Politician Archive
Thread: Since when is there non consensual PvP in SWG?????
slugeater wrote:To sum up, as usual, the /warn system isn't bad in itself, but is too easily abused. After all, Nukes aren't bad in themselves, the guy pressing the button is.
Anything can be 'easily abused'...even your teleport idea. The issue isn't that the system or the tools are bad, the issue is that certain people can grief using those tools. But they'll do it regardless if these tools existed or not. Griefers find a way to grief. That DOESN'T mean that those of us who actually use the tools properly should have them taken away.
You can't have a game based around the idea of 'what would griefers do?' otherwise we'd have no game at all.
And back to the point of the thread about neutrals being PvP free and having to consent to any form of PvP. All that does is open up griefing opportunities by anyone who is neutral. And, sorry to say, I'll be damned if they let neutrals get away with anything they want simply because you're under the false impression that neutral=no pvp.
slugeater wrote:
To sum up, as usual, the /warn system isn't bad in itself, but is too easily abused. After all, Nukes aren't bad in themselves, the guy pressing the button is.
Any system worth using can and will be abused.
You'll just have to avoid these abusive areas (unfortunately the only way to know that may be to suffer from it at least once). But if militias are just mass /citywarning people and killing them for no reason, people will just stop going there. If the city is looking to grow then they are going to have to adopt a better policy with its militia or the city will just not work.
Of course if the entire intent of having the city is for a giant free-for-all, well then it's working.
IsaacPalinander wrote:
If you are indiscriminately warning and banning any blue dot on your radar say good-bye to commerce for your crafters, say good-bye to keeping this game fun for anyone but yourselves.
Yeah, the game is suddenly ruined because you can no longer shop in a city that wasn't there just 2 1/2 weeks ago. I see how you think...
And you are right about the first statement. Say goodbye to commerce in that city. That's something they'll have to live with. It's also something the user will have to live with that they can't shop in that city if the militia who runs it doesn't want them to. It's as simple as that.
Player cities were never intended to be private guild enclaves
Says who? Is this something in the EULA that it can't be used for that? Please point out where this statement was made by the game's developers and maybe I'll agree that it was the correct statement. Otherwise, the original poster - and you - just sound like whiners because the game isn't how YOU expected it to be, which in the end changes it for all of us.
slugeater wrote:
"If I warned you in my City, and you chose to stay, YOU made the choice for PvP."
Give me 100$ of I shoot you. You choose not to, so you're responsible for your death? The lawyers willlove that. Yourexemple is blackmail and this is it. Thanks for showing how blackmailing neutrals was posszible with this.
No, that's not blackmail. That's a crime. If you are caught, there is a punishment to serve. If you don't shop in that city ever again, that is their punishment.
A better example of blackmail would be if they had a tool to keep you IN their city unless you paid them.
Let me ask you this. If you go into a restaurant and they ask you to put out a cigarette, what would you do? Don't come back with some lame response that you don't smoke so that would never happen to you.
slugeater wrote:
I agree the nezutral problem won't happen in most cities, and why would I go there anyway? But think of an exemple.
"-Oooh, a city, let's go visit!" BLAM. Fun? Don't think so. Even moreso because the guy just got to reinsure all his stuff and suffer decay.
I'm not even looking at names when I start reading posts. I try to stay objective to see what the person's saying, but your posts continue to stand out as having a skewed train of thought.
Let's look at your example. You saw a city. Was your only choice to go into that city? No. You could just as easily have avoided it.
You skipped right to the BLAM then. Why's that? Are you attackable as soon as you enter the city borders? No. A choice was given through the use of /warn. The user madethe wrong choice if BLAM came up and they DIDN'T want to PvP.
Where did this if you are neutral you dont want to PvP come from. I thought Neutral meant you didn't want to be a rebel or an imperial. I know plenty of neutral that PvP you know why they want Hutt faction and don't wanna waste time on the two main factions. Slug your theory is way wrong there.
If you walk into a city be prepared to be attacked. Observe possible posted city laws, say hello to citizens just be curtious and maybe this won't happen. The key to city is they are PLAYER CONTROLED, this means they don't want you there they can kill you. Seems fair to me. I'm a rebel I make sure to stay clear of Imperial run cities, why? cause I don't want the city attacking me. By doing this I have a CHOICE to not engage in PvP at that time.
