MrCaptainMan
-
Posts
2452 -
Joined
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Tokyo
First off, i'm not a PvPer. For me to be considered a PvPer I would have to accept that there is another person on the other side of the computer and not some pinata that drops PvP IOs; I don't. I'm a farmer.
If you would like someone to Explain ask: Mac, Conflict, Silit, or any of the other folks that call themselves PvPers.
I'm moving one of my zone farmers to freedom for one reason and it isn't to PvP. I'm going there to farm more pinatas.
I'm sorry but I'm not sure i understand what you're saying here. You say you're not a PvPer, but your sig says you are. I think your farming reference means that you 'farm' other players in pvP zones, which would imply that your preferred targets are the easiest kills, which I guess would be AFK corruptors.
If that's the case, then you are indeed the worst kind of PvPer.
In any case, I think your viewpoint and attitude falls outside of the parameters of this discussion. If you really believe that PCs in a PvP zone aren't being controlled by real humans, then you have issues beyond this subject.
Eco. -
Quote:I'm not in the camp that expects an attacker to back off if i ask in a PvP zone, so i'd say they were wrong. I don't want immunity from PvP, but the other end of the spectrum isn't any fun wither, which is why i don't PvP.Originally Posted by M_I_Abrahms
Ah, but the perception is half of one, six dozen of the other as far as that goes. Even if it was just the 'Incoming!' (which I actually enjoy, and will make a bind for next time I'm in game) there's still the element where the aggressor is expected to back off it the target says they're not interested. If they do, then it doesn't matter HOW it's worded, it's still asking permission, and if they don't there's going to be SOMEONE who petitions for harassment. I can almost guarantee it.
Eco. -
Quote:I think the suggestion was to not ask for permission, just give a tiny bit more warning, rather than the 'gank from stealthed' sort of activity which turns off a lot of noobs to PvP like me.Originally Posted by M_I_Abrahms
I'm guessing the most likely response is "but if I wanted duels, I'd be in the Arena." The mentality, as far as I can tell, seems to be that asking if it's alright to fight you is the exact same as setting up the fight clubs. In fact, that's usually how they are set up, one person asking the other if they want to fight.
It's either that, or the idea of sitting in a base and asking everyone you see enter until someone finally says "sure, come and get me" instead of the more likely responses of "no, I don't PvP" or even, "sure, meet me at X".
Eco. -
Quote:But maybe if you'd try to explain, some of 'us' might join 'you' in being PvPers. Do you want the PvP population to grow?Originally Posted by Tokyo
You don't PvP so it makes little sense taking the time to explain to you why this isn't practical.
For example, I don't know why it's so onerous to make a quick macro or keybind that sends a tell to a target that says "Incoming". I imagine a PvPer moving round a PvP zone, spying a potential target, targeting them (You have to target in order to attack, right, unless you're like some kind of really specific non-targeted AoE-only fighter?) and then just hitting a button as they approach.
Why is that impractical?
Yes, that'd be great. For PvErs who need Shivans and nukes on Virtue, for exampleQuote:
With that said, the devs made a great move with the free Server Transfers. If you're a PvPer, you really have no excuse NOT to transfer your PvP toons to Freedum.
Go. Transfer. Nao.
Eco. -
Quote:A siognificant proportion of PvPers don't care about raising their level of challenge. Rep is rep, IO drops are IO drops. If such a player encountered 40 PCs standing in BB all AFK with the newspaper emote running, they'd go on a killing spree.Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
If sending a tell to a player who can't even see or target you minutes in advance of an attack is going to raise the level of challenge to an unacceptable degree, please explain how if you like. I suppose if could cause them to run to the zone exit, in which case time is saved.
I'd be willing to bet, in fact, that given the choice of a moving toon who's patently being controlled by someone looking at their monitor and an AFK toon, a lot of PvPers would choose the AFK one to attack first.
At present, there are sufficient numbers of PvPers, albeit it seems concentrated in a tiny subset of the PvP areas available in the whole game, to satisfy their numbers reqs and cause any efforts to 'play fair' and encourage borderline players to stick around irrelevant to them.
