A Possible Solution to the PvP/PvE Clash

[thebax]

That would entail your actually having fought or having the intention to do so when and if necessary. Please, leave the quotes at the door. I don't suppose you were ever a soldier in the real world or you might believe differently than you do.

I know this was not directed at me, but it bares clarification that this is not an accurate supposition. I was a soldier in real life, I served to the best of my ability, and with distinction. That experience is probably one of the main causes of my pacifist stance.

[sofiaoak]

sofiaoak, I think you misunderstood. I was applauding you for your stance and the fact that you use the guidelines set by Nevrax to play the game as you enjoy it. You do not go into a PVP zone, get killed, and then complain that you got killed in a PVP zone. I commend you for that and truly wish that others not interested in PVP would follow suit.

I'm sorry, but You still miss my point. I do understand what You mean.

The question is, IF I would wanna PvP, but NOT open PvP, how I can do it in this game?

Can someone say any postive possibility what can't use negative way, what does OPEN PvP offer, what consentual PvP can't offer?

[mtsmith]

I'm sorry, but You still miss my point. I do understand what You mean.

The question is, IF I would wanna PvP, but NOT open PvP, how I can do it in this game?

Can someone say any postive possibility what can't use negative way, what does OPEN PvP offer, what consentual PvP can't offer?

You can duel or go to a PVP zone. I am not asking for open pvp, but rather for those against it to accept the fact that it is a part of the game.

[mtsmith]

I know this was not directed at me, but it bares clarification that this is not an accurate supposition. I was a soldier in real life, I served to the best of my ability, and with distinction. That experience is probably one of the main causes of my pacifist stance.

Baxter, you carry yourself with the professionalism and dedication befitting a solder. As you stated that was in no way directed at you. My point is that every soldier should understand that conflict is a part of the greater nature of life. I don't believe in just attacking somebody at a whim, but we all need release for daily frustrations. For some, relaxing while crafting and harvesting is enough. Others (myself included) have fun adventuring throughout the land. However, those interested in battle should never be excluded from the fun. They have designated PVP zones and many of them make good use of these areas. I fail to understand the problem, other than the fact that some of you refuse to accept the risk and suck it up when you don't like the outcome.

[grimjim]

I fail to understand the problem, other than the fact that some of you refuse to accept the risk and suck it up when you don't like the outcome.

For the same reason one can understand the appeal of boxing, while still not being a fan of it, but still disapprove of mugging.

[sofiaoak]

You can duel or go to a PVP zone. I am not asking for open pvp, but rather for those against it to accept the fact that it is a part of the game.

So if I understant this correctly. If someone wanna PvP, but not open PvP, You deny they possibility PvP totally, except duels.

How about if we would remove open PvP zones totally, except arena and replace it with full consentual PvP. Examples:

kami vs karavan faction war. (neutral is not part of it)
race vs race faction war. (joining Your own race army)
material spot owning (joining the society fighting of material rights)
outpost vs outpost wars. (joining the territory ownership fighting by conquering war zone outposts, requires ownership of war outpost)
alliance vs alliance war. (declaration what is accepted both side)
guild vs guild war. (declaration what is accepted both side)
team vs team wars. (declaration what is accepted both side)
character vs character duels. (declaration what is accepted both side)

Would someone in current open PvP still need someting else?

[vguerin]

That experience is probably one of the main causes of my pacifist stance.

I retired after 21+ years in the Infantry myself... but it didn't make me a pacifist... It made me wish to have eveyone live as they wish to as long as this doesn't infringe on others abilities to do as they wish.

Who we are/were in RL has little to do with who/how we play this game. Of course someone playing the patriotic card against the onslaught of aggressive passivist anti-PvPers was bound to happen

[hugedan]

I said i would not post on pvp again but alas i am as i would like my view to be heard. I am of the opinon that pvp should be allowed, but judging the scale of pvp and non pvp people this server i am of the belief that it should only be FvF. I.E. only factions/guilds/alliances who have declared war on each other should be able to openly attack each other. This is regardless of outposts. at least that way you are giving the consent from the guild and all its members to engage in pvp. I think this is a pretty good idea.

[thebax]

I retired after 21+ years in the Infantry myself... but it didn't make me a pacifist... It made me wish to have eveyone live as they wish to as long as this doesn't infringe on others abilities to do as they wish.

Who we are/were in RL has little to do with who/how we play this game. Of course someone playing the patriotic card against the onslaught of aggressive passivist anti-PvPers was bound to happen

I don't think anyone was playing the "patriot card", heh, in a community made up of people from so many different countries, that would be a bit silly .
My point was that, while you may well have had a different reaction to it, killing another person is always wrong. Even when you are both in uniform, engaging in a duly declared war, and it's a case of "either him or you", ie. the most acceptable form of homicide in western culture, at least, it is never a good thing, it is, at best, the lesser of two evils.
I have killed numerous animals in the interest of self-preservation, both for food, and because one or the other of us has unwittingly encroached on the other's personal space, and somebody's going to get hurt. So far, I've always chosen the animal as the loser. I have never felt any remorse, regret, or any other emotions from the killing of an animal that I needed to, that came close to those to those of killing another person, no matter how justified (if that is indeed possible). Just as most things that taste bad are poisons, things that feel wrong usually are.
Yes, this is just a game. However, other things that are wrong in real life are wrong in games, such as lying, stealing, and cheating, such actions have a negative effect on your fellow players. Also, who we are/were in real life has nothing to do with the actions of Duke Nukem, or a small paddle on the side of the screen, but have everything to do with how we play this game. Some are playing as themselves in a different setting, perhaps exploring the nature vs. nurture connundrum. Others are role playing, exploring a facet of their own personality that is either fully suppressed in real life, or is not given full reign because of social constraints or day-to-day obligations.

[thebax]

We (or at least I) have wandered a bit off-track.

A lot of good ideas for adding risk to the killing of a neutral/non-PvP flagged player (who poses no threat), removing the constraints on healing currently imposed by the existance of non-consentual PvP zones, and dealing with the problems created by PvP in general have been suggested. I thank everyone who has given constructive ideas.

Does anyone else have ideas on how to solve these problems?