Samus

[ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna look like a real noob here, but i've been 6-slotting stamina on my kat/sr for some time now. Have I been doing this unnecessarily? had I hit a cap? I've done numerous test builds and always, always, i got more out of having 4 slotted stamina than 3, and 5 was always longer lasting attacks than 4, and ultimately 6 slotted gave me more continous end than all. So... help me out here. what's the story? was i only imagining that I had more continous attack time with 6 slotted? any enlightenment/help would be greatly appreciated.

TIA

[/ QUOTE ]

You weren't hitting a cap, but the 4th, 5th and 6th SOs were providing a very diminished bonus compared to the first 3.

Specifically (assuming all SOs are the same level as you):
1st SO: 33.3%
2nd SO: 33.3%
3rd SO: 28.3%
4th SO: 5.05%
5th SO: 5%
6th SO: 5%

<QR>

Interesting post to find today. Nicely written. I was just playing with a concept very similar to this yesterday.

I did have a slight variance to the slotting I was considering. Currently, if you 3 slot both Health and Stamina, and if you maintain your SOs at +3, you'll get a 78.9% bonus to Regen and 59.9% bonus to Recovery.

By dropping Stamina completely, and putting only 4 additional slots into Health (which means the same number of slots used, but one less power taken), I was looking at the following possible set up:
Regenerative Tissue: +20% Regeneration (level doesn't matter)
[30]Miracle: Heal
[30]Miracle: +15% Recovery
[30]Numina's Convalesence: Heal
[30]Numina's Convalesence: +15% Regen/+10% Recovery

The reason I chose level 30 IOs was for the earliest possible slotting of this set up (since Numina's Convalesence starts at 30).

This gives a total of an addition 114.14% to Regeneration and 27.5% to Recovery. Regen becomes much higher than 3 +3 SOs (and will remain constant from level 30 up) and Recovery is about half that with 3 +3 SOs in Stamina. But, considering that many people do not currently slot End Reductions in their powers once they have Stamina, and that many of the IO sets grant addtional Recovery bonuses and have End Reduction built into them, my guess would be that the average build wouldn't be hurt at all.

Ignoring other set bonuses or slotting, though.. I end up with a total net gain of
+35.24% Regen
One addtional power

and a net loss of
.542/sec Recovery (32.5%)

Simply taking Stamina and adding just 1 [30]Endurance Modification to it would bring Recovery up to 2.808/sec. This means you use no more slots that currently using, and see an increase to both Regen (+35.24% over +3 SOs) and Recovery (+8.45% over +3 SOs), available at level 30.

Hahaha... these are great, but above all else:

"What, did you six slot 'stupid'?"

Brilliant!

[ QUOTE ]
Editted to add: And now upon paying closer attention I see that you were in fact supporting my argument, not contradicting me... which explains why I kept saying "but that's my point!" when I was reading your post. Heh. Move along. Nothing to see here...

[/ QUOTE ]


Heh. No worries. Yes, I was in fact supporting your arguement, and rebutting Enantiodromos. Perhaps I should have specifically mentioned this, but I thought that seeing that my post was a reply to him, and not you, that this would have been apparent.

My assumption was apparently subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The person who said this was an invalid comparison was completey correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. If it weren't a valid comparison, you, or they, could and would have been able to find fault with it as it applies here. You haven't. Snipes are not, at all, subjective, they're every bit as objective as the shape of the earth. Snipes are an objective measureable fact of the game, the fun and effectiveness of which, for general purposes, are just as suitable for discussion and scrutiny as the question whether the earth is flat.

No reasonable person would ever discuss "what idiosyncratic traumas from my childhood snipes alleviate." Which is a major point of my criticism of the class of trolls this guide addresses.

They're not subjective, no matter how popular it has become to declare everything subjective as a way of copping out on giving good advice for fear (or, annoyance) of being trolled.

[/ QUOTE ]


Snipes are, contrary to your inaccurate conjecture, not completely an objective subject.

The base accuracy of a snipe is objective. It is the same for every player.
The base damage of a snipe is objective. It is the same for every player.

Even if being used in a way that most players would call "improper", or by a player with no skills in group/solo combat, or against mobs that are +/- 20 levels of the character, the base accuracy and base damage of a snipe remain unchanged. Also, a character builder tool could list the base accuracy as a number other than what it actually is, and that would not actually change the base accuracy. Therefor, that particular character builder would be incorrect. The base accuracy of the snipe would remain what it is, however, an it would therefor be objective.