Whether or not the PvP population is getting smaller over time I cannot say. It's possible that if the numbers are decreasing, they might reach a point where those that are left do start to evince more socially inclusive behaviour and less gamesmanship, min-maxing, stealth ganking etc. I think it's more probable that what would happen is that the small remainder of 'No warning, winning is everything' players, faced with fewer and fewer 'hardcore' PvP kills in RV and SC, would once again venture to BB and WB for the 'easy' kills they can get there from an increasing PvE population.
Over time, it'd look like this:
PvEers don't add to PvP pops because of ganking and poor mechanics and no incentive.
PvP populations decrease and concentrate in Freedom SC and RV.
BB and WB slowly gain reputations among the PvE playerbase as 'safe' because all the PvPers are in RV and SC, and so PvE pops using BB and WB increase.
PvP pops in RV and SC decrease due to people leaving for Aion (yeuch) and other, more PvP-focussed games.
Remaining PvP pops in RV and WB don't get enough of a fix to satiate their desire for kills, rep and drops.
PvPers return to BB and WB to gank the noobs now running free in herds through the forests and having CCs under the globe in WB. Rep is rep, after all.
PvEers once again steer clear of BB and WB apart from off-peak hours.
PvP pops decrease once more.
The last PvPer gives all his stuff to the Infected in the RV train station before logging out for the last time.
BB, SC, WB and RV are retasked as PvE-only zones.
Everyone (left) wins.
lol ok, it got a bit silly towards the end.
Eco. -
Quote:Doing it to someone else doesn't sound like fun to me either.Originally Posted by macskull
You missed the key point of my post: the other side has exactly the same opportunity to do those things as I do.
Don't forget a very important reason why some (a lot?) PvEers don't bother going into SC or RV - there's not a lot of PvE reason to go there. BB has Shivans, WB has nukes.Quote:
Is it usually fun when it happens? Nope. Is it a learning experience? Damn right it is. You've got two choices: you can try and shove yourself right into things, or you can try and ease yourself in by asking questions. If I see you in a zone and I don't know anything about you, you're just another opponent who may or may not be a threat, and in the time I spend sending you a tell asking if it's okay to engage you (lol @ that) I will probably have been killed by someone else, or you've known I'm there and as soon as I start to type you'll kill me. Until PvP has more goals than "stay alive and kill the other guys" I will do my best to achieve that goal. I don't know enough about you to determine whether or not you're a threat to me so I will take steps to ensure you don't pose a threat. If you're not there to PvP, that's fine. You have travel powers and can get away and I'm not going to say anything about it.
Of course, I wouldn't expect a non-PvPer to understand, so it's kind of like talking to a brick wall in that regard.
More likely than not, I won't. Of the fourteen US servers there is now one server that has regular PvP activites, and for the most part you will see very few PvEers wander into RV or Siren's (I'm talking, of course, about Freedom). This has much less to do with the perception that all PvPers are evil, soulless bastards than it does with the implementation of bad mechanics to "fix" perceived balance issues.
So it seems that you stick to RV and SC and we PvPers stick to BB and WB. If you're happy with your one remaining Server and its 2 remaining zones, then i'm happy to have the Shivans without having to worry about you ganking me, I guess.Quote:
Odds are if I see someone in RV, they're there to PvP. As I said above, I'm not going to take the time to stop and ask someone if it's okay to fight them in a zone. Upon entering the zone they acknowledged there would be a chance they might be attacked by a player, so I'm just turning that potential risk into an actual one. There's no "risk" involved for that player either, as the worst that will happen is they'll get sent to the hospital. I don't think most PvPers that are left particularly care about "hurting" PvP, because it's not the players that are the root of the lack of PvP population - it's the system. Will I be helpful if a situation warrants it though? Yes, that's who I am.
Everybody wins.
Eco. -
In fact, i think this would dramatically improve the general perception of pvp that a lot of pve playets have. I for one dont mind losing, particularly, i'd just like to kbow I'm losing to the kind of person i'd good naturedly lose a game of chess to in RL. Communication goes a long way in forging good relations.
