Unless you mean logging-out permanently and never playing again, that's not an opt-out. You can still get hit in PvP and GvG, even while offline.There is an opt-out. It's called logging out.
Why can't we opt out of PvP?
#21
Posted 10 September 2010 - 20:19
#22
fs_nthnclls
Posted 10 September 2010 - 20:33
Unless you mean logging-out permanently and never playing again, that's not an opt-out. You can still get hit in PvP and GvG, even while offline.There is an opt-out. It's called logging out.
I mean logging out permanently.
#23
Posted 10 September 2010 - 20:42
Even that's not a perfect solution. You would still be able to get hit for a while until you lapsed into the unhittable area. It's just that you would no longer care.
I mean logging out permanently.
Unless you mean logging-out permanently and never playing again, that's not an opt-out. You can still get hit in PvP and GvG, even while offline.There is an opt-out. It's called logging out.
#24
fs_nthnclls
Posted 10 September 2010 - 20:47
Even that's not a perfect solution. You would still be able to get hit for a while until you lapsed into the unhittable area. It's just that you would no longer care.I mean logging out permanently.Unless you mean logging-out permanently and never playing again, that's not an opt-out. You can still get hit in PvP and GvG, even while offline.
Pvp in this game will not affect you in any way, shape, or form. That's an opt-out.
#25
Posted 10 September 2010 - 20:51
It would still affect your character... Perhaps I'm just being to pedantic on this.
PvP in this game will not affect you in any way, shape, or form. That's an opt-out.
Even that's not a perfect solution. You would still be able to get hit for a while until you lapsed into the unhittable area. It's just that you would no longer care.I mean logging out permanently.
#26
fs_coyotik
Posted 10 September 2010 - 21:31
Because it would kill PvP which is an essential part of the game.
What's essential about it? Does majority of stam get burned in PvP? Does majority of players actively participate in PvP? Does majority of donators actively participate in PvP? Or the majority of donations on volume comes from PvPers? I of course don't know the answer to any of these questions, but as a rough guess, I'd say that the answer would be "no".
While I don't doubt that there's a lot of people who like PvP, I am a bit tired of them claiming the need for PvP in it's current form to be there. Let's face it - without levelling, there would be no FS at all, whereas without PvP, the FS that is there would probably be somewhat different, but would still exist.
There's a difference between "eseential part of the game" and "essential part of the gameplay for a part of the user base".
BTW, I do not support permanent opt-out at all, I would only agree to a protection period of new users, two weeks or 50 levels at max, with opt-in by first attack earlier.
#27
Posted 10 September 2010 - 21:34
Because it would kill PvP which is an essential part of the game.
What's essential about it? Does majority of stam get burned in PvP? Does majority of players actively participate in PvP? Does majority of donators actively participate in PvP? Or the majority of donations on volume comes from PvPers? I of course don't know the answer to any of these questions, but as a rough guess, I'd say that the answer would be "no".
While I don't doubt that there's a lot of people who like PvP, I am a bit tired of them claiming the need for PvP in it's current form to be there. Let's face it - without levelling, there would be no FS at all, whereas without PvP, the FS that is there would probably be somewhat different, but would still exist.
There's a difference between "eseential part of the game" and "essential part of the gameplay for a part of the user base".
BTW, I do not support permanent opt-out at all, I would only agree to a protection period of new users, two weeks or 50 levels at max, with opt-in by first attack earlier.
except that theres pvp quests in the first 25-40 lvls of the game
#28
Posted 10 September 2010 - 22:28
It does appear that PvP is here to stay.. and there is a lot of people running around mugging people for gold and/or PvP points...
How about making one little change to the system and allow someone who has been randomly hit with a 100 stammer .. that they can give one back without the fear of being put on the Bounty board and de levelled.. ** eg: Player A discides to rob player B .. then Player A runs 2 risks one that he will be just put on the BB and maybe lose some levels.. and two.. that player B could then sometime in say the next 48 hours hit/rob them back.. but because player A was the first to hit.. then he does not have the option to place player B on the BB for that hit.. **
Maybe it would be hard to code .. but is a fairer way of doing business.. keeps the muggers in check a little bit and make them think about who they are hitting if they have to potentially cop one back**
Well that's what most PvPers want right, to be hit back? So I'm sure there will be no argument
Real PvPers don't bounty when being smacked back, unless it is repetitive 100 stam hourly hits. Thar's when it gets really interesting.
Just one old lady's opinion

~Love, Penny
Have you hugged your Quango lately?
#29
fs_gravely
Posted 11 September 2010 - 01:27
BUT you can't bounty if you go that route.
As for the OP?
I know I'm not alone in being unamused by the brats running around unsupervised and attacking unsuspecting players. Really, what's the point? To prove you can act like a thug?
The point is to stomp the living heck out of players like you that insist on being both extremely immature in your outlook on other players - e.g. automatically lumping anyone who pvps into a group that are made up solely of "unsupervised brats" - and incredibly heavy handed in your wish to destroy the game play for that group of people simply because you want to play a single player console based RPG.
#30
Posted 11 September 2010 - 01:33
Because it would kill PvP which is an essential part of the game.
What's essential about it? Does majority of stam get burned in PvP? Does majority of players actively participate in PvP? Does majority of donators actively participate in PvP? Or the majority of donations on volume comes from PvPers? I of course don't know the answer to any of these questions, but as a rough guess, I'd say that the answer would be "no".