Let's say, for instance, that a completely unskilled player, ie an "f'n noob", were to run headlong at an Arch-Villain and use his/her snipe at point blank range (melee range), without the use of any insprirations, without a Build Up or an Aim, without any buffs, etc. In this instance, many players would consider this to be an "incorrect" use of the snipe power, and yet, the base accuracy and base damage of the snipe itself would remain unaltered. Objective.

Effective, however, is more subjective. Would the situation above be an effective use of the snipe power? I say no, so might others. Does that mean the power itself is not effective? Not necessarily. The immediate arguement might be that it is not effective in that context, but then... does the effectiveness of the power itself change in this situation? That depends. What defines the powers effectiveness? Is it how much potential damage it is doing to the targetted mob? If that's the case, then no, the effectiveness is NOT being altered by this use. Is the effectiveness of the power determined by its potential risk to the caster, in terms of death? Then the answer would be yes, the effectiveness is being severly reduced in this case, since the caster is putting him/herself in greater danger of dying. Perhaps the effectiveness of the power is measured in terms of overall contribution to the completion of the mission. What if, by doing this, it allows for a couple of other teammates to stack some holds on the AV, thereby allowing a safer combat session for all others on the team. Similar to a sacrifice run in baseball. The sniper sacrificed his/her own safety with the goal of allowing others time to act without risking death themselves. This then contributes to the greater good of the team, and could easily be called "effective" depending on that team's strategies and abilities.

And lastly, fun is in no way the same thing as effectiveness. That is the key point where your arguement COMPLETELY falls apart. Numerous times you equate effectiveness and fun being the same thing, and they most certainly are not.

Case in point. Is going on a Hamidon raid, brawling once, then sitting on a rock for the duration of the raid, effective? Certainly is. Is it fun? I'll let you (the reader) decide for yourself, but I say a resounding "NO". Is using Stealth or Invisibility to sneak past mobs, grab the clickies, and complete the mission without fighting anything effective? Depends. Effective at completing the mission, yes. Effective at gaining the most xp from the mission as possible, no. Is it, conversely, fun? Again, not in my opinion. But then, to someone playing a Ninja based character, it could very well be. Their "fun" might be derived from their ability to sneak past unsuspecting mobs and "outsmart" them.

The base accuracy of a snipe is objective. It is the same for every player.
The base damage of a snipe is objective. It is the same for every player.
The effectiveness of a snipe is subjective. It varies from player to player and from use to use.
The measure of fun of a snipe is subjective. It varies from player to player.

No, sir. Effective most assuredly does not equate to fun in all cases, and neither are objective matters. Any arguement that uses these faulty assumptions as a basis of validility, especially one which attempts to educate people on the supposed proper meaning and usage of a word, is without merit. Until you learn the actual (ie, objective) differences between fun and effectiveness, as well as between objective and subjective, I would suggest not preaching your own skewed views to the community as though they are infallible gospel.

Sorry for the interjection, but I found it "necessary".

[ QUOTE ]
But what's clear from this thread - and from many, many posts - is that bases are "too expensive". To me, that's interesting (as it is to the Serious Games crowd). Costume changes come with a minimal cost that no one really complains about, but we complain about the costs of bases. Evidently, the costs exceed the perceived value of creating one's own HQ (btw, I confess that many other games have the notion of personal property, but aside from Second Life, I don't think they offer as much customizability as our bases).

[/ QUOTE ]

States,

Star Wars Galaxies offers easily as much, if not more (depending on your pov), customization of a personal property space as City of does... and that game (SWG) is sucktastic by comparison. Quite honestly, the relative ease, low cost, and variety of options, along with the accessability, of the housing in SWG was always one of the more enthusiastically supported features of that game. In SWG, you could purchase a house for (in terms of game economy) fairly reasonable prices, and could decorate them to your heart's content. Dropped loot could be decorations (like if we could use Salvage just as fluff). Crafted items, etc. In fact, there were really only two types of "functional" items that could even be placed in player housing.. crafting stations and vendors. Houses were, by and large, purely fluff. But they were affordable, and easily accessable. Anyone could enter another person's house, so long as they had the locks set on "public" and see what had been done. That lent the same level of peer appreciation that costumes do in City of. Also, as mentioned, they were affordable.. even to the solo player. There were also PA Hall (ie, Guild Halls) that were akin to our own SG bases, and in those, usually only one or two members had 'admin' rights to edit them... but since the guild members all had their own space, too.. no one minded as much. On a larger scale, there were player cities, but that's getting away from comparable features.