Eco -
Quote:if this happened to me, I'd turn my toggles on and get ready for a fight. I'd view it as a heads-up thT the person attacking me was making an attempt to 'play fair', and not likely one of the pvpers like the guy i quoted up a few poats who kills AFK-toons and 8-man ganks solo players for kicks.Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Actually, this is exactly the point.
Every PvPer who wants PvP in this game to improve should (IMHO) start the friendly conversation before the attacks.
Otherwise, you are just hurting PvP.
Sure, it's not your responsibility to take these measures, but it is in your best interest to do so. To do otherwise is shooting oneself in the foot.
I urge any PvPer reading this to try an experiment, just for fun. For the next week, before attacking anyone in PvP, send them a tell, saying. "Incoming". That's all. You can do it seconds or minutes before you attack, and you should definitely do it from outside sight rang e.
I bet you will find the results enlightening and entertaining.
Eco -
Removed Double Post
Eco -
"I engage in competition as the rules of engagement allow me to. The rules of engagement allow me to start a fight against a player who is not aware I'm there, or isn't prepared to fight me. The rules of engagement allow me to have a team of eight spike a solo opponent. "
gee, pvp sure sounds like fun when you describe it like this!
Eco -
Quote:Originally Posted by Smurch
I tried making macros of some various threats and oaths and banter to use in PVP, but everyone just complained about "chat spamming"
If PvP made me feel like I was in a Spidey comic, and by that I'm referring to the banter, I'd be all over it like a rash.
Sadly, I really can't see any way of implementing any kind of narrative into PvP.
Eco. -
Quote:Yeah, lol, I think we have nowOriginally Posted by Smurch
Ok,
2.) People who go to PVP zones to PVE and then feel entitled to NOT BE ATTACKED AT ALL and have a chip on their shoulder about people who attack them in the PVP zone. People who expect someone to ask them nicely if they'd like to fight or leave them alone and feel that they have a right to this. Anyone who attacks them in the PVP zone is a jerk, and they shouldn't be "forced" into PVP like that.
These two things are mutually exclusive.
I hope that clears things up.
I'll just add that I'm fine with PvPers attacking me when i'm in a PvP zone. I'll run away if i can and deprive them of the kill, but I don't think I have a right to be left alone once i'm in there. I'll sometimes ask to be left alone, but if the answer's 'no', then that's fair enough, and i'll leave.
I do get a small sense of satisfaction out of doing a Shivan Run or a Warburg nuke trio with PvPers in the zone and getting out without being engaged. For me to 'win', nobody has to die
Eco.
Eco. -
Quote:Ah, I see. Er, lol, in that case, I apologise. I thought you were taking the OPs point.Originally Posted by Smurch
this isn't the situation I was talking about. Go back and re-read my posts. My compaint has always been about people who meet these THREE CRITERIA:
1.) They actively engaged you in a fight. that is, they were in fact fighting. They may even have initiated the fight (go back to see the example I cited when I first started posting on this).
2.) they decided at some point to run away.
3.) they then ran away and then LEFT THE ZONE.
Unless all three are true, then it doesn't apply to the situation I'm discussing.
Someone who does behave as points 1, 2 and 3 as you describe is indeed being a bit of a poor sport.
I was referring, on the other hand, to Players such as myself, who never instigate PvP and go to PvP Zones purely to get the rewards.
I stand by my position in regard to that situation, however. If someone who's not interested in PvP is attacked and chooses to flee, Idon't see a problem.
Incidentally, this thread just made me take my 50 blaster into RV for a looksee. I was invited to join a team in short order, and then i spent 10 minutes flying around basically failing to get to a 'being defeated' villain in time to participate in his downfall. There was enough action happening, but it was fairly boring, i'm afraid.
Eco. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Smurch
If you don't want PVP and are unwilling to participate in it, you have no business being in the zone in the first place. You're consenting to PVP by entering the zone, explicitly and implicitly, and then if you change your mind you're essentially going back on that agreement. You're tipping over the chessboard rather than lose your queen. It's poor sportsmanship to agree to play a game and abide by the rules of the zone then refuse to play the game when it doesn't go your way.
