It's not as black and white as that, Desh.

A system like that proposes that a group of people can camp wherever they want and restrict access to an area of the game.

This has happened before when we were working under similar rules.

Griefers are going to do whatever they can to make the game hell for their targets and this means toeing the line as much as possible.

You can cap out rather quickly this hosting which gives you more time to participate in pvp/domain warfare/griefing.

Losses from death really aren't a problem. You lose barely any experience and what you do lose can be made back within a matter of minutes.

Responsibility to engrave items or keep unengraved items safe rests on the players.

The major problem is being killed so often that you can not play the game. You're being kept from playing by being killed constantly.

Then you have the other side of the coin which consists of players who constantly look for reasons to get other players banned which used to be a bannable offense.

Dampening the problem through mechanics seems like the best course of action. Mechanics don't take sides. Mechanics don't have biases.

_________________________________________

WyrmDean wrote:

It's as black and white as that, Desh.

1. A system like that proposes that a group of people can camp wherever they want and restrict access to an area of the game.

This has happened before when we were working under similar rules.

2. Griefers are going to do whatever they can to make the game hell for their targets and this means toeing the line as much as possible.

You can cap out rather quickly this hosting which gives you more time to participate in pvp/domain warfare/griefing.

Losses from death really aren't a problem. You lose barely any experience and what you do lose can be made back within a matter of minutes.

Responsibility to engrave items or keep unengraved items safe rests on the players.

3. The major problem is being killed so often that you can not play the game. You're being kept from playing by being killed constantly.

Then you have the other side of the coin which consists of players who constantly look for reasons to get other players banned which used to be a bannable offense.

Dampening the problem through mechanics seems like the best course of action. Mechanics don't take sides. Mechanics don't have biases.

Gonna quote here cause I largely agree with you.

1. That's exactly what used to happen on this game. Back in 3.5, at the beginning of 4.0 Norkia controlled the swamps on NB, then Argo for a short time until taking Irendi. That's what generates wars, domain based pvp, and people banding together. I (and probably incorrectly so because at this point people are either downtrodden by the vets or vets that will hand with other vets to do this) feel like **** like that will spark reasonable even conflict. It'll stop this "beat the **** outta that guy cause we can and have nothing else to do since we're capped, geared up, and bored with Dark Dragons" pvp and spark more "we need to group up and kick those guys outta leamaia cause we need the resources there and the location is perfect for training in ruins" conflict. Fights that aren't decided before the first status spell goes off. Fights that are a bit more "this is for my home and my friends" rather than "i wonder if i can 1 shot this guy". It'll lead to REAL pvp rather than people beating the **** outta newer or underleveled players and getting mad when someone comes and kills them over and over back. Its really what gets me super into this game and i know what makes me happy isn't really what should be the direction for ffo. I'm just selfish enough to explain what I want and reasonable enough to know that not everyone enjoys the same things as me. But pvp between balanced groups is probably a lot better than the shenanigans going on.

EDIT: Dock camping is a completely different issue. That isn't good gameplay or what I meant. Dock camping is griefing that needs to stop. Even in more fair pvp I think its bull**** and needs to stop. Despite the fact I know how to generally deal with it.

2. Griefing isn't necessarily generated from pvp. Blocking used to be griefing, Gaku fixed that. Although players can still block the NW exit in NB, he fixed the blocking guards from outlawed targets. Some people felt ninjas in disguise all the time was griefing. Gaku fixed that. Griefing can be stopped depending on the way it is. A group controlling a certain area is NOT griefing. In the past it was considered strategic gameplay.

3. Like I said before, that only really happens when your being "hunted" vs "spam killed" which can happen if you keep reviving and running into the lions den. The way your enforcing the rule right now your basically making it so that players don't even have to attempt protecting themselves. And by protecting i don't mean using spells and whatnot. I mean where they can just walk around known enemies with impunity. Basically just babying people that should be more-or-less of sound mind.