How many PVP er's are there compaired to non PVP er's ? Yall are forgetting the fact that almost every1 in this game wants to PVP. So maybe I walk into a city an some1 /warns me, Say im overt so I pull out my 2 trooper's ana ATST also 3 pets an wait for the timer to go down then chase him down an kill him for warning me. I think that would be fun. For people that dont want to play pvp , you should stay in the npc city's an not goto player citys , guild city's , pvp citys you also mite want to stay out of the battle fields, unless you know for sure you wont get attacked there.
Brim
Maybe if you played the game you'd realise it is possible to actually get sucked into PvP as a neutral instead of bagging someone that's trying to point something basic out to you.
If you want to stick your head in the sand go for it.
This game is NOTHING like what the developers said it would be. At one point they said you couldn't even join a faction...now look at us.
If you honestly believe that the system is designed to protect neutrals you are deluding yourself.
"Let me ask you this. If you go into a restaurant and they ask you to put out a cigarette, what would you do? Don't come back with some lame response that you don't smoke so that would never happen to you."
I'd answer: "Mr Waiter, do you want my money or not?".
"Where did this if you are neutral you dont want to PvP come from"
Many places. Go check rebuttals by PvPers on the GCW forums. To sum up it's "Waaaah stop whining yo got shot stay neutral". During the development of SWG, it was stated many times PvP=GCW, that participating in the GCW would make you subject to PvP. It was nowhere said "beware, making shopping as a neutral crafter is dangerous".
" Yall are forgetting the fact that almost every1 in this game wants to PVP"
Source? Your hat?
"Have you ever checked a real life map?"
What has real life to do with SWG? In real life I can punch the guy calling me names, in SWG I can't. Which is likely why all the doodz like the internet in the first place.
"You can't have a game based around the idea of 'what would griefers do?' otherwise we'd have no game at all."
Actually, I think outcasting would have worked. Which is probably why all the PK d00dz cried against it in the first place. Seeing as in SWG PvPers get all the scrubs, I'm retroactively not that surprised by it.
slugeater wrote:
"Let me ask you this. If you go into a restaurant and they ask you to put out a cigarette, what would you do? Don't come back with some lame response that you don't smoke so that would never happen to you."
I'd answer: "Mr Waiter, do you want my money or not?".
Wow, you're more stubborn than I thought. Don't you think they'd have you thrown out of the restaurant and service refused?
"Have you ever checked a real life map?"
What has real life to do with SWG? In real life I can punch the guy calling me names, in SWG I can't. Which is likely why all the doodz like the internet in the first place.
Because I'm trying to point out that people can keep you from doing whatever they want if they please - just like if a country decides to keep you out, you can't go in there legally. Heck, in American you can't even buy Cuban goods.
I got an idea for you. Why don't you call for the ability to ban people from shops since that's obviously against what they said "A Player-run economy" and this one particular person iskeeping you from participating in it.
If you can't objectively see that your request would ruin things for a lot of people to make a small % happy, then you obviously can't look at things objectively.
You can't satisfy everybody...
ok... after reading soo many.. (and skip a few) couple of clear ups.
As a neutral (this is from a medic and dancer view)
medic: cannot heal Overt or TEF people (you get a message it is unwise)
dancer: you can mind heal OVERT and TEF and nothing happen to you.
both: you cannot trade with Overt or TEF... but you can trade with Covert.. either side. (unless change as of last night)
PvP: in the great galactic battle.. there is no way either side can pull you into the faction without your consent.... EXCEPT!
Player cities with /warm and temp 5min TEF. now.. there are TONS of places you can go and no worry about PvP.... there are tons of Player cities out there that will welcome neutrals... (I being one of them)
when warn.. you do get a message... you have 30 seconds to leave town (soon to be 2min) so... well get moving out of town.. and no TEF.. if you stay.. that is your consent of PvP.... (since people can't make you stay against your will)
Thus in the legal eyes.. there isn't any non-consentiual PvP... you stay.. you want to PvP.. you had the chance to run.. you didn't.. you stay... thus meaning you want to PvP... (soon with 2min you have plenty of time)
now.. some might say. 30seconds too long... well I can run from one edge of a city to another in 30seconds... (level 3 city) that is 600m give or take.. even faster with mount!