If you don't want to encounter PvEers who use tactical evasion techniques to successfully 'run the gauntlet' of the PvP-risk Shivan Shard minigame, which as designed contains no set requirements to actively look for a PvP encounter, then you should try to find a place where every opponent you face actually desires to fight you under Rules of Engagement that you both agree upon.
I believe that place is called the Arena.
Eco. -
Quote:I just spurted coffee out my nose at the fact that you had to specify an AFK corrupotr, not just any old AFK toon!Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Short of finding an AFK corruptor, that character just can't realistically be expected to defeat another player.
Eco. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Smurch
But that's it. they're not trying to win: they're trying to ensure NO ONE wins. They're trying to spoil the game for someone else.
If you're playing chess with someone, and they make a bad move and lose their queen, so they tip the board over and knock the pieces to the floor, do you consider that good sportsmanship? Is this an admirable trait in your eyes?
The "IF I CAN'T WIN, NO ONE WILL!" mindset is being a poor sport at best and being spiteful at worst.
If your motivation for running is to deny your opponent victory, that sounds spiteful to me. It's being a bad sport.I think this really comes down to a subjective view of what 'sportsmanship' and indeed 'winning' is in the case of CoH Zone pvP. I agree that the chess player in your example is being a bad sport as I understand the phrase, because he actually has a game mechanic which allows him to basically do the same thing by simply tipping his King over and thereby conceding defeat. I would say that the chess player who throws the whole board away has in fact lost.Quote:Originally Posted by Smurch
Does the term "poor sportsmanship" rankle your hide any less? Because I'm willing to sub it out.
A chess player who successfully plays to a draw however; under your definition, as he has deprived his opponent of a victory, he's being a bad sport. This is a view i don't agree with.
In CoH Zone PvP, however, movement around the zone is an accepted mechanic to use in combat. I don't think you're suggesting that PvP should consist of 2 Players standing in melee range just using powers without using any movement other than that needed to get back into melee after a KB or what have you. If i have a Blaster and you have a Brute, then my preference for keeping you at range combined with your desire to close to melee is going to create a veritable ballet of wandering all over the place.
Where, then, do you draw the line? How much movement am I allowed to use in order to avoid your attacks before you call me a 'bad sport'? And if we happen to be close to an area of safety such my base, I would be a strategic idiot not to make use of it in order to regain my strenght or what have you. Lol, you too. If you were flagging and close to some of your drones, you're saying you wouldn't take shelter?
And what then? Following your 'sportsmanship' line to a conclusion, after I'd Rested, I'd be honour bound to come back out and fight you to my inevitable demise, or until i could nip back to the base for a breather, only to have to repeat the whole darn shebang again. And again, and again and again. Because according to you, it's bad sportsmanship for me to not allow you to kill me if i'm weaker than you.
When i agree to enter Bloody Bay, I see the Big Red Warning, and the Countdown of Doom, and I do 'agree to engage in PvP'. Your definition of 'engaging' is not the same as mine, however. As far as i'm concerned, if i'm attacked, I've engaged in PvP. I am PvPing; you can't PvP solo, because it takes at least two - one to attack and one to get hit (depending on the event, the attacker and the attacked may swap roles a few times, or not). The warning doesn't say that I agree to 'engage in PvP until one or both parties are defeated', so I'm within my rights to turn and run.
You seem to hold the view that EVERYONE who runs to the base and zones is doing so out of fear and/or spite. You don't know what's in my head, dude. I have had toons who are obviously AFK in BB killed. I would put the attackers there into the 'bad sports' category too, but i don't assume because of that that EVERY PvPer is going to do that to an AFK toon if they find one.
Eco.
Eco. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Smurch
Yeah I already added "spite" to the list.
Your choice of language really shows your derision for anyone who chooses the tactical option of running. Do Olympic athletes desire to win races out of 'spite' for their fellow competitors?
