What would YOU class as grief play?

[Esselinithia]

what have you done that makes you worthy of condemning someone who actually has a good standing in the community? why are you so much better than some others?

He can have good standing with some people. But if he wishes ill for many people just to show "what is griefing" when they are unhappy with his action instead of trying to make more people happy (and with this make sure less people will add on his fights, etc) shows one kind of conduct.

He is wishing to destroy the game for many people and it is his intent and wish, without any willingness to make compromise, listen to other side, etc.

If you see: Some soloers (unlike Gahn and you) posted valid points. And looked for some terms of cooperation and mutual acceptance. And as you seen we reached some kind of common ground, and doesn't wish ill for others.

So far Gahn can be in good standing with friends and soloers, but his wishes and attitude and unwillingness for cooperation is enough for me to be happy to see him gone.

If he doesn't want to follow the rules, and in fact protest against making them clear (instead of providing ground for arguments about interpretation) and decides that with these rules he can't play, then so be it.

 

[Manisch Depressiv]

Esselinthia, are you Requiel?

 

[Dard]

Esselinthia, are you Requiel?

Its either that or 6 different people are useing his FH account

 

[Thadius]

I am happy to see him go. From his behavior here I can't see him as good or honorable person. Not only in game, but as the person behind the screen.

The moment where he will stop whishing ill for everyone, and will try the "live and let live" approach, and cares to use some definitions to be able to discuss problems and talk intelligently and willing to solve problems and look for a compromise, my oppinion can change, but so far I am very happy to see less such troublemakers in the game.

Gahn I have nothing but respect for ingame and on these boards. I have never played in hib with him, but from an Alb perspective he never added and even left my lil level 38 cabby when she was levelling in the IRVR zone :S

 

[Gahn]

I am happy to see him go. From his behavior here I can't see him as good or honorable person. Not only in game, but as the person behind the screen.

The moment where he will stop whishing ill for everyone, and will try the "live and let live" approach, and cares to use some definitions to be able to discuss problems and talk intelligently and willing to solve problems and look for a compromise, my oppinion can change, but so far I am very happy to see less such troublemakers in the game.

Ahah here have a tip, fuck off and don't mix rl since u don't know me (thx god).

 

[Cromcruaich]

Yes, in my opinion the separation was positive. The problem was when the full groups decided there was not enough action on Agramon, they came to farm the zerg and still wanted their no adding rule. Respect should be mutual.

Aye, agree with you on this and the previous post to this one. Some of the hardcore rvr's did whine a bit when they were in stupid places where there was never any chance of 8v8 fights. But that stopped about a year ago, and when we talk about 'understanding' I really think weve now reached that point and its no longer an issue. Overall though those ggs didnt tend to whine at the soloers and the zergers, it was other ggs that piled in. But like I say, water under the bridge now.

 

[Cromcruaich]

Cromcruaich: Lets make it very simple and clear.
Is BMW successful?
Yes. Then we should play along the rules BMW uses to make cars?
No.

Why? Because different goals, different markets and different conditions call for different approach. A single success story isn't an example you can follow everytime and everywhere.

Some area separated people based on what it could offer, it is succesful, because: It doesn't limit anyone.

Noone had to give up much to leave that area as fg place. Noone was forced to give up something. They simply had no interest.

Now, if we say, people who see no interest in going to any given keep can stay away from it, would that stop the add problem?

No, since the adds have reasons to go to your areas and kill farmers. So following the example of that zone and go where you have some interesting targets won't fix this problem.

Since people have reasons to go to you, have reasons to add. So the "if you don't see any reason to come here, we have this place" approach can't work and won't work.

But the "if you respect me, I should respect you" way is important:
if I am nice, and you are nice I should respect you for that reason alone.
If I am not nice but you are, I should respect you because losing your respect would mean you will hurt my game.
If I am nice and you aren't nice, I should help people who have problems with you, even if it hurts. (And they side with me, when I have problems with rude people) Since it is better for both.
If neither of us is nice, nothing can be done anyway.

This guideline works, and doesn't divide the land. As a PVE fan, I can ignore your soloing, and be happy that you don't hurt me when I face an assassin (you might even help!), and as a soloer you can be happy since I won't add on your fight. This works.

Dividing the land by our choice won't work. Since I will get missions to zones where you solo. When I am at sieges, you might want to duel at that keep, etc.

