Politician Archive
Thread: Since when is there non consensual PvP in SWG?????
The militia thing is getting out of hand. Today was a large battle between imps and rebs on my server; An attack of a player city held mostly by overt people.
One of my PA mates, who is NEUTRAL, was shopping there. BLAM, /warn, attacked by the guys, dead. The city guys, being under attack, /warned every blue dot on the radar, including neutral people.
Staying neutral in SWG is meant to protect yourself from unwanted PvP. This is no longer the case. Fix this, please.
slugeater wrote:
What's your point? Neutrals aren't part fo the war. That's the game design.
looks like that city decided not to allow for neutral.
do innocent people die in war? yes. thats his point. if they kill you when you go there, don't go there.
" if they kill you when you go there, don't go there."
That's the point, being neutral isn't supposed to get you killed by ANYONE. BEsides, it's not like they targetted him specifically, they warned all the blue dots, it wasn't personal. In SWG you're supposed to press a "Yes" button to get engaged in PvP. That button being, to go to a faction recruiter.
True non-consensual PvP would be if you could be attacked anywhere, or somewhere you had to go.Non-consensual PvP is PvP that cannot be avoided. Noone has to visit a city, so it can be avoided. Crossing the border is a choice made knowing it could lead to an attack. Nothing stops a person turning round and heading straight back out.
hrm havent tested it but dont you get a 30 second window to leave the city after /citywarn? not timed how long it takes to run, but with that warning there, and the knowledge that the cities are not like npc cities, they are player owned, i think there is nothing wrong with this.
entering other people's cities is different for each one, some want their cities private, some welcome everyone, some like pvp, some dont, if you are visiting a highly pvp city regularly, your asking for trouble imo.
It's really kind of sad that anywhere you put a group of children of any age in a sandbox, they'll start off playing togather building little roads and things with their toy trucks and bulldozers. Eventually though they use those same constructive toys as bludening weapons because someone isn't following their vision of how things ought to be. "Mine! Mine! *Bash* *Whap* *POW* "I hate you!!!" "Get out of here!"
Players may not have to go to cities out in the middle nowhere, but just like Houses were adjusted to prevent House Griefing (running back into a strategically placed private house to avoid attack), Player Cities will need adjustment to end the current City Griefing. Right now a Player City(or cities)could be set up near a static content area specifically to control access to that area, esentially creating "You can't play here!" zones. I'm sure even now a small number of sadistic Milita players occationally lie in wait for an unsuspecting Neutral to enter the zone of control of their city, /warn them, and then bash them over the head with their Tonka truck. 
Militia /citywarn(ban) should simply have the power to render a player unable utilize city facilities or to engage in PvP within city limits. Anything else is just asking for problems with item decay and far too many opportunities for grief. If a little ragebrat wants to stand in the middle of town and talk smack or otherwise harrass anyone in sight that should be a CSR matter. If players want faction cities those should be a seperate development with a seperate set of rules for placement and engagement.
The PvP was totally consentual. The person was warned to leave. He had ample opportunity to do so. 30 seconds is plenty of time to get out of town. He consented to PvP by staying in town.
Just like you consent to PvP by accepting a duel or being overt or becoming a jedi or getting a TEF flag for whatever reason.
Nothing unconsentual about it.