Changes at Goa

[Shike]

cookie?

 

[Esselinithia]

Arrogant? In what respect am I arrogant? I am not the one telling people how a person HAS to play.

Easy, lets see all the words used to describe you:

1st: clueless.

As people said before not all people who do 8v8 or like 8v8 are the "8v8 players" most of the complaints are made against. For this, there is a common understanding: To speak about a group we should define that group.

for this proposing a definition is needed for intelligent conversation. If you have more intelligence than a dog, you should understand this. And should know: not all people who sometimes solo are in the group of soloers we define.

Why? Because we needed the definition to draw the line between the soloers we have problems with and other people who solo.

So if you say: "this part of deifinition isn't about me." Then you don't make the definition invalid. But you say: I am in the group who soloers, but not in the group that are called as soloers in this argument and definition.

If you want to use new definitions: You should provide them and prove that they separate the problematic and non problematic group better.

2nd: antisocial: you, gahn, etc. doesn't make any reasoning, but flame, and argue without making any points...

3rd: arrogant: but you claim your argument that has no definitions, no reasoning, but flame is inherently better since it is made by you and likes of you not members of other groups.

4th: moron: you want to prove that you never make abusive comments anywhere so staing that soloers who meet the definition doesn't make either. While this way of arguing would be flawed, but if you combine it with abusive comments and posts, that shows what kind of person you are and your actions support the definitions.

You aren't a different person here and on the forum.

5th: If you identify yourself with a definition (recognize yourself and say: hey it is me as opposed to saying: this definition made it clear that negative comments about soloers aren't about me) then you argue and flame because you think some of the definition shows you in negative light.

But at the same time you admit you identified with the definition and admit doing the stuff described in the definition. If your behavior only proves it, it is even worse.

Say if some guy who soloes come and say: "so according to this definition I am not a soloer, how you react to the times I duel?" That is a valid question and will get a valid answer.

Since the definition is here to see which people (who solo) are the part of the group of soloers we have problems with, and who isn't.

Also: Since you see things from your perspective where you like soloing, you don't know where non soloers draw the line, but you and Gahn, and a few other soloers (according to definition to) claim as a soloer you know better how nonsoloers look at you than nonsoloers. Which again proves some statements about you.

As you see with some people we steped forward (since they are intelligent enough to know what a definition is) and they recognized that respect for soloing is present, but respect for people who match some definition and behavior isn't present.

Why? because they are intelligent, and not full of prejudice and ill intent.

You and Gahn shown much ill intent, Shike lied and was abusive. While others were intelligent even if they like to solo.

So it proven that we need to separate the "soloers" we have problems with, who identify themselves only with a playstyle and rude, agressive, etc. with others and care mostly for their in game goals with this playstile, and fail to think about anything, from people who just sometimes like to solo.

And also you proven the definition mostly right.

 

[Esselinithia]

Go PvE and don't pretend to spit bs about the health of a community or a server. At this point i'd really like to see the core of the pvp hardcore guilds back on Dyvet for 3 months running a bg per realm every night kicking the shit out of u and the likes of u from server. Just to let u taste what does it mean being griefed.

Not thinking but wishing ill for everyone... It clearly jusifies all action against you.

Again: While people said not all people who solo or 8v8 are the same as problematic ones, and we agreed and looked for a way to separate troublemakers.

The likes of you proved you are the most abusive and arrogant bunch, and the definition defined you and the likes of you well, and there is need for actions against the likes of you, and all negative comments against the likes of you are well deserved.

I am happy to see that the likes of you will vanish from the server.

 

[Shike]

lmfao

haha

hand out the darwinaward imo this is priceless

 

[Esselinithia]

Shike: if you stay as stupid as you are now, you will win some. You lie, flame, but yet to post anything else. Shows how stupid you are.

 

[Hiolo]

Esse is there actually anyone here agreeing with you?

 

[Esselinithia]

Yes, with some people we reached to the point of discussing details of possible solutions, and while we doesn't fully agree on solution we agree on most of the key questions.