Also, it should be noted that when SOE released their NGE to SWG, the removal of a locked target affected the ability of players to decorate houses. THIS, even though it affected only fluff, was a major complaint amongst the player community. That lends weight to the perceived value of something that is merely fluff, and shows just how important a feature like that can be to players.

Please take an in depth look at that system (my god, I'm actually promoting SWG.. ) when searching for ways in which City of bases can be improved.

Thanks.

Positron, another question... in this situation:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[*]Many meters move so slowly that you can't tell if you've made any progress on a badge. Can we get multi-line meters for large achievements? (eg, Healing, any Epic badges, anything over 500 kills.)



[/ QUOTE ]Probably not. The bar has 100 ticks on it, so moving it 1 tick is 1% of progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could we maybe get a number indicator that shows when you mouse over the bar, similar to our HP/End bars? So that we can see (25/50,000) or even the percentage so that when it moves 1%, we can see the number go up since it's not easy to tell that the bar moved?

[ QUOTE ]
Mitosis is overpowered.
Plz nerf it Devs.


PS: Samus, you lack the proof you begrudge other posters of lacking....in spades. Claiming that your VG is "casual gamers" and had no problem with the ThornTree has nothing to do with right or wrong or Stats because it's still just a judgement call and contributes nothing to this discussion. More-over, you're just "calling posters out" ...which ordinarilly no one would bat an eye at, but these are people who post constructively and aren't provoking anyone intentionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.. these posters are saying "I'm a veteran and I know what I'm talking about, so if I say it's [insert statement] then it must be and the devs should heed my posts." These posters are also saying that anyone who disagrees with them is automatically wrong, since they are "more experienced" and "more knowledgable".

I'm not calling out anyone specifically, but more addressing people who make claims based on vague, arbitrary terms such as "it FEELS bad" or "it doesn't SEEM right" rather than posting actual data backing up their claims.

The point made originally was that a veteran player, who spends countless hours "looking at the situation" can somehow simply feel that something is amiss. Yes, their intuition may prove right on many occaisions, but simply having that intuition is not proof of reliability of EVERY claim they make. In fact, as in the case of the Thorn Tree, sometimes that intuition is flat out inaccurate. Saying that "it's too diffucult" based on how it "feels" and not based on any sort of factual data is obviously inaccurate, since (supposedly) less experienced players do not have as much difficulty.

Einstein was a genius, yet he failed the liberal arts portion of his schooling in Zurich. Does that mean that the liberal arts classes were too difficult, for EVERYONE, and as such needed to be toned down (nerfed)? Or does it only mean that they were too difficult for Einstein? And that nothing was actually wrong with the classes themselves, at all.

Just because someone is a veteran player, with hours of time spent ingame, does not mean that they are an absolute authority on every aspect of every AT and every powerset and every mission or encounter. Having a "feel" that something is bad is meaningless to anyone other than the person with the feeling, since others may clearly (as shown by the difference of opinion with the Thorn Tree) have a completely different feeling.

The point is, any poster can come on the forums and spout of about how much they supposedly know, or have tested, or "feel" and without hard evidence, NO ONE is more of an authority than anyone else (on the player end). To say that any one poster should be given more merit than another, because of how long they've been around, or how much they've played, is pure garbage. The only criteria that devs should adhere to when judging "feedback" from the player base is evidence. Numbers, logs, demorecords, etc.

I'm done here. Thank god the devs appear to agree with what I've stated, or this game truly WOULD be doomed.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Who the hell are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

A player of CoX, just like EVERY OTHER poster here. And as a subscribing member of CoX, a player with equal voice in ANY matter concerning the game as any other paying subscriber. Thank you for illustrating part of the point that's been made so clearly. People (like you) tend to think that someone has to "prove" themselves in order for their posts to carry any merit at all. You are incorrect in this assumption.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Where's your track record?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you missed it, but that's the entire point. I don't have a track record with the forum community (even though my registration date IS 04/18/04, proving I'm certainly not new), but my track record with reporting issues that are legitimate bugs, and not just something I "wish" were different is 100%, as stated. A track record (by the definition you're asking for) means precisely NOTHING. Since someone with no track record can be right, and someone with a "proven" track record can be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Uh-huh. So their opinion is magically 'blatantly wrong' and 'not an accurate measure', whereas YOUR opinion is 'definitely the right one because i'm a casual player and i say so etc etc'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Their opinion is not wrong. The point wasn't about their opinion though, it was about their assessment of the actual state of the situation. If something is "too hard" then it should not be easily completed by someone with "less" skills and experience, right? If it's too difficult for a veteran player with hours and hours of testing and playtime, who's tweaked their build to the fullest and simply "knows more" about the game than a casual player, then WHY can a casual player easily complete something that is supposedly "too hard"? The answer, is because it's apparently NOT "too hard" it's simply too hard for that person or in that person's opinion. That does not mean it is factually too difficult (ie, undoable) and needs to be changed. Being "too hard" for one person, or one group of people, is not a truth applied to EVERY player and is not a reason to make a change which affects EVERY player.

