of it.

PieXags · Jul 07, 2005, 03:08 PM // 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schorny

For me, strategy is not about to have the possibility to get everything you need when in demand.

If you are running a damage focused build and someone outdamages you, I think it is far better to try to counter the enemy with everything you have with you. It would be very easy to switch to a complete different build to exactly counter what the enemy has. But the enemy would do the same, so you are constantly switching builds...

And for big fights: who would need monks, mesmers and rangers? 15 air spikes will throw out so much damage that everyone will instantly die. combined with a nice edge of extinction everyone will die all the time...

If you are fighting an 8 people air spike team, you can defeat them by shutting them down, splitting them up or just plain surviving the first few waves. But what if you are facing 20 of them? How would you counter it?

Because there are so many people, the air spikers can go back behind the frontline and recharge, then attack, go back recharge,...

with 8v8 this isn't possible, but with a 100vs100 it is easily doable...

I don't think you will have much strategy here...

and if you can switch team anytime you want - how can there be a strategy? People will keep switching teams all the time for easy kills...

Anyone who enjoys a challenge won't, and hell, there aren't many of those left in the game so why would you make it easier on yourself? Sure some people would, but a lot wouldn't as well. And the answer to your "air spikers" comment is simple. BOTH sides would have 20 air elementalists spiking damage. What then? Eventually they'd have to start fighting eachother, air spiker against air spiker because if they didn't, the opposing air spikers would do too much damage.

In a battle so large, any large-scale onslaught of professions can be matched AND countered at the same time. If we have 20 warriors, they'll have just as many. You get the idea. How can you stop 20 air spikers? Simple. 20 Air spikers. Besides they can't just masacre anything and everything, it takes a while to cast off those spells, and a chain lightning can't take out 10 people. They would eventually fall, whether by other casters or by some other professions, everything evens out. As you'd know if you'd ever played such a battle in another game.

On another note, more on-topic.

No, I don't think you should just be able to "stab someone in the back" it would have to be teams or something because otherwise everyone would kill everyone, and there's no point to that.

bobrath · Jul 07, 2005, 04:10 PM // 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar

The problem still persists however - it is very common to come across people indulging in all sorts of EULA-bannable offenses daily...

In the OP I stated:
"there is no permanent xp loss in GW, so any "inconvenience" would only be temporary. Secondly, you don't drop any gear or coin when defeated, so the incentive to simply have packs of players roaming zones looking for "marks" is zero."
And there it is, the scream and wail about losing something if PvP was implemented. What? Pride?

And yes, no doubt people will find all sorts of interesting things to do in city zones (or wherever) that might make things unpleasant, but take the scenario 10 seconds further down the road - retribution. Your little prank isn't going to be much fun when somebody you ticked off makes you his new hobby.

Here's the thing, you've just stated that getting killed in your scenario has no loss or penalty... so how is the annoying person being inconvienced by you making them your hobby? Chat spamming can still occur when you're a corpse. So sure its a nice idea to think that everyone can be a vigilante and "enforce the calm", but in any scenario you come up with that has 0 penalty for getting killed..... a griefer has 0 penalty for doing what they're doing.

The only way to make a griefer regret their actions is to deny them the ability to continue griefing - banning (temp or perm), global muting, lockdown, or other ideas like that. These are all actions that should only be given out by Anet reps, if you allow the general populace to give it out... hello abuse!

PippinTook · Jul 07, 2005, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince Daniel

See my duelling post, i think a much better solution (if i do say so myself)

Dueling would be a good solution. The duel system in SWG was awesome, and it would be nice to have something like that in GW. (I miss my Teras-Kasi Master/Combat Medic lol. To bad the CURB came.)

firstwave · Jul 07, 2005, 07:24 PM // 19:24

How about this?