Dividing the land can only be done on mythic side, since they can make sure soloers and PVE people won't face each other, by moving missions and good solo places into different areas (or instances).

Instanced PVP systems (WoW BGs, WoW Arena system) can be a better example.

Ess, please answer the question directly:

But again do you think the in game seperation [agramon 8v8 area] was useful or not useful? Was it a positive thing for people (on balance) to have that seperation (accidental or otherwise) or not?

 

[Cromcruaich]

I am happy to see him go. From his behavior here I can't see him as good or honorable person. Not only in game, but as the person behind the screen.

The moment where he will stop whishing ill for everyone, and will try the "live and let live" approach, and cares to use some definitions to be able to discuss problems and talk intelligently and willing to solve problems and look for a compromise, my oppinion can change, but so far I am very happy to see less such troublemakers in the game.

I'm afraid you fall flat on your face here, you are letting subjective feelings cloud your judgement. How Gahn responds here, doesnt reflect his in game persona, where he really personifies the live and let live approach.
And this is important who do you think has more of a live and let live ideal - the red is dead crowd, or 1v1/8v8 people?

Oh, and keep the answers succinct and to the point - it really helps the discussion, where your posting style seems to be there diliberately to cloud the issues under discussion.

 

[Sharkith]

It is irrevelant, since the peace here was based on lack of conflicting interests. So it isn't an example of how you can handle conflicting interests, since it doesn't speak about how people handled conflicting needs, ideas and interests.

Esselinithia,

just a small tip. When posting here you ought to take a browse back through the rvr forum where these issues have been discussed in more depth and in a much more constructive manner than what you are achieving here. You are not really improving on what people here already know and have accepted and before you post you should educate yourself.

Start here maybe?

Sharkith

 

[Cromcruaich]

He is wishing to destroy the game for many people and it is his intent and wish, without any willingness to make compromise, listen to other side, etc.

Please, in no fewer than 100 words, outline your justification for this statement.

So far Gahn can be in good standing with friends and soloers, but his wishes and attitude and unwillingness for cooperation is enough for me to be happy to see him gone.

I'm lost, please outline in what aspect Gahn is unwilling to cooperate?

If he doesn't want to follow the rules, and in fact protest against making them clear (instead of providing ground for arguments about interpretation) and decides that with these rules he can't play, then so be it.

Please outline what rules you are referring to, bullet points will do.

 

[Cromcruaich]

Esselinithia,

just a small tip. When posting here you ought to take a browse back through the rvr forum where these issues have been discussed in more depth and in a much more constructive manner than what you are achieving here. You are not really improving on what people here already know and have accepted and before you post you should educate yourself.

Start here maybe?

Sharkith

wb shark, the wordmeister has returned.

 

[Imgormiel]

wb shark, the wordmeister has returned. fluffle:

Insta rep for Sharky

And I'd class as grief play as not being able to play with Thadius and I don't play any more so its grief enuff

 

[Esselinithia]

Ess, please answer the question directly:

But again do you think the in game seperation [agramon 8v8 area] was useful or not useful? Was it a positive thing for people (on balance) to have that seperation (accidental or otherwise) or not?

Well designed serparation (if you see my previous posts) is positive.

But claiming an area as your own where others have legitimate interests isn't separation, but starting trouble.

 

[Sharkith]

We have been here and done this. Its all about the intention of the griefer looking to spoil someone else's game and bcause its about stuff thats in players heads it is a very slippery subject.

Its why GOA and the MMO companies have such a tough time with it. I don't think Esselinithia your even coming close and you really ought to have a read of those threads and come back and then talk with people and how they remember the subject.

Anyway much more interesting and on topic is the following.

Why do you think the pehnomenon was called 'grief'?

Isn't there something about 'grieving' and sadness here. The term seems to refer to emotions....



thanks for the welcome back folks.

Sharkith

 

[Esselinithia]

Please, in no fewer than 100 words, outline your justification for this statement.


I'm lost, please outline in what aspect Gahn is unwilling to cooperate?


Please outline what rules you are referring to, bullet points will do.

1st: If you see Gahn wishes that people will farm other people over and over just to let them know: What is being griefed.

Sadly, if any group of soloer hurt other people, they have 3 choices: Either saying: we play this way, and you should expect this or that in RvR. Then they should except and accept the red is dead crew.
Or be constructive: Look for a live and let live way, try to learn what should be changed to make things work for both.
Or be abusive: "I wish you get abused more" and insults and more.