While I don't doubt that there's a lot of people who like PvP, I am a bit tired of them claiming the need for PvP in it's current form to be there. Let's face it - without levelling, there would be no FS at all, whereas without PvP, the FS that is there would probably be somewhat different, but would still exist.
There's a difference between "eseential part of the game" and "essential part of the gameplay for a part of the user base".
BTW, I do not support permanent opt-out at all, I would only agree to a protection period of new users, two weeks or 50 levels at max, with opt-in by first attack earlier.
PvP is very essential in means of a gold sink. The amount of gold that gets sunk daily from PvP greatly dwarfs almost all of the other gold sinks. Sure the caves sink a ton but they aren't around enough to put serious dents. PvP is essential in regulating the amount of gold in the game. Like it or not it is a very important part of this game. And I think a lot more people participate in it than you think. A lot of people PvP. While I am not one of them I am not ignorant enough to suggest an opt out.
#31
Posted 11 September 2010 - 01:35
whine
wheres the cheese? I wanna opt out of people whining about pvp is that possible?
#32
Posted 11 September 2010 - 01:39
whine
wheres the cheese? I wanna opt out of people whining about pvp is that possible?
No. Sadly it is not. You could always fling insults at 'em like I do though.
#33
Posted 11 September 2010 - 05:33
They were introduced when the game was new. Three quests out of hundreds is not significant. If HCS wanted Questers like me to PvP, they would have kept adding quests that require a PvP rating rather than abandoning them after level 40. The quests can easily be recoded to not require the PvP rating to complete.There's PvP quests in the first 25-40 levels of the game.
#34
Posted 11 September 2010 - 15:21
think about it, with the ladder resets theres a whole new way to encourage pvp! Make quests have min pvp rating levels to begin. Dont make too high maybe 1020, 40, and 60 for the big exp ones. This will get more people pvping even at 10stam and maybe get people a little more used to the fact they are in a war game and are gonig to get 100stammed eventually
#35
Posted 11 September 2010 - 15:26
now theres a neat idea!! Bring back pvp requirements to quests!
think about it, with the ladder resets theres a whole new way to encourage pvp! Make quests have min pvp rating levels to begin. Dont make too high maybe 1020, 40, and 60 for the big exp ones. This will get more people pvping even at 10stam and maybe get people a little more used to the fact they are in a war game and are gonig to get 100stammed eventually
this is a good idea to me.
#36
fs_boscosuma
Posted 11 September 2010 - 16:02
Why can't we opt out of PvP.
Because it would kill PvP which is an essential part of the game.
Any other questions?
Yeah I got one.
If I am going to be labeled as a "Leveler" rather than a person that plays and enjoys many aspects of the the game, I got a question.
Can someone explain, as an adult, why the PvP system would die if only maybe 30% (speculating based off all these damn posts) of the players who only level were able to opt out?
I knew coming into this game that it was PvP based, and honestly I don't care since I am here to play, but no one has yet to come up with an actual reason why PvP would "die", "be killed" or otherwise "go to hell" if there was an opt out option. So by all means folks, someone give a real informative answer to the question rather than a "because I don't want it to" type of answer.
#37
Posted 11 September 2010 - 16:28
#38
Posted 11 September 2010 - 16:41
Why can't we opt out of PvP.
Because it would kill PvP which is an essential part of the game.
Any other questions?
Yeah I got one.
If I am going to be labeled as a "Leveler" rather than a person that plays and enjoys many aspects of the the game, I got a question.
Can someone explain, as an adult, why the PvP system would die if only maybe 30% (speculating based off all these damn posts) of the players who only level were able to opt out?
I knew coming into this game that it was PvP based, and honestly I don't care since I am here to play, but no one has yet to come up with an actual reason why PvP would "die", "be killed" or otherwise "go to hell" if there was an opt out option. So by all means folks, someone give a real informative answer to the question rather than a "because I don't want it to" type of answer.
because... there are quite a bit of players like the OP who dislikes PvP to the point of wanting it obsolete... allow me to put it like this: If even 80% of players 'opted out'... imagine how rarely anybody would be allowed to PvP... there'd be almost no Bounty Board, almost no Guild Wars, and a never-ending rise in price on FSP... Fallensword as it is now would cease to exist. :cry:
#39
fs_coyotik
Posted 11 September 2010 - 16:43
PvP is very essential in means of a gold sink.
I don't know how much gold gets sunk daily in PvP, it's quite possible that it's a major gold sink compared to special pots, arena, forging, tagging and anything else that costs gold - but there's nothing essential about it. If gold balance was seriously important to developers, to the point of treating gold sinks as essential, we'd hardly see FSP at 20x more that I remember them in the old days
And I think a lot more people participate in it than you think. A lot of people PvP. While I am not one of them I am not ignorant enough to suggest an opt out.
I don't think suggesting an opt-out is ignorant (even though I don't support a full opt-out at all). And if a LOT of people PvP, what's the problem with the opt-out anyway? The lot will stay there and they're welcome to PvP to their liking
#40
Posted 11 September 2010 - 19:02
Not a fan of the idea though over all. And yes, I realize that is a predictable opinion. Don't get bent out of shape at me though, for having a consistent take on things. Not when this kind of stuff gets rattled off almost constantly. We're even, believe me. :roll:
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

This topic is locked