 

[Shike]

the funny shit is, if you came to me ingame and asked for my help Essen, I would still give it to you, thats the funniest with all this, that you just cant get into your head that people are separating forums, irc, ingame and the ordinary life..

What with that is so hard for you to understand?

Hell I dont even add on Manisch ingame! And I cant stand the prick on this forum! I rather drop him a /hug and keep on moving and Im quite sure he would do the very same. Pip is another extreme example, hes an asshole, a true asshole, both ingame and on forums etc and yet I dont add on him, why? Because its adding and I dislike it quite a lot, doesnt really matter for me who it is unless its some total jerk I know is beyond all hope ingame. Horner is a good example of that, Id add and kill him 10 outta 10 times, just because he shows no respect for anything ingame at all, ever.

Thats how I am, now.. You read my rubbish here on FH and assume that Im the same ingame and thats just 100% wrong.. ask anyone who knows me from my actions ingame, friend or foe, doesnt matter tbh.

Thats why I keep saying you are constructing most of what you say on pure theory and on what you read.. You have very little experience (thats how it really seems) from RvR overall and you have very little experience from Dyvet overall too. It seeems as if some gaheris pvefanboi is coming here to tell people what they are, how to define them, what they do, how they are ingame and you base all this on practically.. nothing, take me for example, you judge me completely from how I am on FH. Now, you probably dont agree since you are like requiel in this aspect, you cannot admit when you falter and when you are plain wrong and thats just sad. It's not me sitting here babbling about things I dont know anything about, Ive played Dyvet as a roleplayer, a soloer, a zerger, a guildgroupplayer with strict noaddpolicy and now I play my NS now and then when I have time and thats pretty much it, Dyvet has very little to offer these days sadly.

 

[Shike]

Shike: if you stay as stupid as you are now, you will win some. You lie, flame, but yet to post anything else. Shows how stupid you are.

no, actually not.. its just you who refuse to agree with anyone else but yourself..

 

[Gahn]

Not thinking but wishing ill for everyone... It clearly jusifies all action against you.

Again: While people said not all people who solo or 8v8 are the same as problematic ones, and we agreed and looked for a way to separate troublemakers.

The likes of you proved you are the most abusive and arrogant bunch, and the definition defined you and the likes of you well, and there is need for actions against the likes of you, and all negative comments against the likes of you are well deserved.

I am happy to see that the likes of you will vanish from the server.

Omfg i shitted in my pants Gaheriskid :kissit:
The most fun part is that u are tearing apart comments from an Usa RPServer. Priceless if it wasn't sad.
Am glad to have left to not have to deal with moronic personas like u tbh xD

 

[MegaMaejter]

Got abit over the top here aye Esse? Trying to build an argument by arguing floating/changing semantics?

What you and all other zerginghalfwits need to understand is that 8v8ers soloers etc do not ruin your fun, you ruin theirs. DAoC hosts alot of diffrent playstyles and preferences who often clash; people get mad, just like in real life, live with it.

Just have to say that your whole definition theory is as valid as saying
"-I saw a black cat, thus all cats have to be black".

Seem like dyvet is in a very sad state, a shame was top server in europe once.

 

[Esselinithia]

the funny shit is, if you came to me ingame and asked for my help Essen, I would still give it to you, thats the funniest with all this, that you just cant get into your head that people are separating forums, irc, ingame and the ordinary life..

I have to say the same again: Even the a little bad experience with soloers is enough to see some problems happen. If trusted friends who still play on dyvet speaks about the same problem, people who are soloing say not all soloers are like this, that is enough reason to say such soloers exists.

It is your choice to decide:

You recognize yourself from this definition.
You support people who support this behavior.
You say such soloers are rare, you solo and you are different, and you would like a way to solo somewhere.

The first two gets one kind of response, the 3rd gets a whole different story.

Of course you can also say you aren't soloing at all.

 

[Esselinithia]

Just have to say that your whole definition theory is as valid as saying
"-I saw a black cat, thus all cats have to be black".

Wrong. Why?

because: I seen people who solo.
I seen people who define the game by soloing.

How to tell which one we are speak about?

By making a definition.