Just make 1 area in each region (ascalon, kryta, Shiverpeak, crystal desert, ring of fire) for pvp only. There has to be a level cap like the arenas. Basically, you can solo pvp or team up. You gain nothing for winning and you lose nothing for dying. It is just there for... FUN! Wouldnt that be great? Also there should be a filter which you can toggle on/off. ON means you only want to fight a selected person, or OFF means you can fight anyone that has the filter on OFF.

From my perspective, I just want to use this to test out builds and 1vs1 with friends. Maybe have a W/Mo Vs. W/Mo just to kill time... I bet it will be popular because I bet 60% of GW population are tired of team play. Sometimes don't you just wanna do some 1 vs 1? Isn't that what MMORPG is all about?

ManadartheHealer · Jul 07, 2005, 08:05 PM // 20:05

I like PieXags' idea about an ongoing PvP battle (in a separate district in towns would make this really awesome). I would enjoy it if it were team-based or a Free-for-all.

See, the thing about this is, if you didn't like it, you wouldn't have to play it. You still have your old, boring style PvP. It's all really about options. The more freedom you have, the more fun things are, because you do not feel like you have to do any certain thing.

grayclay88 · Jul 07, 2005, 08:32 PM // 20:32

i agree totally with manadar.
I cant wrap my mind around one thing: y must u guys care so much if its balanced? or about the strategy envolved? i mean, i like strategy as much as the next person (stratego comes to mind) but i wont give up a chance to take my elementalist and blast sum peeps in a massive pvp. How could anyone not?

Drakron · Jul 07, 2005, 08:37 PM // 20:37

Funny how a tread asking for PK end up being another PvP debate (and no, they are not the same) ...

Ikinsey · Jul 07, 2005, 08:49 PM // 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar

Consider other games where PvP is allowed in most places; Lineage 2 and Shadowbane come to mind. The population quickly falls into a self-policing mode where normal courtesy and respect for each other is quickly established.
Here are several of the more common concerns, and what occurred in these games as a result of them:

The reason the population policed themselves in Lineage 2 is because there was loss of exp AND item drops upon death. While I love the suggestion everyone is correct that PKs would constantly kill new players. If they are killed by someone trying to keep order vigillante style they PKer will either ignore him and continue or zone somewhere else and continue.

Talesin Darkbriar · Jul 07, 2005, 11:08 PM // 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnylange

All I have to say is: Play the game and quit throwing a tantrum over every person that does something stupid in the game.

Is that your solution then? It hardly seems feasible given the thousands of stupid people...

I can never quite figure out why I bother posting something carefully worded - to attemtp not to offend - when jerks like you come and state something like the quote above.

I'll try to keep to single syllables in the future, thanks.

Talesin

Schorny · Jul 08, 2005, 09:55 AM // 09:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by PieXags

Anyone who enjoys a challenge won't, and hell, there aren't many of those left in the game so why would you make it easier on yourself? Sure some people would, but a lot wouldn't as well. And the answer to your "air spikers" comment is simple. BOTH sides would have 20 air elementalists spiking damage. What then? Eventually they'd have to start fighting eachother, air spiker against air spiker because if they didn't, the opposing air spikers would do too much damage.

And is that what you call strategy? The one who shoots first wins?

PieXags · Jul 08, 2005, 10:30 AM // 10:30

You're not really making a point there, buddy. Just asking questions. Why does it matter what I think? I think strategy is whatever plan will help your team to victory. But there is NO way what is or isn't strategic or intelligent in such a battle because every player is a factor.

Before I go on, what the hell are you even arguing anymore? If you've never been in such a battle you'll never understand the means of fighting in such a battle anyway.

You're simplifying it too much. It isn't just "who shoots first wins". Are you even thinking before you ask such questions? You'll have to call targets, organize the time to attack in order to kill the target quickly, etc. Why am I explaining to you the basic concepts of battle? If you're still questioning what's strategy and what's not maybe you need to go experience it a little more.

I can't just say "yeah that's strategy", because every character will affect just what's smart and what isn't. Say if the other team had a team of mesmers you sure as HELL better not be the first ones to attack, you'll all die by the backfires.

