Jump to content

Photo

Developer Chat Notes (23/Mar/2012)


  • Please log in to reply
465 replies to this topic

#341 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:16

again Doom,, you know rightly how people will use the vote out of badness


While that is indeed a possibility, what's the worst that could come out of that situation, we end up with a well moderated place where opinions are voiced freely and openly in a calm manner by all. Surely that would be better?

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#342 cramble27

cramble27

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:20

But people wanting pvp removed or radically watered down arent doing it with the good of the game in their thoughts


So they don't deserve to have their opinions heard? I'm not a pvp player but I don't want pvp removed, I've even offered some rather amiable solutions/compromises yet the same thing happens to me..


I actually enjoy PvP (true PvP that is, not hitting someone who is offline, unbuffed, or wearing epics). When I was OSBH, my favorite part was sitting on the BB, and changing set-ups.

So, while I consider myself a leveler, I do not PvP removed from the game. But the good of the game is an opinion. You see the current PvP system as good for the game because you enjoy it. Others see it as bad for the game because they do not enjoy it. What I think is good for the game is are the current PvP mechanics fair (such a loaded word to use)? Do PvP players have an inherent advantage over other players in the game? I think that under the current system, PvP players do have an advantage over players that enjoy Leveling. I am not saying that the new changes are the right thing to do, but I do think that PvP needed to be changed. Now we will have to see what happens. If these changes are 'bad', then the cows can change them back or make different changes.

Of course, all this is moot, because what ultimately matters is what the Cows see as good for the game :)

#343 shdowdrgn

shdowdrgn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:21



The real fact is, XP loss should have never been tied to PvP, except on the BB. That would be the only way to make these two aspects of the game (leveling and PvP) fair.


so you think it is fair for the PVP to loose XP while you loose nothing? really? you need to go look up the definition of "fair"



The loss to the 'victim' comes in right at the very beginning of the equation, when the pvp player attacks them.. ;)



#344 Snowy900

Snowy900

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:22

again Doom,, you know rightly how people will use the vote out of badness


While that is indeed a possibility, what's the worst that could come out of that situation, we end up with a well moderated place where opinions are voiced freely and openly in a calm manner by all. Surely that would be better?


indeed,, but the trouble is so many people have been scared away by people claiming they will get intimidated by the whole pvp community that they still wont voice their ideas. if someone can prove that they have been intimidated then HCS should be notified

#345 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:24

so you think it is fair for the PVP to loose XP while you loose nothing? really? you need to go look up the definition of "fair"


Ahh I misread, however my statement still stands. The loss to the victim still comes in on the initial attack. With or without xp loss. Damage to equipment and gold stolen would still be a loss, correct?

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#346 shdowdrgn

shdowdrgn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:25

so you think it is fair for the PVP to loose XP while you loose nothing? really? you need to go look up the definition of "fair"


Ahh I misread, however my statement still stands. The loss to the victim still comes in on the initial attack. With or without xp loss. Damage to equipment and gold stolen would still be a loss, correct?



ok so where levelers complain on end that it is there XP that is the only thing that matters you are saying that is bull and no matter how you adjust it and change it they are still going to scream as they simply do not want to be hit at all... and you say it is not all in the name of killing PVP??

i think the poll you are looking for is the one asking how many people want a "Win button"

#347 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:26

indeed,, but the trouble is so many people have been scared away by people claiming they will get intimidated by the whole pvp community that they still wont voice their ideas. if someone can prove that they have been intimidated then HCS should be notified


How would someone 'prove' they have been intimidated. That is were the problem lies I think, I do think HCS would step in and do something if the motives could be proven. However I don't see many of the perpetrators actually admitting to intimidation if they are aware that they can/will be reprimanded?

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#348 shdowdrgn

shdowdrgn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:28

indeed,, but the trouble is so many people have been scared away by people claiming they will get intimidated by the whole pvp community that they still wont voice their ideas. if someone can prove that they have been intimidated then HCS should be notified


How would someone 'prove' they have been intimidated. That is were the problem lies I think, I do think HCS would step in and do something if the motives could be proven. However I don't see many of the perpetrators actually admitting to intimidation if they are aware that they can/will be reprimanded?


if you have no proof of intimidation then doesn't it just come down to you are assuming people have been intimidated?

#349 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:29

ok so where levelers complain on end that it is there XP that is the only thing that matters you are saying that is bull and no matter how you adjust it and change it they are still going to scream as they simply do not want to be hit at all... and you say it is not all in the name of killing PVP??

i think the poll you are looking for is the one asking how many people want a "Win button"


Not really understanding your meaning here. I said loss still occurs to the victim at the beginning of the equation. Because it isn't something they prize highly to themselves, you're saying it's not fair. Just trying to understand your statement here.. If you don't inflict damage that the 'victim' is bothered about, it's not worth it in the first place? Even though you get the gold, which if I've been reading these forums correctly over the years, was the initial target of the attack in the first place?

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#350 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:32

if you have no proof of intimidation then doesn't it just come down to you are assuming people have been intimidated?


Because proof doesn't exist means it didn't happen?

Lets take a real world example, in the times before DNA was widely used in criminal investigations, a certain murders would be hard to almost impossible to prove, doesn't change the fact that it occurred simply because the proof wasn't there.