Point being, with factual evidence, and hard numbers, any player, regardless of reputation, track record, "proven reliablity" or forum popularity, can be CORRECT about an issue. And simply having these does not inherently make ANYONE correct about an issue without evidence and facts to back it up.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I forgot to mention this, but I honestly believe that the best way to get a good signal to noise ratio is to specifically target and read the posts of provenly reliable, and insightful/accurate posters like the aforementioned, and perhaps even go as far as to PM them, or encourage them to PM you about issues of concern.

Also, you can often tell who is and isn't an accurate tester by the tone of the post, and the amount of detail (especially insightful detail) it has, if you don't know the person's track record very well.

People often drop telling statements/little details into their posts (or don't, which is equally telling, or even say the opposite of what a knowledgeable person would say) that give hints to how much they've tested things, and how much real insight they have into the issues they've tested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a question for you.

What if those "provenly reliable" posters happen to show even just one example of being BLATANTLY wrong about their perception (be it "feel" or testing) of a particular situation?

To use something specific as a point of reference... the final mission in the Villain respec trial. I've actually seen posts by some of the claimed "provenly reliable" posters stating that the final mission is too difficult, that it needs to be adjusted, and yet... the VG I am in, which is composed of only casual gamers, and no min/maxers, has never found that particular mission to be too hard. The "feel" that these "reliable" sources, these "experienced" players are reporting is not consistant at all. Here they are claiming that something is too difficult, when players who are supposedly "less reliable" or "less experienced" are having no difficulty with it at all.

Opinions are never accurate measurments of anything, IMO. They only state how one person (or group) perceives a situation, they do not accurately represent the truth of the situation at all. And the devs have to take everything they read that is opinion based with a grain of salt. Only hard numbers and facts can really "prove" anything.

As an aside, every single bug I have ever reported since CoH beta has been fixed (or at least acknowledged as a known bug with a fix in the works). I have never used /bug for an issue I have found and had it result in nothing. I have never harrassed, bugged or hounded a dev. I have never used the "I know what I'm doing so you must listen to me" tactic. Nor would most on these forums consider me to be one of the "provenly reliable" sources that "should be listened to". Yet EVERY bug I've reported was addressed if not corrected by the devs. So apparently I, not being one of the "provenly reliable" sources that "should be heeded", have a 100% accuracy in identifying ACTUAL bugs and problems in the game. How does that factor into the case you've stated?

[ QUOTE ]
Then there is talk of another retail box. Which brings it's own set of questions. Will it feature SG items that members can only access with the new box ala bases? That was the worst idea ever and lead to many players I know quitting because they didn't want to be a villain. And speaking of bases, another poster was correct, they are next to useless. The teleporters are nice, but we STILL haven't got the IoPs and all the other stuff that was promised with them when they first came out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, City of is the first MMO ever to release expansions which must be purchased in order to access additional content. Content which other members of your SG/VG (aka "guild") cannot access themselves if they have not purchased said expansion. Even if they didn't want to play any of the new races or classes, but simply wanted access to the new zones. How dare Cryptic do this unheard of thing, which no other game community has ever been forced to endure.

/setmode_sarcasm 0

[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, most teams can survive many chaotic combat situations, if they trust each other, stick together, and work with each other. If they are expecting the worst, running away at the first bad sign, and doubting everyone around them... then they probably won't survive that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well written. I don't necessarily agree with every point you've made, but then we each have our own styles. But this comment, that I've quoted, is ABSOLUTELY TRUE! I cannot stress how much I agree with this.

I tend to run with other members of my SG and rarely join PUGs. And we have had our share of situations that, on the surface, looked like "Oh #@$@". We've had things go HORRIBLY wrong, for any number of reasons... a lag spike, someone crashes, someone went afk and didn't announce it (or we all missed it), agro, pets, etc.. you name it, we've probably had to deal with it.

BUT, having the trust in each other to get what needs to be done done, keeping communication going, and maintaining a good attitude, not just [censored] and running, has a LARGE success rate.

Why, just the other night, we had someone new to the game with us, and had him SK'd up to join us on some 30ish missions, when things just went bad. And I mean BAD... to the point where I, on a brute, hovered between 5-10% health for almost 5 minutes solid. But, everyone keeping their cool, doing what was MOST important, and not panicking, resulted in us pulling it off.

Sorry for the tangent, I just wanted to emphasize how important that part is to effective and efficient grouping, whether with your SG, friends, or a PUG.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, if I set my level 1 minions to Follow Defensive, and only send Attack Aggressive commands to the level 2 and 3 minions (can I do that with a single macro button without playing games with their names, will the $$ separator work?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. You can set a button that says "petcom_pow protector att agg$$petcom_pow assault att agg " (obviously using the names for robots, you can replace them with any power names) and only the Tier 2 and 3 pets will attack, the Tier 1s will stay in whatever mode you last ordered them to be in.

I, for one, am VERY happy about this. Now Protector Bots can actually PROTECT.

/thumbs up

[ QUOTE ]
Very well versed post (except that I haven't overlooked anything). I understood all of what you stated beforehand. I merely stated that I don't agree with it. I also told you that you should be careful what you wish for because, until you're the one who has it happen to them, you haven't viewed it from both sides.

Playing the consentual risk-taking individual is the easy path. Having it done by some jacktard who thinks they're funny because they got you debt numerous times while you were there to PvP is what will cause a change of heart. I've seen it happen numerous times and it won't slow down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who says I haven't had it happen to me? I've been TP'd into mobs, into other players, even into the drones. I have people train mobs on me. Just the other day I was in Warburg attempting to launch the missile, when some brute trained a couple of roaming Titans on me, and then stole my scientist.

However, I find this far LESS annoying and frustrating that getting jumped by a group of 10-20 players of the opposite faction when I think I'm in a good one on one scrap. Yes, it's allowed... and I don't complain. I'm simply saying that as far as annoyances go, I find it personally far LESS bothersome to have a person I am fighting use mobs to aid them, then to find that person's entire SG gang up on me. I can kill a group of 20 mobs solo. 20 Elite Bosses (players) is another matter, however.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So really, next time someone "intentionally" gives you debt by getting mobs to kill you in a PVP zone, you should thank them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful what you wish for. I'm sure you won't be thanking someone if they start chain-tp'ing and mezzing you into a mob.

Again, I don't give a crap about giving myself debt. I do it all the time, and if you know me, you know that I would rather incur debt on my own part than ever leave a teammate behind. There are times when I'm fine with getting debt on my terms. I don't like someone else forcing debt on me and I definitely don't like the Devs stating that, even if the person admits, flaunts, brags, and continuously works on and about giving me debt with no intention of PvPing in any fashion, there will be no repurcussion for that person.

They took the easy way out and chose not to face the difficult decision of taking it on a case-by-case basis. Since that encourages any and all griefers (people intent on doing nothing but causing grief to other players) by telling them that no punishment will exist for them, I feel it's a bad decision.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I would recommend viewing the situation from both sides first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a couple of key elements you are overlooking here, though.

1) I have viewed the situation from both sides. Having played in MMOs where anything short of a consentual dual can get you reported for supposedly griefing, this is by far a better system. Here, you don't have to walk on eggshells just to avoid being reported for something you didn't even necessarily intend to do by someone who's simply a sore loser.

2) In games where using mobs to your advantage is considered griefing, there are actually MORE arguements about PVP. People fight constantly about whether when JoeSchmoe trained that group of mobs on them if it was intentional or an accident.

3) In a zone like Siren's Call (and the upcoming Recluse's Victory), the obvious intent was for Heroes and Villains to join in with the Longbow and Arachnos forces, respectively, and battle for the Hot Spots TOGETHER. Now, if causing another player debt is griefing, then these battles become virtually impossible to take part in. The point was for NPCs and Players to be fighting SIDE BY SIDE for control of the zone. If you're a hero and you see some Villain taking down Longbow like they are paper dolls, then you should jump in and assist your fellow crimefighters. Maybe you get the last blow, but maybe that Warden next to you gets it. Or how about in Bloody Bay where people (on both sides) don't come out of the safety and protection of the turrets, and you have to actually risk getting shot by them in order to kill other players. Are they (the onese standing within range of the turrets) guilty of griefing? If not, why not? Are their actions NOT causing you to take debt? Perhaps you are in a safe spot, not in range of any turrets, but you use a knockback, and you move in for that last blow to kill your opponent, when *pow* you are killed by a turret. Who's fault was that? More arguements ensue about whether or not it was intentional, etc etc. If causing debt is griefing, then we start a long, painful, and completely asinine process of dealing with the rants, whines and complaints of people who die in these battles, claiming that they were NOT actively engaging the mobs and were forced there. I've seen it before, and I bet so have the devs.

4) This is probably the MOST important point. Since the devs have clearly stated that causing another player to incur debt while in a PVP zone is NOT griefing, then each and every player CONSENTS to this rule, and by default AGREES with it, by entering a PVP zone. This is part of why there's that giant warning when we zone in. It's like signing a waiver... ."I hereby agree that anything and everything can and probably will happen in this zone. I hold NCSoft, Cryptic Studios, Freedom Phalanx, Arachnos, City of Gyros and Hellfire Tacos in no way accountable for any defeats that I may experience while in this zone. I accept these terms and understand that I am taking my life into my own hands by entering." You know the terms when you enter, you accept them by entering, and you have no recourse after the fact.

I'm not saying you have to LIKE the terms, and I'm certainly not saying that you HAVE to enter the PVP zones. There is no mandatory content in the PVP zones. Nothing forces anyone to engage in PVP in the open zones. What I am saying that when you do WILLINGLY enter a PVP zone already knowing the terms, you accept them and you have no right to get upset at that point Remember, it's only griefing if the devs say it's griefing... other than that, it's simply something you don't personally like. But THAT does not make it griefing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about pvp dont you people understand?

please, Go watch Animal plant or something, So your logic can be adjusted.

Your perfect world reasoning makes me sick, and you are a carebear that wants mommy to fight your battles.

Stop crying chicken little(the sky is falling)crap.

Welcome to the jungle your gonna die!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it would be you doing the dying if you showed your face on the evening my SG decides to invade a PvP zone. However, you are not on Champion, so go ahead and boast.

[/ QUOTE ]

But.. but... what if he was only there to take in the sightss? What if he's role-playing that he's a consultant for the Tsoo and advising them on their fighting techniques? What if he's just surveying the area for new Mapolis Guide to Kickin' Butt on $5 a Day?

Then... why, you'd be GRIEFING him if your SG attacked him!

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are another one missing the point, Samus. I am ONLY concerned with people that use exploits and people that intentionally give other players debt. That's it. I don't give a damn about anything else that goes on in an open PvP zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I got your point. You want the PVP zones to be all rainbows and cuddly bunny rabbits where people can only attack you on YOUR terms. That includes not getting mobs of their own faction to assist them as much as it includes the RP excuse.

First off... "exploits" and using mobs to assist you/kill for you are NOT the same thing. Exploit = not allowed. Using mobs = allowed. I think that most of us agree that "exploits" are not ok. But you, and others, keep wanting to claim that causing another player debt, in a PVP zone, is the same as an exploit, when the devs have CLEARLY stated it is not. Nor is it griefing. Nor harrasment.

And all this fuss about debt... sweet lord. Y'know, there are many of us that actually go out of our way to INCUR debt. For a number of reasons. To earn more infamy, to not outlevel contacts, and even to get badges... which there ARE SG/VG badges based on debt payment that grant you access to upgrades for your base. Rather than earning themselves PVP points, they just helped your SG/VG towards better base equipment. So really, next time someone "intentionally" gives you debt by getting mobs to kill you in a PVP zone, you should thank them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about pvp dont you people understand?

please, Go watch Animal plant or something, So your logic can be adjusted.

Your perfect world reasoning makes me sick, and you are a carebear that wants mommy to fight your battles.

Stop crying chicken little(the sky is falling)crap.

Welcome to the jungle your gonna die!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it would be you doing the dying if you showed your face on the evening my SG decides to invade a PvP zone. However, you are not on Champion, so go ahead and boast.

[/ QUOTE ]

But.. but... what if he was only there to take in the sightss? What if he's role-playing that he's a consultant for the Tsoo and advising them on their fighting techniques? What if he's just surveying the area for new Mapolis Guide to Kickin' Butt on $5 a Day?

Then... why, you'd be GRIEFING him if your SG attacked him!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just sent a PM to cuppa asking if purposefully giving a player debt is considered griefing. Will update when she gets back to me

[/ QUOTE ]

The Devs say - No.

Ultimately PVE mobs in a PVP zones are hazards of a PVP zone. Players do have control (and options) that will prevent them from being victims of the TP Foe tactic.

Regarding being held, immobilized, slept and then being teleported into a PVE mob: griefing? No.

If a player uses TP Foe and teleports another player into a mob, so that their health is reduced, and then finishes them off with a killing shot….griefing? No.

If a player intentionally uses a knockback power (or Repel or Dispersion Bubble) on another player from the top of the roof to the street below where there happens to be a PVE mob, and the player’s presence draws mob aggro and dies…should the player who knocked back the target player off that roof be actioned for griefing? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, Cuppa... some of us have been trying to tell people this since PVP went live into the game.

Look, folks.. this is NOT some new decision. Statesman, and other devs, stated that these were the terms during CoV (and therefor PVP) beta. This is how it's always been. So, if this "new" stance has you heartbroken or sickened or wanting to cancel, why hasn't it bothered you before now? It has always been this way.

Here's how it goes. There are two different types of PVP available in CoX. There is the free for all, anything goes, dirty tricks are allowed PVP, and there is get in line, you can't be attacked without your express permission PVP. If you want the first, you go to Bloody Bay, Siren's Call, or Warburg (where even your "allies" can stab you in the back). If you want the second, then take it to the Arena. BOTH options exist. For anyone to say that the PVP zones should NOT be "free" as they currently are, is to say that YOUR opinion of PVP is better than others and that you should get two options to your choosing while others get none.

And you want to say that PVPers take away YOUR fun? Last I checked, none of the supposed "griefers" were preventing you from using the Arena or even your SG/VG bases. Nor were any of "us" trying to get that option taken away from you.

I'll be in Warburg fighting Titans and Heroes AND Villains if you need me...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IDK if this was brought up because i dont feel like reading the whole entire thread, but i acctually thought about it when i just made my post, here it is:

Cuppa, is someone in a PvP zone aloud to Teleport you, hold you, immobilize you, or in any way do something to you that you cant control INTO a PvE mob? Does that count and is acceptable? Because that has happened to me 1000+ times and i HATE getting debt.

Now your probably going to say that this is a PvP zone and it has risks and i understand that. But then why are PvE's in a PvP zone? I can understand for Sirens Call that you need them in there and the meteor guys in BB and the guys in the "web" for WB.

But can a player do that to ya?

[/ QUOTE ]

During CoV beta, a player asked:
[ QUOTE ]
So instead of joining right in, I drag my toggle (darkest night) herding up say a few spawns of mobs, and drag them over the battle, hoping to cause a big ruckus, get a few people to drop below 50% hp, and bam SCOURGE!...

Got a tell from a guy afterward saying that I griefed them.
Sure a few guys got killed by NPC damage so they got debt, but it is a valid tactic yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

The OFFICIAL response, from Statesman himself (please note the red), was:
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's a valid tactic the way you describe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are also talking about someone that used their GM rights in CoH beta to monster grief a group just because they griefed him. Mage Storm was 100% correct in this thread earlier. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right, Samus.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay here is a question regarding mobs. say i am fighting in a hotspot by myself, im at just above 1/2 healthand i have about 12 mobs around me. a villian throws a couple attacks at me and i drop to like 50 hp. say the next attack on me is by a psi spider - lm dead. i just got debt because a villian attacked me.

is this griefing? if not why? if your one villian and 12 mobs. what are the percentages your getting the kill? make it easier, say it was 9 mobs. that gives you a 10 % chance have getting the kill. 9/10 times you will be giving me debt? realistically that should be considered debt.

or how about the other way around. im tp you into a hotspot with my troller. i have minimal dmg output. i hope for the mobs to where you down and get teh killing shot. same scenario. i have 10% chance to get the bounty, but i am trying to kill you, is it griefing?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Let's turn the situation into mobs only. Let's say you are in the middle of a group of 9 mobs, that are all agro'd on you, and suddenly another mob agro's you and kills you. Did that mob grief you? When you are fighting one group of mobs and agro a second group, are they griefing you?

If you are battling a group of 9 players, and a 10th one shows up just in time to collect the kill, did that player grief you?

If you are battling a group of 9 players and a mob suddenly agros (through no deliberate action of any of the players), did the mob grief you?

In the scenarios you've described, the hot spots, the whole point is for the factions to try to defeat the other faction. Arachnos or Villain, Longbow or Hero, we players are on the same side as the mobs, and part of the bigger "team". If you're a hero and you're fighting a horde of Arachnos and a Villain shows up... it would be just like an Elite Boss spawning in a mission (actually, more like a normal Boss). And last I checked, petitioning an Elite Boss for griefing you because it agro'd on you while you were preoccupied with some minions would get you nothing more than silence as your response.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IDK if this was brought up because i dont feel like reading the whole entire thread, but i acctually thought about it when i just made my post, here it is:

Cuppa, is someone in a PvP zone aloud to Teleport you, hold you, immobilize you, or in any way do something to you that you cant control INTO a PvE mob? Does that count and is acceptable? Because that has happened to me 1000+ times and i HATE getting debt.

Now your probably going to say that this is a PvP zone and it has risks and i understand that. But then why are PvE's in a PvP zone? I can understand for Sirens Call that you need them in there and the meteor guys in BB and the guys in the "web" for WB.

But can a player do that to ya?

[/ QUOTE ]

During CoV beta, a player asked:
[ QUOTE ]
So instead of joining right in, I drag my toggle (darkest night) herding up say a few spawns of mobs, and drag them over the battle, hoping to cause a big ruckus, get a few people to drop below 50% hp, and bam SCOURGE!...

Got a tell from a guy afterward saying that I griefed them.
Sure a few guys got killed by NPC damage so they got debt, but it is a valid tactic yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

The OFFICIAL response, from Statesman himself (please note the red), was:
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's a valid tactic the way you describe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are also talking about someone that used their GM rights in CoH beta to monster grief a group just because they griefed him. Mage Storm was 100% correct in this thread earlier. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right, Samus.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Right" is a subjective term. What might be "right" to you, may not be "right" in my opinion. When it comes to a online gaming, "right" is irrelevant, only what is and is not allowable.

If I go to Warburg, and all I want to do is launch the missile, I have no desire to engage any other players, is it "right" for someone to attack me anyways?

If I go to Bloody Bay, and all I want to do is collect the meteor shards, is it "right" for another player to attack me?

If I go to Siren's Call, and only want to engage mobs in Hot Spot battles, and never attack another player, is it "right" to be attacked by one?

The answer to all of the above questions is contained in Cuppa's earlier post.

Thing is, "right" is a matter of personal interpretation. I don't think it's "right", for example, for people to be named things like "Chicken McNuggets", "FattyBlasterBoi" or "IRHeeler" in game. I don't think it's "right" for 8 different people to spam broadcast that they are all LFT when they could just join up and form a team themselves. There are many things which we each might individually consider to not be "right"... but none of that matters.

What DOES matter is if it is "allowed". The devs have stated that attacking someone, who is in a PVP zone, even if they don't WANT to be attacked, is allowed. Even if they are claiming exemption because they are RPing. Even if they are fighting a group of mobs. The devs have also stated that getting mobs to do your dirty work for you, be it bringing the mobs to you, or even bringing you to the mobs (like TPing you, or pulling you), is allowed.

If you do not want other players to have the opportunity to be able to cause you to die, regardless of HOW they cause it, then your only option is to stay out of the PVP zones, it's really that simple.

[ QUOTE ]
IDK if this was brought up because i dont feel like reading the whole entire thread, but i acctually thought about it when i just made my post, here it is:

Cuppa, is someone in a PvP zone aloud to Teleport you, hold you, immobilize you, or in any way do something to you that you cant control INTO a PvE mob? Does that count and is acceptable? Because that has happened to me 1000+ times and i HATE getting debt.

Now your probably going to say that this is a PvP zone and it has risks and i understand that. But then why are PvE's in a PvP zone? I can understand for Sirens Call that you need them in there and the meteor guys in BB and the guys in the "web" for WB.

But can a player do that to ya?

[/ QUOTE ]

During CoV beta, a player asked:
[ QUOTE ]
So instead of joining right in, I drag my toggle (darkest night) herding up say a few spawns of mobs, and drag them over the battle, hoping to cause a big ruckus, get a few people to drop below 50% hp, and bam SCOURGE!...

Got a tell from a guy afterward saying that I griefed them.
Sure a few guys got killed by NPC damage so they got debt, but it is a valid tactic yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

The OFFICIAL response, from Statesman himself (please note the red), was:
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's a valid tactic the way you describe it.

[/ QUOTE ]