You cannot, by any means, predict what will happen in the midst of battle. And until you understand the amount of adaptation and fighting it takes to win such a battle there's no point in arguing it.

Etaisella · Jul 08, 2005, 10:42 AM // 10:42

Plz don't try to make GW into WoW.
Open PVP causes so many problems, I'm not even going to list em out.
GW has the best PVP system out of any MMORPG I have ever played.

not signed/

PieXags · Jul 08, 2005, 10:43 AM // 10:43

*sigh* I guess I'm just tired of the little tiny arena skirmishes for PvP, I need something more involved. I need to go create a game with that style of PvP, since every other game with the idea has so many serious flaws it's unbelievable.

I need a drink.

Numa Pompilius · Jul 08, 2005, 11:58 AM // 11:58

I think perhaps it's time to point out the difference between strategy and tactics. Planning beforehand - selecting skills, designating caller, agreeing on a tactic - is strategy. The actual formations and moves pulled out on the battlefield is tactics.

Strategy is presently emphasized, so much so the battles are basically won or lost before they're even played. There is very little room for winning battles through tactical skill.
Strategy is what would become harder in 32-player battles, because the number of variables increase so much - like playing chess on a 3D board. However, tactics then become more important.

In someting like counterstrike, or a 32-player battle, tactics is more important than strategy. For some of us, that's not a bad thing.

DrSLUGFly · Jul 08, 2005, 12:11 PM // 12:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar

anytime I saw someone 5+ levels above the other players in the zone killing them, I made this fellow my personal project until he understood the error of his ways.

Talesin

I seldom read one of your posts without coming away with the impression that you rock!

Great suggestion, and stumpy's thoughts on Mission ransom is valid too. No PvP in missions. I do think though that part of what makes this game run so smoothly is the private instances, although I would far prefer the WoW system of PvE and PvP.

Numa Pompilius · Jul 08, 2005, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrSLUGFly

I seldom read one of your posts without coming away with the impression that you rock!

I know "me toos" aren't encouraged in the fora but, dammit, me too!

PieXags · Jul 08, 2005, 03:24 PM // 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

I think perhaps it's time to point out the difference between strategy and tactics. Planning beforehand - selecting skills, designating caller, agreeing on a tactic - is strategy. The actual formations and moves pulled out on the battlefield is tactics.

Strategy is presently emphasized, so much so the battles are basically won or lost before they're even played. There is very little room for winning battles through tactical skill.
Strategy is what would become harder in 32-player battles, because the number of variables increase so much - like playing chess on a 3D board. However, tactics then become more important.

In someting like counterstrike, or a 32-player battle, tactics is more important than strategy. For some of us, that's not a bad thing.

True enough, but by this point "strategy" is hardly part of it anymore. Everything's being rehashed so much people don't even think for themselves anymore, they just have one guy in the party tell everyone what skill set to have and then they all just build based on what's been done 1,000 times. It's difficult to be unique and clever by this point, so what you encounter in the battle field is hardly a surprise. With more complicated battles you've got room for more complicated strategies to forumlate before hand, along with that you've got a shitload more when it comes to your on-field tactics with large scale battles.

Gardavil · Jul 08, 2005, 04:25 PM // 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumachum

Spoken like a true PK.

Whether you like it or not griefers, most likely you included, WILL abuse it to the maximum of their ability. This is the same argument PK's have been giving for "free pvp" on every online game that has ever come out. It is nothing new.

I agree, same arguements that are heard in EVE Online for PvP in high security space, where PvP is not currently allowed (except under special circumstances). It would drive a fair portion of players on to some new obsession, and deprive the PKer's of the targets they already have....now, that wouldn't be fair to the PKer's, now would it?

Gardavil · Jul 08, 2005, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by PieXags

I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY...

want some new form of PvP. .....

you want almost unrestricted PvP?

Try EVE Online, 0.4 and below security status star systems.

Just a suggestion....I would be doing a fellow gamer a disservice by NOT suggesting it.