Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 60 of 60

Thread: For Those of Us Who DON'T PvP...

  1. #41


    I make a lot of offhand jokes like that, which have seen me leaving/being kicked from 3 guilds.. and numerous enemies in other FPS games, because people dont get my humour at times.

    So foghorn it is :P

  2. #42

    ok

    Ok, so it was a joke


    ...but I have seen this opinion in people... and that was what I commented.

  3. #43

    To see with eyes unclouded...

    The newest incarnation of the "PvP vs Non-PvP" thread, huh.
    Well lots of schoolbully reactions but some good ones.
    The most interesting topic IMO is: What is so bad about excluding the non-PvP players by giving them a PvP switch, buff, whatever? They can do missions and get to places without being ganked and the PvPers can still fight each other. Thats what they want, right? Killing each other. Killing newbies or untwinked players just passing by on their way to or from a mission and running away is not what motivates a PvP, right? Its not a challenge and just griefing. So why not put such a switch in? Should make everyone happy, right? The crat buff is a good idea! (guess my prof? )
    Dont tell me its bad for roleplaying the war. This excuse is used to simply kill off whatever the game mechanics allow (I'm neutral I experience this first hand EACH TIME I wander into 25% zones).
    The roleplaying of "war" is yet to be seen in this game. So far its just ppl ambushing others at zone entry points. The PvP zones are huge and empty. I'm actually curious to see how a game that has so much in common with EQ will pull it off.

    Val (Anti-PvP and Anti-doodz)
    Xandro, neutral bureaucract

  4. #44

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggghhhhhhh

    Why is it bad to allow people to "opt out"?

    Let me say this one more time.... maybe someone will finally "get" this.

    25% ZONES ARE 25% ZONES FOR A REASON.
    25%=DANGEROUS ZONE
    25%=BEFORE GOING THERE, WEIGH THE RISK WITH THE REWARD.
    THERE IS SOME GOOD HUNTING IN 25% ZONES
    MISSIONS TEND TO HAVE GOOD REWARDS IN 25% ZONES

    If you must "opt out" how about when the player flips that "switch", they are also not allowed to enter those zones. I would be willing to accept that as a solution.

    Taking away the 25% risk from a 25% zone would be EXPLOITING.
    Why? Well, what is exploiting? Using game mechanics to take away any risk while maximizing rewards.

    This entire topic is stupid.

    If you could "opt out" why would anyone ever "opt in"?

    On second thought I might be willing to reconsider if when you flipped the switch, it added something to your name, like if I was to flip the switch, it would say "Complete Wussy Dropcid"

    -Dropcid, Lv53 retired Omni NT

  5. #45
    By the way, before my NT retired, he used to hunt Broken shores for clanners.
    Did I grid/whompa camp? NO.
    I would find people in the wild and kill them there. This is roleplaying. If there was a "switch" to flip, there would have been noone for me to hunt.
    Does killing someone in MMD make any difference to the game? NO. So, I would hunt them down in BS, thus preventing the clan from completing missions, thus leaving the clan a little weaker. This was not done to be personally mean to anyone, or because I'm some uber-dood. It was a true, pure Omni-Tek roleplay.
    If you came to Broken Shores to do missions/hunt, you ran that risk.

    -"Freshman" Dropcid, Retired lv53 Omni NT

  6. #46

    Showing your true colors

    Taking away the 25% risk from a 25% zone would be EXPLOITING.
    What you basically say is: the 25% zones are attractive and so ppl will go there and therefor be targets for PvP. And that Funcom is doing this ON PURPOSE. I think you're wrong. That would be like making this game some sort of pure gankfest. Setting up the best zones so that a minor group of players get something to hunt down and have fun while the non-PvP have to try to play despite griefers trying to kill them.
    Funcom made some mistakes in the beginning but started to correct this to AVOID exactly such situations. Best example:
    The cockpit outpost in Newland Desert. Its far from the cities in the middle of a good hunting ground and its the access to cockpit area. It has a weapon dealer, health shop, mission terminals, bank and an insurance scanner (all of this neutral= usable for all!). So its a great base for hunting sessions or missions and the entrance to the cockpit region! They made it PvP at first, so you had griefers sitting there waiting for those coming by on their way to missions or wanting to insure/shop. They changed it and it was the right decision. There are alot more ppl around there now. Before it was just like intentionally hurting players by giving griefers opportunities. This is apparently not what Funcom wants.