But it doesn't mean: Any people who likes to solo sometime are soloer by definition.

 

[Shike]

I have to say the same again: Even the a little bad experience with soloers is enough to see some problems happen. If trusted friends who still play on dyvet speaks about the same problem, people who are soloing say not all soloers are like this, that is enough reason to say such soloers exists.

It is your choice to decide:

You recognize yourself from this definition.
You support people who support this behavior.
You say such soloers are rare, you solo and you are different, and you would like a way to solo somewhere.

The first two gets one kind of response, the 3rd gets a whole different story.

Of course you can also say you aren't soloing at all.

My responce is, Dyvet is quite damn dead and it doesnt matter, thats my responce. I made my 2 mill on the NS solo all the way since vs rambos stealtherzergerbuddys in OF and the midzergs aswell and Im happy with that, Ive had my fun and I dont really mind zerglings anymore at all, if I wanna keep on playing towards rr10 or so I have the choice to do so and it wouldnt be too hard either if RPs was all I cared about, it isnt about the RPs for me though, never was.

Soloers are rare now, very very rare, at least on Dyvet. Cant say Ive seen many at all in the sessions Ive played and its not so odd either, most have given up by now because of all the people steamrolling them and im one of those too more or less, I gave up solo since it was too hard to find likeminded enemys inbetween all my encounters with lifetapping adding casters and such who just never ever spare anything nor do they respect ongoing fights either since its lost RPs watching a fight.

 

[Esselinithia]

Soloers are rare now, very very rare, at least on Dyvet. Cant say Ive seen many at all in the sessions Ive played and its not so odd either, most have given up by now because of all the people steamrolling them and im one of those too more or less, I gave up solo since it was too hard to find likeminded enemys inbetween all my encounters with lifetapping adding casters and such who just never ever spare anything nor do they respect ongoing fights either since its lost RPs watching a fight.

I think there is a big problem: iRVR.
It means a lot of people (including siege crew) staying away from the frontier, and most who stay in RvR are in iRVR areas.
The rest of the zones are almost empty.

If you just roam, you won't see much soloers, and if you you look for an area with traffic you will see adds: Some people looking for the few targets. This is how PVE people become targets and more.

THe trouble starts with iRVR.

Many people who want to solo, and many PVE people, and many siege people are in same area and would like to stop the problems caused by mindless irvr zerg. (Yes, while I enjoyed sieges, iRvR made me give up on them, before this I joined sieges. Tried to avoid roaming, but some friends took me out for like 3 times total, then they learned, if they want me in RvR it should be siege / defense).

The question is what we do: Make the game more enjoyable for everyone not in iRvR area (and maybe taking "wrong" keeps) and soloers understand why these people are unhappy with certain soloers to reduce the chances of such encounters, and try to get more people back to dyvet. (it would be better for you too)

Or do what you and Gahn done so far.

 

[Gear]

Lol, wtf, is this esse guy for real? No wonder the game's gone to shit

 

[Shike]

Cant do anything, Dyvet already got one foot in the grave and is about to put the other there too. All that seem to exist is a very small number of guildgroups and other than that its some bridgecampers along with some randoms here and there.

The day GOA announce some clustering or similar it might live up again but then it probably will be too late since we kinda already is there at that point, when its too late.

iRVR is just a consequense of how NF is designed, very very poor design = people solve things in their own way and in this particular case the solution was very bad since it evolves around one single thing and thats farming as much RPs in as short time as possible, everyone add on everything with iRVR as an excuse and well overall, I think people simply got bored with it, otherwise people would still be playing Dyvet perhaps.

anyways... this is just repeating stuff ppl have said before, over and over again.. there will be no miracle, no solution, no nothing. You see GOA doing anything at all to help Dyvet? Have you seen anything at all last year? I havent. So I moved Limors instead and try to have some fun while DAoC still is alive at least on one cluster.

 

[Reignfire]

Lol, wtf, is this esse guy for real? No wonder the game's gone to shit

Unfortunately so Gear.


Read my reply to his then read his very last reply to mine .. TRY and make sense of it or something for me. I can not see how he has answered any of my questions.

Reignfire:
clueless? You said as a soloer and FG player I seek to be superior? I asked who what right have you to categorise me when you dont even KNOW me or why I soloer or prefer Fg v FG.. (this statement means SOMETIMES I solo and SOMETIME I run in a fg NOT THAT I am in the Either/Or camp)

Essen:
people who look for superiority in reaching some in game goal in specific set of playing styles.
8v8 and 1v1 people are both subgroups of the 2nd group

Then he comes up with yet another version of the same thing

Essen:
As people said before not all people who do 8v8 or like 8v8 are the "8v8 players" most of the complaints are made against. For this, there is a common understanding: To speak about a group we should define that group.
And should know: not all people who sometimes solo are in the group of soloers we define.


Reignfire:

Arrogant? In what respect am I arrogant? I am not the one telling people how a person HAS to play. I have nowhere pressumed that I am the best at anything. Care to explain? this is the definition of Arrogance WordNet Search - 3.0

Essen:
arrogant: but you claim your argument that has no definitions, no reasoning, but flame is inherently better since it is made by you and likes of you not members of other groups

Once again please tell me from the definition of arogance where have i behaved that i was superior to anyone or implied anyone was inferrior?


Essen:
When you say "we soloers" and then question how people categorize you as soloer, and flame, insult, flame, throw abusive comment, flame, insult, then question when any soloer (including you)

To which I replied:
please please please show me something in game or in game where I have insulted a player for 'adding' / ' zerging'


Essen:
moron: you want to prove that you never make abusive comments anywhere so staing that soloers who meet the definition doesn't make either. While this way of arguing would be flawed, but if you combine it with abusive comments and posts, that shows what kind of person you are and your actions support the definitions.

So basically because he made an allegation that I abused people for adding / zerging and i asked him for proof that he couldnt provide ANYWHERE then this makes me a moron ...and asking for him to prove an allegation or slander is a flawed arguement ...

 

[Cromcruaich]

Unfortunately so Gear.


Read my reply to his then read his very last reply to mine .. TRY and make sense of it or something for me. I can not see how he has answered any of my questions.

Reignfire:
clueless? You said as a soloer and FG player I seek to be superior? I asked who what right have you to categorise me when you dont even KNOW me or why I soloer or prefer Fg v FG.. (this statement means SOMETIMES I solo and SOMETIME I run in a fg NOT THAT I am in the Either/Or camp)

Essen:
people who look for superiority in reaching some in game goal in specific set of playing styles.
8v8 and 1v1 people are both subgroups of the 2nd group

Then he comes up with yet another version of the same thing

Essen:
As people said before not all people who do 8v8 or like 8v8 are the "8v8 players" most of the complaints are made against. For this, there is a common understanding: To speak about a group we should define that group.
And should know: not all people who sometimes solo are in the group of soloers we define.


Reignfire:

Arrogant? In what respect am I arrogant? I am not the one telling people how a person HAS to play. I have nowhere pressumed that I am the best at anything. Care to explain? this is the definition of Arrogance WordNet Search - 3.0

Essen:
arrogant: but you claim your argument that has no definitions, no reasoning, but flame is inherently better since it is made by you and likes of you not members of other groups

Once again please tell me from the definition of arogance where have i behaved that i was superior to anyone or implied anyone was inferrior?


Essen:
When you say "we soloers" and then question how people categorize you as soloer, and flame, insult, flame, throw abusive comment, flame, insult, then question when any soloer (including you)

To which I replied:
please please please show me something in game or in game where I have insulted a player for 'adding' / ' zerging'


Essen:
moron: you want to prove that you never make abusive comments anywhere so staing that soloers who meet the definition doesn't make either. While this way of arguing would be flawed, but if you combine it with abusive comments and posts, that shows what kind of person you are and your actions support the definitions.

So basically because he made an allegation that I abused people for adding / zerging and i asked him for proof that he couldnt provide ANYWHERE then this makes me a moron ...and asking for him to prove an allegation or slander is a flawed arguement ...

Haha yes, i wonder what answer you'd get if you asked him the time of day? I dread to think.