Eco. -
Quote:By this logic, every time you're anywhere in the game and the nearest hospital offers any shortening of the route to wherever you want to go and you have a way to kill yourself (Self-Destruct, for example, or a handy NPC, or a fall from zone celing and that Emp power that causes a self-damage), then you should do it rather than stay alive and travel there. Is this your preferred method of travelling around?Originally Posted by Smurch
If that were true, the logical answer would be to drop toggles and let the other person just kill you because you can then leave faster rather than trying to run, having travel surpressed, being held or immob'd (even if for a couple of seconds at a time). It's actually pretty complicated to run away and escape all the way back to your base from someone who has even a small clue about PVP once you've been engaged in a fight.
.
I doubt it.
Your comments about logic etc just comes over as a thin disguise of your aim to just insult anyone who chooses to not stay for a PvP fight. It's already been pointed out that some people find satisfaction in depriving an attacker of a kill. According to you, succeeding in such an escape would be a feat worthy of lauding, so why don't you think it could be seen as something to induce pride?
Eco.
EDIT: I think 'blathering' was a bit of an aggressive choice of words, I apologise. -
Quote:I would say that the Shivan 'incentive' to pvP wasn't too kind, just poorly implemented. It doesn't offer any incentive to PvP. It merely offers an incentive to be present in the zone.Originally Posted by LISAR
So the devs may have been too kind with the way PvP was implemented?
You could look at Bloody Bay like this: It's the garden around a big house belonging to some guy who's away on holiday, leaving his big scary dog to guard the apple orchard that fills his garden. (the apples are the shivans, the big scary dog are the PvPers, the apple-loving young tyke who's shinned over the fence is your average PvEer). The problem withe the situation for the owner is that his garden's too big for the dog to successfully patrol. The dog is over on the north side of the house, and the young scamps over on the south side, and as soon as he hears the growly mutt coming he just legs it back over the fence and either waits for the dog to wander off again or head to a different facing.
What the owner should do is replace his orchard with a hundred dogs, all of who have apples tied round their necks.
Eco. -
Quote:In between posting that and posting this, i just went to BB on a 37 MA/SR scrapper and did the Shivan run. I accidentally killed the first turret I attacked, so i figured I might as well see if I'd be lucky with the timing, and I was, so it only took me about 5 minutes all told. I saw no-one whilst i was in the zone. When i got back to the hero base, i asked in broadcast if anyone was PvPing and after no reply, i /whoall'd. It brought up no other toons than me.Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Although there would be a huge outcry from players used to easy Shivans (and of course there is almost always an outcry over any change), the principle of your idea is interesting and possibly even necessary.
I'm not a PvPer at all, but I wouldn't moan too loudly if such a change was made to the Shivan run. As I said before, I could still get them by swapping kills with my SG-mate (I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about 'cheating' in this way), and if it made PvP more exciting and encouraged more to PvP, then I'm fine with that.
Eco -
Quote:I for one have no idea what you mean here, I'm sorry.Originally Posted by LISAR
Since the target of the all inclusive statment was so small it's easy to evaluate as a whole.
1. Not all people run to avoid ridicule, some just have no interest. - Statement 1 is false.
2. See point 1 -Statement 2 is false.
3. Disinterest, ambush bait, feign and attack - Statement 3 is false.
All of your post is wrong.
You were 100% wrong.
You were also 100% wrong in the post this is a direct reply to.
Want me to show you how that works as well?
Eco. -
Let's look at the BB situation logically. Shivans are useful for a large number of 'normal' PvEers. I'm not trying to dispagare players who do trick out their tons with IOs etc when I say 'normal' here, I hasten to stress lol.
I use Shivans as muscle when I'm soloing, and I often find myself heading to BB for a Shivan run. I usually don't have much trouble, to be honest. Ocassionally i get attacked, and whenever that happens, I immediately run to the base and hang around for a bit, then have another go, and if i get attacked a second time I head back to the base and log out and play with another toon for a while. I sometimes announce in broadcast (politely; I'm not criticising PvPers for PvPing in a PvP zone) that I'm not there for pvP and that I'm leaving - I do this partly so that my earlier attacker doesn't waste any time hanging around thinking i'm coming back, and partly to let him know that I've deprived him of a kill. I always take a load of break frees and lucks with me when i'm on a Shivan run.