    If you could "opt out" why would anyone ever "opt in"?
    Mmhh I wonder. Perhaps because they like PvP and the challenge to fight other PvP (read: ppl developping and tuning a chara for this purpose)? Why do you need the ability to kill players who dont even want to fight? Is it fun to root and kill running players possibly lower in level than you? (I never was attacked by a lower level). Dont use roleplaying as a justification. Most PvP dont care at all about roleplaying when they can get an easy kill. They dont roleplay in the tells you get from them and they have names who are completely out of context.
    dOOdz dont roleplay!

    On second thought I might be willing to reconsider if when you flipped the switch, it added something to your name, like if I was to flip the switch, it would say "Complete Wussy Dropcid"
    LOL oh yes, "Freshman Dropcid". The idea that you are "badass" when you do PvP is another of those hilarious fantasies that some ppl carry around with them. Actually I appreciate the PvP titles, gives me a hint of the mindset of the player behind.

    Val
    Xandro, neutral bureaucract

  7. #47

    Re: To see with eyes unclouded...

    Originally posted by Valerian
    The most interesting topic IMO is: What is so bad about excluding the non-PvP players by giving them a PvP switch, buff, whatever? They can do missions and get to places without being ganked and the PvPers can still fight each other.
    If the non-pvpers want to be free to go over 100% of AO instead of 90% without being attacked, then pvpers should be able to fight ANYWHERE they wish (getting to pvp at 100% of AO or at least all non-cities) PvPers would be free to fight at more areas and non-pvpers would be free from being attacked

    Heck, why not just make a pvp server to fix everything? Cost to much for Funcom or something?

    Edit: The point of the game is THIS WAR GOING ON BETWEEN OMNI AND THE REBELS WITH REAL PLAYERS.

    : Also if people consider that these pvp zones seem to good, yet have a bit to much risk in going there... that's called Risk versus Reward.
    Last edited by Mor; Dec 4th, 2001 at 23:06:09.

  8. #48

    Deja vu

    (getting to pvp at 100% of AO or at least all non-cities) PvPers would be free to fight at more areas and non-pvpers would be free from being attacked
    That seems like an ideal solution. But of course this already exists including the separate PvP servers - EQ is exactly that. Now only a few ppl do PvP on the normal servers in EQ. Something similar would probably happen here. Like I said: how can a game with a setting resembling EQ get a war going worth participating? Will events, organised raids and whatnot be enough? You cannot simply, as some ppl put it, open up more zones to PvP. Forcing the playerbase to fight off PKs whenever they want to do a mission outside town would probably lead to the end of this game. Thats not a solution.
    If Funcom really wants a PvP war they have to find a way to attract more players to it. So far the balance between classes and prof/Weapon combos is still awful. They only just started reworking the different professions...
    Perhaps we will see the outcome of this when this silly amnesty is over and the actual bloodshed starts....

    Hope Funcom has someting up their sleeve.

    Val
    Xandro, neutral bureaucract

  9. #49

    Re: Deja vu

    Originally posted by Valerian


    That seems like an ideal solution. But of course this already exists including the separate PvP servers - EQ is exactly that. Now only a few ppl do PvP on the normal servers in EQ. Something similar would probably happen here. Like I said: how can a game with a setting resembling EQ get a war going worth participating? Will events, organised raids and whatnot be enough? You cannot simply, as some ppl put it, open up more zones to PvP. Forcing the playerbase to fight off PKs whenever they want to do a mission outside town would probably lead to the end of this game. Thats not a solution.
    If Funcom really wants a PvP war they have to find a way to attract more players to it. So far the balance between classes and prof/Weapon combos is still awful. They only just started reworking the different professions...
    Perhaps we will see the outcome of this when this silly amnesty is over and the actual bloodshed starts....

    Hope Funcom has someting up their sleeve.

    Val
    Let me just clear one thing up here... PvPers do not play games like EQ (for the most part). All my friends laugh at EQ and say it's for carebears and such. We don't like it, or will play on it's pvp servers. This means less PvPers in EQ. PvPers go where "good pvp" is. The sad thing is that good pvp, is in games like counterstrike and such. PvPers are looking bigtime to Neocron and Shadowbane right now for the MMORPG with good PvP.