 

[Cromcruaich]

Yes. If they respect my PVE fights

Mutual respect works.

Claiming an area as their own solo land where other people has legitimate bussiness and harasshing, attacking, etc. them won't work, and will end up in people going back and crashing the fights of this two people.

So demanding exlusive access to places and disrespecting others won't work and will result in getting more adds.

Cool, well I think here then were only engaging in a lot of circuitous and pointless word play. I feel ive got somewhere Ess, and provided we all think about what we are doing before we add, then ive achieved what I set out to do at the start of my input here.

 

[MegaMaejter]

THe trouble starts with iRVR.

If you really sit down and think about how NF is buildt up you will eventually realize that NF is and always been the problem. NF is very poor by design and its very flawed compared to OF, wich I also admit had flaws but not as many and they were easy to fix aswell, more milegates and copy paste the hot zones to enlarge them would been a valid fix. [Odins and Emain] Perhaps some will say the keeps where outdated, personally I liked them alot, the design of them could been brushed up though.

Yet again, your whole theory of what people are and are not is as I see it flawed. Mainly b/c comparing and arguing floating semantics is impossible since they are floating, as in having diffrent meaning to diffrent people.
You speak about intelligence in some of your posts. Most intelligent people realize that putting ppl in diffrent groups or sub groups is valid when making general arguments to make a general point wich doesn't narrow down specific individuals, like you seem to do.

I havn't read all your replys so I might have missed the earlier ones where you actually had valid and good points in this matter.

I also tihnk your mistaken on the part where you blame or partly blames the community, and some induviduals/type of characters for the servers decline, just as I think its a bad argument saying CM ruined the server.

It is the designers of the games responsibility to set the rules and the games parameters in a way that its not possible for a set of induviduals or a subgroup ( as you say ) to grief and ruin the fun of others. Mythic carries the largest blame in this when implementing such a crap expansion as NF, no wounder it was free of charge, just something to feed the wolves with kind of expansion.

We can agree on this or argue forever what "subgroup" griefs one the most and then blame them for fucking the game up for everyone. Wich to me is pointless since I don't see the reason to why any of the diffrent "subgroups" should cave in with their interests for the benefit of the others while still paying the same monthly sub, and this goes for the 8 man, soloers, the roleplayers, the casuals and the weekday alarmclock relic raiders.

 

[Esselinithia]

Reignfire: Look at what MegaMeajter asks for.

Less floating argument. Why? Because we can see the term "soloer" "8v8er" differently.

For this reason we have to define which group we call as soloers in these arguments.

I haven't seen your definition, but I only seen why people should accept your view where you don't define anything, so your words lack substance.

What I say has three meanings:
Group X (Defined by behavior) is called as soloer by my books (attach a name for some group)
If I speak about soloers I speak about Group X
If you want to use other terms for group X, or some other meaning for "soloer" since it helps to address these problems better propose such things.

For the first meaning: you have to be very stupid to argue about that without saying these people aren't soloers. Why? Because if they are soloers (not the only soloers by your book) then this name matches them well

The secound meaning: It is hard to argue about it, but you can suggest better terms, or you can suggest extending the group or removing others from it. But saying not all people who solo fits this bill, when it was said by me as reason for making definition isn't any intelligent argument.

The third meaning: Shows any term and definition with good explanation is accepted.

You haven't made a single valid point, but you flamed, and thought ther are other people like you so bullying is a valid way to get stuff there.

I ask again: DO you have any better name for the group named here?
Do you have any definition for soloer we can use better when we discuss these problems (so limiting the meaning to the people involved in the problems?)

You haven't made any.

But you insulted, bullyed, claimed that your "so called experience" and insults makes you right and we should accept your argument and only your argument which you haven't presented yet, not even the basic definitions.

Because you feel yourself as so much superior in experience and everything that your deinition that doesn't exists, your names for groups to discuss things that haven't even thought about is superior based on your so called superior experience.

THis is where you are arogant and stupid.

And since you still haven't made your definition, I somehow feel that two days isn't enough for you to think about:
If this problem exists how should we call group X.