I 100% agree that assholes killing people over and over need to be punished. Nobody wants to be completely incapable of training or waiting off deathsickness. Nobody should be allowed to stomp someone into the ground so completely they have no option but to log out. But what your banning for is not what was happening. What happened in Reaps latest banning (to be specific cause i'm not speaking on your past bans) was someone didn't want to face the consequences for not protecting their gear properly. You yourself said the responsibility to engrave is on the players.

Mechanics aren't biased. Mechanics don't make mistakes. Mechanics however perform in the capacity they're created in, by humans who make mistakes. What I'm against is a mechanic bred in the wrong capacity. Griefing needs to stop. PVP doesn't need to stop, it needs to actually happen. Versus suggests an even and competitive matchup. Not what's been happening lately.

Anti-spam killing measures, no. Anti-griefing measures, yes.

_________________________________________

And sorry to double-post but the issue with dock camping is that it gives the campers a full second to attack players as they come out 1 at a time and before the boaters' screen even finishing loading. It's not like door camping because people can come out of doors concealed and there's not a huge delay.

My suggestion for dock camping would be something should be done about the delay between reaction times if at all possible. Maybe make it so that boaters aren't visible for another half a second so they can see their surroundings as they're attacked. If that gives the boaters the advantage that'd be preferable since the campers would then have to play honestly and back up giving the boaters time to get off or they put themselves at a disadvantage.

Maybe make it so you have to "walk off" the boat (boating puts you in a really small pc-house sized building and you have to step out to reach the naval zone).

_________________________________________

DeshTheWraith wrote:

And sorry to double-post but the issue with dock camping is that it gives the campers a full second to attack players as they come out 1 at a time and before the boaters' screen even finishing loading. It's not like door camping because people can come out of doors concealed and there's not a huge delay.

My suggestion for dock camping would be something should be done about the delay between reaction times if at all possible. Maybe make it so that boaters aren't visible for another half a second so they can see their surroundings as they're attacked. If that gives the boaters the advantage that'd be preferable since the campers would then have to play honestly and back up giving the boaters time to get off or they put themselves at a disadvantage.

Maybe make it so you have to "walk off" the boat (boating puts you in a really small pc-house sized building and you have to step out to reach the naval zone).

I like all of these ideas. To be honest if dock camping fails, it's usually because of delayed reactions on the camper's part. These are pretty decent fixes and encourage active pvp. +1

_________________________________________

I love the idea of a pvp toggle option. It could be squeezed in beside the "Quests" option, just like how "FAQ" and "MotD" are squeezed together.

The pvp toggle option would only work during non-siege hours and be void during siege hours.

If a player doesn't want to pvp then they could easily disable the act during non-siege hours. Players should have this option due to the fact that it's not always simply PVP... most of the time it's simply being killed.

If you're running around looking for targets, you shouldn't have them so easily. Players who are willing to fight back are the best targets and they could easily decide so for themselves through a pvp toggling option.

Edit: This would also allow new players to leave Newbie Isle and it not be considered end-game for them, which it normally is due to our community.

_________________________________________

Toggle sounds overly complicated imo.

You'd need a cooldown so you could only toggle it so often and I can think of several scenarios off the top of my head where the toggle could be used to grief people, such as chest ganking and so on.


_________________________________________

I can't think of many situations where someone has tried to gank a chest I was trying to get.

But... you know, even if they were, that's not too big of a deal. You could try to beat them at getting the chest.

Not a big loss for such a big fix.



_________________________________________

The point is that it doesn't seem evenly fair to everyone.

_________________________________________

Do you really think so?

The thought that newer players could leave the island safely seems great to me.

Taking away an advantage that griefers have (being able to attack anyone) is another great thing.

I can't think of something that would make it too unfair or I might agree with you.