Gahn wished for the later.
Honestly: His conduct means:
If I or any of my friends will ever return to dyvet I won't have a reason to respect him or his mates. But I will have to except he wishes bad for me, so it is better to kill him while he is weak => Accelerates adding. Also to mention something that isn't "perhaps in the future": I think it means Awarkle will find more friends, more supports, and will add with bigger force.

His conduct hurts the interests of his mates.

His conduct promotes abuse, and he wishes ill for people, so hurts the other side too.

With this his conduct makes the problem deeper, and makes people more inclined to report dueling rings, and with this he makes the rule he doesn't like hit much harder.

As I see with his behavior he hurts interests of different parties.

But if he is gone: Why would I add on soloers because an EX soloer was an ass like him? So if he is gone, he reduces the chances of adding on your fights too, and he reduces the anger and hurt feelings on other side, and also there will be less zones claimed by him, and less reports against you.

So his recent conduct makes it simple: if he leaves that has many positive effects. Of course people who liked to play with him might be less happy, and friends might be less happy. But it is Gahn choice to act this way or be a normal player.

His signature makes it clear: He doesn't want to live with the new CoC this is why he left.

 

[censi]

Censi: I think you'll find the correlation is actually between solo players and their realm rank, i.e. the higher the realm rank the more likely they are to solo and also want the fight to remain solo. After all why would you want someone else to add if you can earn all of the RP's.

Unless you like a challenge, or are truly masochistic or perhaps out to prove a point, very few players will go their entire game career without adding, even if it is just to rise to a reasonable level after which your character will have more survivability and you will therefore be more inclined to take on solo fights.

like I say all the good things in daoc come from the good players... the lemons do nothing apart from run around and ruin the end game (griefing basically)... These lemons are the ones that you 2-3 shot if you do meet them solo (most of them)... So as they cant compete, they dont try to and then get all defensive when they are labelled as greifers.

Ive played the game longer than any of you... There is an element of experience which turns u into the player that will watch other fights rather than add on them.. Ill accept that to a certain degree... but theres also players which refuse to show any respect ever... And this is the bad side of daoc.

Like I said in my previous post... a MASSIVE part of the community break the rules by standing there and watching an enemy kill a realm mate?? Why? because the realm mate doesnt want him to interfere, he also respects the enemy, and also he doesnt get any competative thrill from adding.

So if players adopt this code (and we know a lot of them do) and this code reduces their intake of RP.... What does that tell you... It tells you people VALUE the gaming experience of others players and themselves over some silly number...

AGAIN... the fact that mythic have not cottened onto this concept, that people are interested in gameplay... is the overall reason daoc is dead... they develope the game for the lemons, giving them more PVE and new OP classes so they can maybe compete against better players... If they just developed the end game to cotten onto the fact GAMEPLAY is the most important thing and good gameplay means a certain degree of competativeness... rather than promote a completly NON COMPETATIVE GAMEPLAY ruined by fucking adding newbs... the game might be fun again.

sounds extremly hardcore what im saying, but its the truth... Once you get a taste for a good competative fight, thats all you will want from daoc. If you just cant get into this competative fight scene and your getting perma prawned... at least show some respect to the peeps that can.

 

[Gahn]

1st: If you see Gahn wishes that people will farm other people over and over just to let them know: What is being griefed.

Sadly, if any group of soloer hurt other people, they have 3 choices: Either saying: we play this way, and you should expect this or that in RvR. Then they should except and accept the red is dead crew.
Or be constructive: Look for a live and let live way, try to learn what should be changed to make things work for both.
Or be abusive: "I wish you get abused more" and insults and more.

Gahn wished for the later.
Honestly: His conduct means:
If I or any of my friends will ever return to dyvet I won't have a reason to respect him or his mates. But I will have to except he wishes bad for me, so it is better to kill him while he is weak => Accelerates adding. Also to mention something that isn't "perhaps in the future": I think it means Awarkle will find more friends, more supports, and will add with bigger force.

His conduct hurts the interests of his mates.

His conduct promotes abuse, and he wishes ill for people, so hurts the other side too.

With this his conduct makes the problem deeper, and makes people more inclined to report dueling rings, and with this he makes the rule he doesn't like hit much harder.

As I see with his behavior he hurts interests of different parties.

But if he is gone: Why would I add on soloers because an EX soloer was an ass like him? So if he is gone, he reduces the chances of adding on your fights too, and he reduces the anger and hurt feelings on other side, and also there will be less zones claimed by him, and less reports against you.

So his recent conduct makes it simple: if he leaves that has many positive effects. Of course people who liked to play with him might be less happy, and friends might be less happy. But it is Gahn choice to act this way or be a normal player.

His signature makes it clear: He doesn't want to live with the new CoC this is why he left.

Coming from u who is the one wanting to enforce playstyle on others all this essay is quite hilarious

 

[Thorwyn]

But claiming an area as your own where others have legitimate interests isn't separation, but starting trouble.

You´re - yet again - missing the point. It´s not about CLAIMING an area, it´s about AGREEING on something that gives all sides the chance to enjoy the game in the way they wants. That´s exactly the live and let live thingy you keep babbling about. Nobody and nothing forces you to go to Agramon, there is no "legitimate interest" in this area for anyone unless you´re going there for the purpose of zerg-free 8v8 action.
Or are you one of those people, who say "I can go there whenever I want, it´s a game, I´m paying my subs, so you can´t stop me from going there", in which case you´re going there for the sole purpose of "I can, you can´t stop me"... which makes you a griefer in my books?

 

[Esselinithia]

Why do you think the pehnomenon was called 'grief'?

Isn't there something about 'grieving' and sadness here. The term seems to refer to emotions....

Yes, you have a good question here:

The term itself speaks about one thing: Griefing makes the other player unhappy / sad. And your action is here for this.

Your RvR diversity thread would have good points but you fail to address one thing: Problems happen, and they should be addressed.

Saying "all people who solo are inherently bad"
And saying "all people who solo are inherently good"
is about the same: Wrong.

Some of the players who solo are indeed bad for the game are good, some are bad.

But if we speak about a problem, with some people with similar behavior we can't discuss it by naming each and every character in each and every post. We need to use a label, and we need to use a definition that describes them.

When people who solo causes problem, they are usualy do it, because some shared reasons. People who iRvR when they cause problems they again have some reasons shared in that group, etc.

Yes: Playstyle determines the problems you tend to cause.

When we speak about problems, how should we label the people (max two words) who cause problem when soloing and spend most of the time with soloing?

Your tread haven't defined a term for these people.

So so far we don't have a better term then "soloer".

But this term describes one kind of people not all people who is soloing. This is why we need a definition.

The thing you fail to understand is:

it isn't anyone who solo is a soloer an we say they follow this behaviour.

But: If we speak about people who act like this, show this behavior and use it in conjunction with his playing style based on soloing, we should call them X.

In this case, the behavior, etc. is constant, you can give them a new name that describes them better. But I thought that many people who are soloing is smart enough to know the difference between the above 2 things, and know some term doesn't apply to them even if they are soloing.
Much more, since they said: not all soloers are the same. Not all represent the same group, community, they can't represent mixed communities, etc.

So they KNOW we can't speak about all soloing people.
But we need a name for a group with shared traits.

if we speak about: We should call the group with shared traits as soloers...
Then it is lame to argue about these traits, since we try to name the group with those specific traits.

And if you want to argue a name you need something that describes that group better.
It is something I haven't seen.

But I seen that many of you are quick to flame slow to think. And many (including Gahn) is rude.

 

[Gahn]

Yes, you have a good question here:

The term itself speaks about one thing: Griefing makes the other player unhappy / sad. And your action is here for this.

Your RvR diversity thread would have good points but you fail to address one thing: Problems happen, and they should be addressed.

Saying "all people who solo are inherently bad"
And saying "all people who solo are inherently good"
is about the same: Wrong.

Some of the players who solo are indeed bad for the game are good, some are bad.

But if we speak about a problem, with some people with similar behavior we can't discuss it by naming each and every character in each and every post. We need to use a label, and we need to use a definition that describes them.

When people who solo causes problem, they are usualy do it, because some shared reasons. People who iRvR when they cause problems they again have some reasons shared in that group, etc.

Yes: Playstyle determines the problems you tend to cause.

When we speak about problems, how should we label the people (max two words) who cause problem when soloing and spend most of the time with soloing?

Your tread haven't defined a term for these people.

So so far we don't have a better term then "soloer".