Now the Shivan run is there as bait to entice Players into Bloody Bay. The Shivans are so strong because of the risk it takes to get them, said risk beign a combination of the turret defences and the possibility of being attacked and defeated by another Player. The problem with it as evinced here is that a lot of PvEers will indeed venture into BB for the Shivans, but that doesn't mean that they will enter into pvP willingly. In that sense, the aim of the BB Shivan run has failed.
In order to alter it so that it does actually encourage PvP, there needs to be some way to link its success with fighting against another Player or Players.
So here's what the Devs could do:
Remove the current Shivan Shard process, and replace it with a different one, which works like this:
1. The doohickeys which analyse the Meteor Shards are changed so that instead of analyzing the meteor shards, they attune the Player Character somehow to the forces inherent in the meteor.
2. When all 5 shards' magical wossnames have been absorbed by the Player Character, they must then 'gestate the essence of Shiva in violence', or some such guff - mecahnically, they must defeat another Player, who has also attuned themself to the 5 shards. Their 5 shards worth of mumbo-jumbo is then transformed into One Thing, ready for a return to the base.
3. They return to their base, where the scientist gives them thanks, there is a parade and bunting etc, and they get the temp power.
Amendments to reduce the ease of 'suicide swaps' could be to force the Player defeats to occur in a certain area (where the firebases are now, perhaps), adding some localisation blurb for why.
Reciprocal cheating would occur, of course. I and my SG-mate would definitely meet up to swap kills. But that happens already for rep farming, so it's nothing new. And there would be more incentive for PvP than there currently is.
Eco.
3. -
Maybe the shivans could be dynamically nerfed/powered up depending on however many other players were in the zone. I'm 'lucky' enough to play during euro timezones, so invariably, I don't see anyone when I'm getting my Shivans.
Eco -
Maybe the Devs should implement non-PvP versions of all the PvP zones, choosable upon zoning into them. That way, PvEers could get tgeir Shivans without having to PvP, and PvPers can be assured that whoever they meet in a PvP zone is up for a fight. They'd have to either nerf the 'PvE Shivans' or add challenge to getying them to balance out the lesser risk of course, but both sides would benefit, wouln't they?
Eco -
Quote:I'd probably farm this with an other-faction friend. Just stand there, we swap damage for a while, then one of us kills the other one, then repeat for the other party. It sounds like it'd be quicker than the current Shivan method, too.Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
OK.Edit:
So, let's redesign this to be a purely PVP mission, that cannot be completed without PVP, and has no PVE interaction (no, clicking on an NPC or glowie does not count, there is no "versus" - which implies opposition - involved there.)
What in the mission now is PVE - environment resisting and threatening (versus) you, unavoidable conflict? The turrets. I can get (and typically do) the shards without fighting anything or risking being attacked by the environment. (Jetpack, hover at 65 feet, the shivans often won't even come out. Yes, even at the meteor hidden under the trees.)
So how do we purify this mission to be strictly PVP?
1. It is unavailable if there is nobody from the other side in the game. It requires PVP to finish.
2. The firebases are completely locked down. In order to unlock them, there are no turrets - every opposing player, on defeat, releases a key. Only one is needed to enter a firebase (renamed bunker.) Teleporting is disabled.
3. Keys cannot be kept. They cannot be traded, stored, sold, or acquired in any way other than by defeating another player.
4. Bunkers will only let one player in at a time. The player must have their own key. The bunker relocks immediately after a player enters and finishes.
5. Players with keys must have taken at least X% damage from an opposing player. Confused same-side players do not count. (enter RP reason about "blood is required to activate the key.") This is to prevent someone just standing around to get killed.
Does that sound Fun? Does that sound like anybody whatsoever would bother? Or does it sound like it'd sabotage the zone, reducing population further?
I think this would lead to Shivans being nerfed, because it seems to me that PvPers aren't pvPing in order to get SHivans, they're pvPing because they like to PvP. In contrast, they folks who want the Shivans are predominantly people who don't like to PvP, so unless the Devs found a way of eliminating the 'kill me please' method, the risk would be much lower than the current PvE-involved one. Doing the current Shivan run takes me about ten minutes on aferage, I'd say, which is ten minutes I run the trisk of PvP. Your way could take, what, a minute?
Eco.