(This in no way links pvp to murder, it was simply a fitting example for the 'proof vs reality of the situation' argument)

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#351 Snowy900

Snowy900

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:33

indeed,, but the trouble is so many people have been scared away by people claiming they will get intimidated by the whole pvp community that they still wont voice their ideas. if someone can prove that they have been intimidated then HCS should be notified


How would someone 'prove' they have been intimidated. That is were the problem lies I think, I do think HCS would step in and do something if the motives could be proven. However I don't see many of the perpetrators actually admitting to intimidation if they are aware that they can/will be reprimanded?


im sure if they post something and then get magically 100stammed, im sure HCS would be happy to give fair warning

#352 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:34

im sure if they post something and then get magically 100stammed, im sure HCS would be happy to give fair warning


I'm afraid not, I mean I could attempt it. However I can already foresee the response.

"pvp is part of the game, as you have no evidence of intimidation or harassment I'm afraid there is nothing we can do"

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#353 shdowdrgn

shdowdrgn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:37

ok so where levelers complain on end that it is there XP that is the only thing that matters you are saying that is bull and no matter how you adjust it and change it they are still going to scream as they simply do not want to be hit at all... and you say it is not all in the name of killing PVP??

i think the poll you are looking for is the one asking how many people want a "Win button"


Not really understanding your meaning here. I said loss still occurs to the victim at the beginning of the equation. Because it isn't something they prize highly to themselves, you're saying it's not fair. Just trying to understand your statement here.. If you don't inflict damage that the 'victim' is bothered about, it's not worth it in the first place? Even though you get the gold, which if I've been reading these forums correctly over the years, was the initial target of the attack in the first place?



yes they loose gold and take a small amount of damage in this scenario. both things that levelers continually say means nothing to them.
so why then would a punishment have to exist for damage they care nothing about

#354 shdowdrgn

shdowdrgn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:39

if you have no proof of intimidation then doesn't it just come down to you are assuming people have been intimidated?


Because proof doesn't exist means it didn't happen?

Lets take a real world example, in the times before DNA was widely used in criminal investigations, a rape would be hard to almost impossible to prove, doesn't change the fact that it occurred simply because the proof wasn't there.

(This in no way links pvp to rape, it was simply a fitting example for the 'proof vs realityof the situation' argument)


FS logs everything complete with the time. proof can easily exists

and while i know full well you were not trying to relate PVP to rape ( or would hope not surely) i would ask that you choose a diff example. to many people are sensitive to things such as that and with good reason.

#355 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:42

yes they loose gold and take a small amount of damage in this scenario. both things that levelers continually say means nothing to them.
so why then would a punishment have to exist for damage they care nothing about


Under this hypothetical scenario you think that a player should be able to attack someone, possibly breaking crystal gear, stealing gold or breaking/leeching skills with the 'victim' having no course of action but to play an aspect of the game they probably aren't interested in?

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#356 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:43

FS logs everything complete with the time. proof can easily exists

and while i know full well you were not trying to relate PVP to rape ( or would hope not surely) i would ask that you choose a diff example. to many people are sensitive to things such as that and with good reason.


However, as Maehdros so simply put it, 'Random acts of violence' are an easy excuse, regardless of the actual motivations. something that HCS does condone which unfortunately leaves us in the situation we are currently in.

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#357 iambrad

iambrad

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:44

ISSUE: gvg level ranges.
1. All being said let's say a guild has 5 players and their highest level member is level 300. That player can hit up to level 325 (level 25-300 +/-25).
2. Now they are initiated upon by a guild with the two lowest members being level 350. The level 350 player's(301-700 +/-50) can hit the level 300 player but the level 300 player can not hit the level 350 people back because it is out of the gvg range of 25 levels.
3. There has to be a change if a member is hit by someone that person must be able to hit back no matter the level restriction.
4. This will be the same situation for the 700+ bracket players as well.
5. Or you must only be able to hit players that are within your brackets. lvl25-300 can not hit or be hit by someone levels 301 or higher for gvg and so forth.

#358 shdowdrgn

shdowdrgn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:46

yes they loose gold and take a small amount of damage in this scenario. both things that levelers continually say means nothing to them.
so why then would a punishment have to exist for damage they care nothing about


Under this hypothetical scenario you think that a player should be able to attack someone, possibly breaking crystal gear, stealing gold or breaking/leeching skills with the 'victim' having no course of action but to play an aspect of the game they probably aren't interested in?



hypothetical scenario is the right word when you are talking about them loosing nothing of value but having the ability to rip levels in return

ever heard the saying the punishment should fit the crime?

#359 Lupp0

Lupp0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
  • Netherlands

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:47

Mostly i am here to rant.. today i am :shock:
Great changes woohoo! :mrgreen:

RYUVWTI.png


#360 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 March 2012 - 20:48

hypothetical scenario is the right word when you are talking about them loosing nothing of value but having the ability to rip levels in return

ever heard the saying the punishment should fit the crime?


I was actually referring to it as hypothetical simply because pvp without xp isn't a part of HCS' proposal. (unless I'm mistaken and I overlooked something?)

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: