Politician Archive
Thread: Since when is there non consensual PvP in SWG?????
Actually, many are reporting that the 30 second timer is broken.
~~Shabhaii, Mayor of Tombra, Naboo
www.cityoftombra.com
The REAL BT
"The FS system only rewards the Veruca Salt's of the MMO world . . . not the Charlie's"
Mythxaeon wrote:
If players want faction cities those should be a seperate development with a seperate set of rules for placement and engagement.
/agree
Firstly I'll just say that if there was consensual PvP in SWG, there would be no TEF. There is a TEF, there is non-consensual PvP. Its not a valid argument to say the game is designed around consensual PvP because it isn't. The TEF system is PURELY designed to drag the crafters into PvP against their will.
Having said that,a neutral person in a town not wanting PvP is there for reasons of spending money. He gets TEF'd from /citywarnhe dies.
Assuming that the city needs a lot of customers and is designed around mercantile activities:
- He doesn't go back, so the town suffers a commercial loss. This is bad for the town. You vote your protest by not going there.
- The merchants in the town gripe about not getting any customers.
- The potential is there that the merchants will leave.
- The city diminishes to the point where it can't support itself or its members leave and it simply shrinks.
If, however,the city is designed around a stronghold, and it is really only selling its wares to aligned individuals, then they have all the right in the world to kick out everyone from the opposite side to other neutrals, to even members of their side that they don't like.
It is their choice.
It is also your choice not to go there. There are plenty of other cities on the map that will accept you, and be really happy to drag business away from the strongholds.
I agree with Slug, the dev's have stated from the beginning that this game is designed so people do not have to pvp if they don't want. Even that first time is goinf to force them to pvp by walking in unknown cities.
I believe the /warn should be exactly what it says and give you a 5 min. countdown to get the hell out of the city. Or maybe the city should have an option for open pvp that warns u before enetering like battlefields do. This way people are aware of what there getting themselves into. I like to pvp also, but I have certain times I can do it and other times I can't, or I may be shopping in a city, have to go afk for a min. so I'm gonna come back to my keyboard and be dead?
Five minutes would make warning utterly pointless.
You guys don't get non-consentual PvP. If you want to see non-consentual PvP then look at the PvP only servers of games like EQ or AC. I played on Asheron's Call's Darktide PvP only server for 8 months. It was an awesome experience, but there, you are utterly and constantly vulnerable to PvP. You were never free from attacks by other players except for a couple minutes after you died.
Haveing TEF flags is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT unconsentual PvP. It's another game mechanic that allows you to take part in the galactic civil war or town politics. If you kill rebels as an imp or vice versa and if you heal or otherwise help out someone who was doing that, then you become freely attackable by the other side of the conflict.
Think about the avenues for griefing with invulnerable healers on both sides.
If you learn the game mechanics and know when you're risking becoming vulnerable to PvP then this game is TOTALLY consentual. I would rather it be just like darktide outside of towns. But that's just my opinion. This game is too consentual.. too carebear...
Consentual PvP doesn't mean idiot proof or ignoramus proof. Learn the game mechanics and you'll be utterly safe from harm. TEF is NOT unconsentual PvP. It's a necessary part of consentual PvP.
If you, as a crafter, want to trade with overt imperials or as a medic, want to heal imperials who have recently been engaged in GCW conflict, then that is your choice.
And choice implys consent.
Neutral people don't care about frigging PvPers wanting to PK them. They want that no one be able to shoot them, and they can't attack anybody either.
If you want to /warn and TEF neutral, at least allow them firt shot. Else I'll take the request as "we wanna gank for free".
Choice = consent.
slugeater wrote:
It's not a matter of faction at all. AFAIK, with /warn militia can kill anyobody regardless of faction. Even if neutral.
Neutral people don't care about frigging PvPers wanting to PK them. They want that no one be able to shoot them, and they can't attack anybody either.
If you want to /warn and TEF neutral, at least allow them firt shot. Else I'll take the request as "we wanna gank for free".
Its their city, their rules, they do what they want, get over it. Not allowing neutrals to be warned is not only stupid but won't allow people to FORCE harassers out of their city. Yes, there are immature punks who are neutral too.
No, they don't. Being attacked by players while being neutral qualifies as an exploit to me. Neutral=no PvP. I agree there are some idiots who are neutral too, but instead of killing the guy, make /warn teleport him outside of town, for exemple. He was "escorted" out by the militia.
Seems pretty clear to me, by entering another group's townyou are consenting to PvP.
Don't want to PvP ... stay neutral AND stay insafe areas. Its not that hard of a concept.
Thodius
Except that this concept is not the game design. The second part (AND...) was never meant to be, zone based PvP isn't what SWG is about, when you're talking neutrals.
Neutrals DO NOT have anything to do with PvP. That's not that hard of a concept, either.
Sluggy wrote:
Except that this concept is not the game design.
-------------------------------------------------
One of the things this game does ...is evolve. And game designs change.
If you recall, initially PvP was zoned ( and there was the out-cast system).
Thodius