Do we really need PvP?

[sofiaoak]

solution: ditch outposts completely...

Most people wanna more content, so no point to undo work what's allready done.

I think the message here is more like make outposts consent PvP. This means that some guild or alliance can declare the war to anyone else with the outpost, but target outpost guild or alliance don't have to accept it. This allows PvPers to choose with who to play and how they play. If some guild does not behave wanted ways, others can just say no to wars they declare. This is consent PvP. Also if outposts are consent it allows peasefull guild to have other purposes for outposts in the future, even PvE only outposts

This could be easyly done with same kind features what we have allready, the friend list. Just make new one, the guild list. Where You can put those guild what PvP chalange You accept automaticly as long they are You guild friend list. We need also ignore area on that guild list, what means any war declaration done by guild on that list is automaticly denied. Other would be asked, cause they aren't on the guild list at all.

[michielb]

Now take off your eye patches..

Right back at ya...


While most parents won't leave loaded guns lying around the house some do and will continiue to do some until their kid runs into a school and kills everyone in sight. Now you know kids shouldn't play with guns (most adults shouldn'either) I know kids shouldn't play with guns and even most kids know kids shouldn't play with guns but that doesn't mean I won't ever happen unless you take away dad's gun...

[drizzeth]

Right back at ya...


While most parents won't leave loaded guns lying around the house some do and will continiue to do some until their kid runs into a school and kills everyone in sight. Now you know kids shouldn't play with guns (most adults shouldn'either) I know kids shouldn't play with guns and even most kids know kids shouldn't play with guns but that doesn't mean I won't ever happen unless you take away dad's gun...

exactly and taking away dads gun is the parents responsibility, comnbined with actually being there for the kid.

Sadly i took my example for really happened events in America, exactly the 9 year aold example happened:

9 year old left alone with loaded gun on salon table.
friend is over to play
they take the gun, play cowboy
9 year old shoots friend, friend dies.
Parents sue gun industry and movie industry, they blame that movie and television industry made the kid do it and that the gun industry made the tool that made it possible.

So easy to go past the fact that those parrents neglected their kid and made a grave grave error in leaving a loaded gun in plain site!

Im against guns like they are free in the US, but never will i blame the gun industry for that example!

-has anyone even tried to sue a matches company for the behavior of Pyromaniacs?

[michielb]

exactly and taking away dads gun is the parents responsibility, comnbined with actually being there for the kid.

Sadly i took my example for really happened events in America, exactly the 9 year aold example happened:

9 year old left alone with loaded gun on salon table.
friend is over to play
they take the gun, play cowboy
9 year old shoots friend, friend dies.
Parents sue gun industry and movie industry, they blame that movie and television industry made the kid do it and that the gun industry made the tool that made it possible.

So easy to go past the fact that those parrents neglected their kid and made a grave grave error in leaving a loaded gun in plain site!

Im against guns like they are free in the US, but never will i blame the gun industry for that example!

-has anyone even tried to sue a matches company for the behavior of Pyromaniacs?

So tell me, why do you want to put the loaded gun on the table?

[grimjim]

Most people wanna more content, so no point to undo work what's allready done.

I think the message here is more like make outposts consent PvP. This means that some guild or alliance can declare the war to anyone else with the outpost, but target outpost guild or alliance don't have to accept it. This allows PvPers to choose with who to play and how they play. If some guild does not behave wanted ways, others can just say no to wars they declare. This is consent PvP. Also if outposts are consent it allows peasefull guild to have other purposes for outposts in to future, even PvE only outposts

Yep, and outposts could still come under event or mob based attack so that the prospect of 'outpost hogging' by refusing PvP doesn't occur so much.

Outposts within existing PvP zones (that ground is already lost) could be open for PvP takeover as could the faction war area outposts.

Personally, I'd shift the faction zones to the borderlands between each hostile nation rather than where they are now, but that's just me... Then you'd have a 'shifting border zone'.

Compromise - something for both sides.

[drizzeth]

So tell me, why do you want to put the loaded gun on the table?

Im not, im pointing out that the community is hiding behind all sorts of scapegoats to go completely past the fact that they have a chance to evolve, to do things better, instead people stick to the old and fundamental steriotyping scapegoat behavior.