But you argue without thinking based on your imagined position. without providing any name any solution. But you are great and dumb, empty and pointless insults. And probably you are good for nothing else.

 

[Esselinithia]

If you really sit down and think about how NF is buildt up you will eventually realize that NF is and always been the problem.
.
.
.
Mainly b/c comparing and arguing floating semantics is impossible since they are floating, as in having diffrent meaning to diffrent people.
You speak about intelligence in some of your posts. Most intelligent people realize that putting ppl in diffrent groups or sub groups is valid when making general arguments to make a general point wich doesn't narrow down specific individuals, like you seem to do.

Wrong in 2 things: NF had some pretty significant positive changes as well, BUT it isn't enough and it should change. OF was wrong in one way, and it was wrong to the extremes. NF is almost as bad to the other way. Now we would need an expansion that is almost as bad as NF (but better) but to the OF way, then a change to NF way, and get closer and closer to the balance. This is how the nerfbat in many games works to balance things, and this is what we seen from Mythic and others for ages. Sadly with NF they stoped working on most problems.

And about floating semantics: This is why I have defined what I call as soloer, and which definition should we use. And this is why the later statements apply mostly to the people who meet the definition. And this is why statements that are direct consequences of traits that are part of the definition cannot be argued based on experience.

You can say: majority of people who is soloing aren't soloer by these terms, and if you have problems with only these then it is a small problem.

But you can't say: if we don't have better deifinition and use yours for this reason as only presented decision and it uses something as defining trait of this group, then we argue about how common that trait is in the group defined by it.

See the difference?

This is why floating semantics needs to meet with definitions, and this is why definitions should speak about what people we speak about.

There can be other people you call as soloers, or yet others who are soloing right now. But we use this term to avoid floating semantics, with some specific traits to define te group.

And since only people with all traits are members of the group, speaking about members of group in general and saying based on this trait, it tends to happen isn't speaking about: people outside of the group.

See my point?

 

[Cromcruaich]

As a starting point a soloer is someone who isnt grouped. You can then expand on that to say a soloer is someone who desires to have fair numbered fights, at any point in time. It really is as simple as that. Also all that is important is that we broadly understand the term. I cant help but feel that any desire to pin someone down to a specific definition on the forum is there to simply serve as an additional way of attacking the poster and diverting the thread away from whats important.

Overall though, I think you are personally for some reason afraid to admit that its the 1v1/8v8 crowd who actually have a lot more scope for mutual respect of other players, rather than the camp that you have identified yourself with, mistakenly I think. You appear to be wanting a bit of respect as someone who simply does pve missions and isnt so keen on getting out into rvr. You are much more likely to get that respect from the fair number/mutual respect crowd than you ever are from the red is dead crowd. Ahh and when I say respect - I mean much more likely to be left to your own devices - at least to finish your pve mission.

 

[old.Whoodoo]

LOL @ another thread hyjacked by solo discussion, and I thought I had too much time at work...

 

[Thadius]

LOL @ another thread hyjacked by solo discussion, and I thought I had too much time at work...

Its a big part of the game for some people, its what they pay subs for. They have every right to moan.


And I don't solo, never had a buffbot

 

[rampant]

how can a soloer be called a soloer when he has got a bb sitting at a castle giving buffs? - surely that should be called a semi-soloer

 

[Cromcruaich]

LOL @ another thread hyjacked by solo discussion, and I thought I had too much time at work...

Do something constructive then and bring it round to what you think would be on topic for this thread.

 

[Cromcruaich]

how can a soloer be called a soloer when he has got a bb sitting at a castle giving buffs? - surely that should be called a semi-soloer

How about because at the time they are fighting, for the entire fight, they are only controlling one character. Dont think we'd class horner as solo when he has scarlatina stuck to his sorry french ass.

 

[rampant]

How about because at the time they are fighting, for the entire fight, they are only controlling one character. Dont think we'd class horner as solo when he has scarlatina stuck to his sorry french ass.

they may only be controlling one char - BUT they are recieving the benefits of multiple characters - ergo - they are not solo - they may not fight in a group but soloers who have buff bots should not be called soloers...