But this term describes one kind of people not all people who is soloing. This is why we need a definition.

The thing you fail to understand is:

it isn't anyone who solo is a soloer an we say they follow this behaviour.

But: If we speak about people who act like this, show this behavior and use it in conjunction with his playing style based on soloing, we should call them X.

In this case, the behavior, etc. is constant, you can give them a new name that describes them better. But I thought that many people who are soloing is smart enough to know the difference between the above 2 things, and know some term doesn't apply to them even if they are soloing.
Much more, since they said: not all soloers are the same. Not all represent the same group, community, they can't represent mixed communities, etc.

So they KNOW we can't speak about all soloing people.
But we need a name for a group with shared traits.

if we speak about: We should call the group with shared traits as soloers...
Then it is lame to argue about these traits, since we try to name the group with those specific traits.

And if you want to argue a name you need something that describes that group better.
It is something I haven't seen.

But I seen that many of you are quick to flame slow to think. And many (including Gahn) is rude.

Am afraid is a matter of u get what u are looking for, coming in here spitting sentences about "the other side" surely won't win u any medal.
And about being slow to think, is not that writing essays with little to no foundation is fast thinking, it's just wasting time wording non sense.

 

[Cromcruaich]

Well designed serparation (if you see my previous posts) is positive.

But claiming an area as your own where others have legitimate interests isn't separation, but starting trouble.

Again, we are basically in agreement then Thats pretty much exactly what agramon was, it was an area of seperation generally accepted by all sides of the fair fight divide that arose (for whatever reasong) and was no more claimed by the 8v8 crew as an 8v8 area, than it was claimed by the other community members as where the 8v8 crew could go. Honest. No conflict here.

 

[Esselinithia]

Coming from u who is the one wanting to enforce playstyle on others all this essay is quite hilarious

Noone wants to enforce a playstyle.

To me anyone is good as long as they don't say: "why the fuck you do these missions it is our land"

Which came from soloers often.
Zergers just zerg and doesn't say anything.

To me the only requirement (as I said many times before) is that ALL players have a chance to enjoy the game.

Including siege crews.
PVE people.
Keep defense fanatics.
People who roam for solo fights.
People who camp a tower (scouts included)
People who try to defend keeps
People who want "red is dead" game

Sadly, when you name areas for groups you divide up the whole frontier between 3 groups, and leave other 7-8 out of it, and say they should follow the playstyle set for the area, essentially forcing them to follow YOUR playstyle.

Sadly, PVE people can't have a specific area, because missions can send them to many places.

If you would want to divide people, I would suggest: Use some colors.

Red: Red is dead is ok for me, if I comming expect an attack, if you see me you should add.
Yellow: Siege crew inc, we are looking for a keep to take, feel free to try to stop us (we don't care for soloers, alone, but if you are in the way when we shoot holes in your keep, we might add)
Green: Soloer, don't add unless you get asked to (or even number fight fan)
Blue: PVE people, we just want that mob, we are happy to get help, don't attack please
Black: Awarkle and co thinks he isn't visible and will report you
Brown: Stealther, don't attack if he is visible pls...

Or the likes of it Using this with a single armor piece (using uniforms) and coloring the rest based on your guild would be some behavior you can respect easily, and this would reduce most of the problems, when you don't meet a zerg.

And for most hues use some cheaper dies, to make sure changed colors are affordable.

 

[Cromcruaich]

1st: If you see Gahn wishes that people will farm other people over and over just to let them know: What is being griefed.

Sadly, if any group of soloer hurt other people, they have 3 choices: Either saying: we play this way, and you should expect this or that in RvR. Then they should except and accept the red is dead crew.
Or be constructive: Look for a live and let live way, try to learn what should be changed to make things work for both.
Or be abusive: "I wish you get abused more" and insults and more.

Gahn wished for the later.
Honestly: His conduct means:
If I or any of my friends will ever return to dyvet I won't have a reason to respect him or his mates. But I will have to except he wishes bad for me, so it is better to kill him while he is weak => Accelerates adding. Also to mention something that isn't "perhaps in the future": I think it means Awarkle will find more friends, more supports, and will add with bigger force.

His conduct hurts the interests of his mates.

His conduct promotes abuse, and he wishes ill for people, so hurts the other side too.

With this his conduct makes the problem deeper, and makes people more inclined to report dueling rings, and with this he makes the rule he doesn't like hit much harder.

As I see with his behavior he hurts interests of different parties.

But if he is gone: Why would I add on soloers because an EX soloer was an ass like him? So if he is gone, he reduces the chances of adding on your fights too, and he reduces the anger and hurt feelings on other side, and also there will be less zones claimed by him, and less reports against you.

So his recent conduct makes it simple: if he leaves that has many positive effects. Of course people who liked to play with him might be less happy, and friends might be less happy. But it is Gahn choice to act this way or be a normal player.

His signature makes it clear: He doesn't want to live with the new CoC this is why he left.

I say again, you are completely mixing up someones responses on FH, with how that character plays in game. Really, if you want to proceed with slagging off gahn, please base it on direct in game experience rather than fh replies. Now provide examples of how Gahn has encouraged those points you make at the start of the above quote.

I fear that you are once again simply trying to construct a convoluted argument that has absolutely no grounding in the reality of the game. It might make an interesting pass time for the forum, and it is an exercise that we all indulge in here to a greater or lesser extent - but it doesnt achieve anything.

Ask yourself - what are you trying to achieve, and also address this point please - who has more tolerance the people who buy into the 8v8/1v1 paradigm, or those who are on the red is dead side of the argument?

 

[Cromcruaich]

Noone wants to enforce a playstyle.

To me anyone is good as long as they don't say: "why the fuck you do these missions it is our land"

Which came from soloers often.
Zergers just zerg and doesn't say anything.

To me the only requirement (as I said many times before) is that ALL players have a chance to enjoy the game.

Including siege crews.
PVE people.
Keep defense fanatics.
People who roam for solo fights.
People who camp a tower (scouts included)
People who try to defend keeps
People who want "red is dead" game

Sadly, when you name areas for groups you divide up the whole frontier between 3 groups, and leave other 7-8 out of it, and say they should follow the playstyle set for the area, essentially forcing them to follow YOUR playstyle.

Sadly, PVE people can't have a specific area, because missions can send them to many places.

If you would want to divide people, I would suggest: Use some colors.

Red: Red is dead is ok for me, if I comming expect an attack, if you see me you should add.
Yellow: Siege crew inc, we are looking for a keep to take, feel free to try to stop us (we don't care for soloers, alone, but if you are in the way when we shoot holes in your keep, we might add)
Green: Soloer, don't add unless you get asked to (or even number fight fan)
Blue: PVE people, we just want that mob, we are happy to get help, don't attack please
Black: Awarkle and co thinks he isn't visible and will report you
Brown: Stealther, don't attack if he is visible pls...

Or the likes of it Using this with a single armor piece (using uniforms) and coloring the rest based on your guild would be some behavior you can respect easily, and this would reduce most of the problems, when you don't meet a zerg.

And for most hues use some cheaper dies, to make sure changed colors are affordable.

Stop banging on about naming areas, its a minor point against the background of the larger principle of there being an allowed scope within the game to let people solo, and to enjoy ostensibly fair fights. And I say again, for the third time - who is more likely to let you get on with your solo missions - the red is dead crew or those soloers/full groups? Who is showing the most tolerance to other people?

 

[Levin]

like I say all the good things in daoc come from the good players... the lemons do nothing apart from run around and ruin the end game (griefing basically)... These lemons are the ones that you 2-3 shot if you do meet them solo (most of them)... So as they cant compete, they dont try to and then get all defensive when they are labelled as greifers.

Ive played the game longer than any of you... There is an element of experience which turns u into the player that will watch other fights rather than add on them.. Ill accept that to a certain degree... but theres also players which refuse to show any respect ever... And this is the bad side of daoc.

So, what would you have the "lemons" do? If they can't compete one-on-one with the "leet kids" in RvR, are you saying they should stay off the RvR scene altogether, as they don't measure up to the challenge seeking RvR experts? How are they supposed to gain realmpoints if they must follow your code of always using equal numbers in fights, when you are RR10 and they are RR1?

When I played, often without buffs and never with the most opted equipment, I could very rarely kill someone 1 vs 1. I found it hard to keep track of all the items with timers, and often jumbled up my fingers trying to activate them. If someone helped me when I got jumped so i could survive and gain some rp, I'd thank the person and we might build up a friendship, perhaps even group up in the future. In your world, that realm mate should instead watch me get killed, watch me get pissed off at him and the atmosphere of the game, log off for a month just to have the same thing happen next time again, until I quit for good.

That's pretty much what happened to me, at least.

The "code of honour" of no adding means people won't help those who actually WANT help. Whether the bystander share your views, or because they are afraid that the guy they help will yell at them for adding, the result is the same - casual players have 0% chance. Maybe they (we) don't belong in DaoC... I don't know.

 

[Cromcruaich]

Noone wants to enforce a playstyle.

Youve failed to read some of my other posts I feel. I hope you can accept the concept in principle that by its very nature the red is dead paradigm by default, enforces its playstyle on all others without allowing those others any ability to exercise choice.

 

[Gahn]

So, what would you have the "lemons" do? If they can't compete one-on-one with the "leet kids" in RvR, are you saying they should stay off the RvR scene altogether, as they don't measure up to the challenge seeking RvR experts? How are they supposed to gain realmpoints if they must follow your code of always using equal numbers in fights, when you are RR10 and they are RR1?

When I played, often without buffs and never with the most opted equipment, I could very rarely kill someone 1 vs 1. I found it hard to keep track of all the items with timers, and often jumbled up my fingers trying to activate them. If someone helped me when I got jumped so i could survive and gain some rp, I'd thank the person and we might build up a friendship, perhaps even group up in the future. In your world, that realm mate should instead watch me get killed, watch me get pissed off at him and the atmosphere of the game, log off for a month just to have the same thing happen next time again, until I quit for good.

That's pretty much what happened to me, at least.

The "code of honour" of no adding means people won't help those who actually WANT help. Whether the bystander share your views, or because they are afraid that the guy they help will yell at them for adding, the result is the same - casual players have 0% chance. Maybe they (we) don't belong in DaoC... I don't know.

There are other ways to gain rps, be it run in a zerg or large group, sieges etc.
Y in hell the only way to gain rps is coming and disrupting the ones who prefer another way of play?
Is not that i come with my solo hero to farm your group sieging a tower -.-
Instead u come with your 5 man group and steamroll me while i'm merely seeking some like minded people, with similar rank to fight!
Who's the one trying to cut off others game experience here?

 

[Esselinithia]

Youve failed to read some of my other posts I feel. I hope you can accept the concept in principle that by its very nature the red is dead paradigm by default, enforces its playstyle on all others without allowing those others any ability to exercise choice.

No it isn't.

Why? Because you aren't adding.
Your friends aren't adding.

Some will add, some won't add.

You will see your playstyle as working in some cases. But you will see it isn't working at other times.

If you attack all targets who are alone: you forced soloing on a PVE people?
No, since you didn't make him attack anyone. And in most missions he won't meet you.

But if you say: everyone, including the PVEer should be 1v1ing in this area, no adding, no just PVEing, no payback if you farm, nothing but your style that enforces a playing style on them.

And while a soloer can look for other places, a PVEer goes where the mission sends him / her.

If you can't attack PVEer and it limits your solo fight chances: That is a restriction on you, and enforces his playing style.
If the zerg crew can't attack you, it enforces your style on him.

You either avoid hurting each other based on mutual respect and anyone can know where he has legitimate bussiness (siege crews to keeps, PVE people to missions, etc) or try to use force and whine because red is dead crew is stronger.

 

[Cromcruaich]

You either avoid hurting each other based on mutual respect and anyone can know where he has legitimate bussiness (siege crews to keeps, PVE people to missions, etc) or try to use force and whine because red is dead crew is stronger.

Ive read through this, and it makes no sense, please restate your reply. The only bit that did make sense to me is the bit quoted above. And avoiding hurting each other based on mutual respect is exactly what this thing we call solo/8v8 is based around. And again, for the fourth time ive asked this question in different guises - who is more likely to avoid hurting each other based on mutual respect, red is dead, or those people who allow scope for fair fights and mutual respect across realms?

*edit
oh should say, im having a lot of digs at your posting style, to be blunt it is very difficult to read what your actual meaning is, but I appreciate that you are probably posting in a language which isnt your first language, so you're doing excellently on that, and perhapas its the use of similies and examples that is clouding the meaning, but that might be the mechanism you use to express your points where the precise words arn't available. That or its just your style in your native language as well!

 

[Sharkith]

Esselinithia sorry but you make no sense whatsoever. I think something is getting lost in translation.