And in another picture, lets say the mature part of the community are the parents, and lets say the pvp is like friends teasing the kid at school.

Its our job, as parents to learn the kid how to deal with that pvp, not by handing them a gun and send them back to school to then say; see i told ya it would happen, guns are evil! But by earning the kid how to deal with that stuff.

Yes its the communities responsibility to make the best out of pvp, and not by removing this learn-object but by actually learning to rise above the old.
If you think you as a community cant do this, if you say you rather blame the pvp, its a sad thing, not positive.

we play on a agme with preople ranging from 80- maybe even as low as 6 years old, tolerate eachother, even if they speak 1337, how could i care of a 9 year old comes upto me and pk's me and says 1 0wn j00! i couldnt care less, its a 9 year old!

Are you being this agitated if in RL a 9 year old kicks your encles? will you lock that person up for life/ amputate his legs? so he never does it again?

are cars being removed from society because 9 year olds are not suited to drive a car? he can still take the keys and drive..

[trenker]

Outposts involve PvP.
Therefore, [outposts] create a non-consensual PvP content for people interested in them for a reason beyond PvP and they cut off non-PvPers from a potentially massive and important influx of new 'content'.

Very good point. But at this stage we do not know what Outposts have to offer as a benefit. Assuming they have a benefit that is actually worth bothering with, then your argument stands. At the moment, however, the benefits of having an outpost seem undefined and so if you want to avoid PvP you can avoid Outposts without missing out on any benefits. Please please enlighten me if we know otherwise.

Perhaps a solution, Grimjim, is as follows:
1)
If just you and a small part of your guild do not want PvP then let the others (and their allies) take the outpost.
2)
If Nearly all your guild want to avoid PvP then PAY some mercs (or have PvP allies), like Samsara (?), to get you one. Then they 'give' it to you by not backing up their waves of crappy NPC guards, which you can attack PvE fashion. Lots of RP opportunity here with the mercs. Only problem is when your outpost is attacked I guess. Although you could simply pay for uber NPC guards and go have a picnic. If you have PvP allies all the better.

Hmmm, maybe someone should start a[nother] mercenary guild that would provide these sort of services to nonPvPers. Hmmmm.

I guess we need more Outpost info to really evaluate if Outposts = must haves = forced PvP.

[sofiaoak]

Outposts within existing PvP zones (that ground is already lost) could be open for PvP takeover as could the faction war area outposts.

Personally, I'd shift the faction zones to the borderlands between each hostile nation rather than where they are now, but that's just me... Then you'd have a 'shifting border zone'.

Never thinked that one, but yep, that could also work. So the area (zone) where outpost is build could define what kind of outpost it is.

[michielb]

Im not, im pointing out that the community is hiding behind all sorts of scapegoats to go completely past the fact that they have a chance to evolve, to do things better, instead people stick to the old and fundamental steriotyping scapegoat behavior.

And in another picture, lets say the mature part of the community are the parents, and lets say the pvp is like friends teasing the kid at school.

Its our job, as parents to learn the kid how to deal with that pvp, not by handing them a gun and send them back to school to then say; see i told ya it would happen, guns are evil! But by earning the kid how to deal with that stuff.

Yes its the communities responsibility to make the best out of pvp, and not by removing this learn-object but by actually learning to rise above the old.
If you think you as a community cant do this, if you say you rather blame the pvp, its a sad thing, not positive.

It is a sad thing indeed as I have little faith in mankind and think it better to keep guns under lock and key rather than tempt people into using them by putting them in in plain sight.

[grimjim]

Im not, im pointing out that the community is hiding behind all sorts of scapegoats to go completely past the fact that they have a chance to evolve, to do things better, instead people stick to the old and fundamental steriotyping scapegoat behavior.

You would actually have a point if there were societal controls and enforcement over the PvP aspect. If people's PvP priveledges could be taken away or if there was a maturity or 'citizenship' test before they got access to the 'tools of war' to ensure that they were mature or capable enough to use them.

There's also a lack of consequences to bad actions, which is why so many online game environments, especially with lots of PvP content, resemble small 'a' anarchy, or more accurately, chaos.