_________________________________________

WyrmDean wrote:

The point is that it doesn't seem evenly fair to everyone.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, and you might have done this before and I missed it, but could you please provide some examples of why it isn't fair? Chest ganking isn't really that big of an issue, especially considering the way you moderate the game we have to deal with it anyway.

_________________________________________

Chests are the only tangible reward you get for pvp. The amount of experience you gain is no where near laudable.

You would also be able to freely walk into domains that are not open or interfere with politics, questing, construction without fear of the other side striking you down.

Adding in exceptions to all of these situations for a 'toggle system' doesn't seem worth it to me considering you could come up with a system that affects all players equally and at the same time.

_________________________________________

WyrmDean wrote:

Chests are the only tangible reward you get for pvp. The amount of experience you gain is no where near laudable.

Oh gee so thats what you all REALLY thought during my ban. But yeah, the toggle would be way to abusable or just not usable.

_________________________________________

@Dean

You should share that information with Shane, haha.

Anyway, you're right. It wouldn't be fair to be able to walk into a domain with a safeguard, certainly if it's one that doesn't accept you.

You can already interfere with questing, but this would make such an act even easier. I thought of this but didn't consider it to the fullest.

Although a toggle pvp option would be great, there is things that would prevent it from working the way I'd want it to.

_________________________________________

All things considered, I really enjoy the idea of a safety radius encircling towns. As long as blocking wasn't possible (density=0) then I think it could work fine.

Will people be ****s and insult and taunt people from the safety of the town? Probably. Let them show their character, big deal.

Will people run from a fight and be safe in town? Yeah, but its a common strategy already.

Are people going to be ****s and camp outside of towns for Elyk? Yep. But again, a common thing as is.

It would definitely be a huge appeal for new players who often get turned off by how chaotic towns appear to be and often end up victim in the middle of what they thought was a safe area.

In the end, I love slaying *****es in town more than anyone. It's like having sex with a bank teller in her office. It's a huge adrenaline rush with the fear of getting caught and all the sweat and adrenaline... but I digress, if there is going to be a change this would probably be one of the better options, wouldn't it?

edit: wow my post is full of ****ing stars.
Hey guy, too easy. If you're outlawed you are no longer immune. Hostile domain means outlawed. Obviously we'd have to expertly design this system (I can offer my services, for a fee), but we can make it work...

_________________________________________

simply cean wrote:

All things considered, I really enjoy the idea of a safety radius encircling towns. As long as blocking wasn't possible (density=0) then I think it could work fine.

Will people be ****s and insult and taunt people from the safety of the town? Probably. Let them show their character, big deal.

Will people run from a fight and be safe in town? Yeah, but its a common strategy already.

Are people going to be ****s and camp outside of towns for Elyk? Yep. But again, a common thing as is.

It would definitely be a huge appeal for new players who often get turned off by how chaotic towns appear to be and often end up victim in the middle of what they thought was a safe area.

In the end, I love slaying *****es in town more than anyone. It's like having sex with a bank teller in her office. It's a huge adrenaline rush with the fear of getting caught and all the sweat and adrenaline... but I digress, if there is going to be a change this would probably be one of the better options, wouldn't it?

edit: wow my post is full of ****ing stars.
Hey guy, too easy. If you're outlawed you are no longer immune. Hostile domain means outlawed. Obviously we'd have to expertly design this system (I can offer my services, for a fee), but we can make it work...

Aw hail yeah. 8)

_________________________________________

Yeah and even with the camping it's a much larger area to camp than the small openings to towns that there are currently.

_________________________________________

This sounds like a good idea to me too. I could go for that or the "no pvp except during siege".

_________________________________________

What no pvp except during siege what a terrible idea.

_________________________________________

I like how some people go "lulnoes, you're taking pvp away" every time someone suggest stuff like this.

_________________________________________

Things like this wouldn't be suggested if the playerbase could handle PVP as it is without going overboard.

The community has proven time and time again that it isn't mature enough to have pure open PVP without abusing it horribly.

_________________________________________