    AOs pvp has never been great, which is why less PvPers will play it (meaning less pvp going on).

    Ways to make PvP more fun would be...

    #1) To allow team pvp titles
    #2) To add pvp rewards

    This would help so players would look to their side, be it omni or rebels, for help in the war. It would help make players all have a role in the battles (doctors and such) and make the game more fun if their side (omni or rebels) give rewards for battles won.

    Why should players get rewards for beating computer AI, and not get rewards for PvP? Funcom has done NOTHING to make PvP meaningful and fun.

    Edit: If you ask me, players should have a 50% chance to find a token on the body of a yellow enemy player. red = higher chance and green = lower. Killing your side, would be no reward chance.
    Last edited by Mor; Dec 5th, 2001 at 08:06:51.

  10. #50

    can of worms

    Ways to make PvP more fun would be...
    #1) To allow team pvp titles
    #2) To add pvp rewards
    One problem with PvP is that its about human players interacting in a game where the game mechanics have to reward you based on your actions. Thats kinda controllable when its PvM but in PvP its much more difficult.

    A PvP reward like a token would only work as long as both sides play the game as intended. The possibilities for exploiting are obvious. Thats why giving rewards for PvP is dangerous. I would start with other things:
    Make communication between factions impossible and take away identification of the enemy. No names, no talking to each other. No buffing allowed between factions. Players trading with the enemy are stripped of their PvP title or get a "traitor" title
    Healing or buffing by neutrals impossible in PvP zones. Let the system count clan or OT PvP deaths every couple of minutes in PvP locations or zones to determine the faction of that location and who can use the grid there. Make grid exits faction based. No clans should be able to grid out in enemy territory et vice versa. If you want to go deep into the heartland of the other faction to hunt or do missions you better have a good car and come in numbers.

    Val
    Xandro, neutral bureaucract

  11. #51

    Valerian

    I must start by saying I am not CURRENTLY a PvP'er.
    some of you would say that it makes my opinion worthless, but I'll post it anyway.

    RANT ALERT!!!

    Currently, I am not PvP'ing out of RP issues. As there is now a cease-fire and an amnesty, I don't think it is right to kill players of the opposite side. I think you should be able to do so, but there should be a possiblity of being punished by your own side. IF there will ever be a full war, I'll be paticipating BIGTIME. I'd love it.

    I'd love for the server to be 100 % PvP. It is part of the roleplaying that it should be so. But as I stated earlier, there should be risks in attacking people during the ceasefire. After all, it is not what Omni-Tek currently want. Those who currently attack clanners, is not wanted in Omni-tek. Read the story about the Omni Trial, if you doubt this. This should also go the other way around. If you are an Omni-tek, engaging combat with a clanner in front of the Omni Guards, you are violating Ross' orders, and are therefore not wanted.

    I like the idea of having a crat nano giving diplomatic imunity. Like you said, it adds to the roleplaying.

    I agree to what Valerian says about the names of the opposite side. Actually, I agree with A LOT of the things he has said so far. You should only be able to see someting like "CLAN", or "NEUTRAL"... Maybe not even that. There should be no way of identifying the opposition as part of a certain Guild. This would set the game right for surprise attacks from an "unknown" faction of clanners, and such.

    As of now, I think there are too many players out there (And I know I will be insulting people by saying this), who is only playing this game as another actiongame. I don't blame them, as there is not much content in here to do anything else. I'm not saying all of the PvP'ers out there are among them. But I KNOW there are a lot of young (and maybe old) players out there, who's sole purpose of playing this game, is to kill as many other players as possible. This is a MMORPG. We all know what the last 3 letters stand for.

    In fact, I would love it to be a pure 100 % roleplaying PvP server out there. This game is on the brink of being destroyed, due to its inability to pull players into the story. I see lots of fancy happenings, and read about them, but I don't care.

    Seems I'm about to change subject. Think I'll stop right here.
    I'll go to some "we need more events" and post the rest


    Vilbo

  12. #52
    AO story is a war so before buying the game everybody should know that fighting other players is expected. If you are not ready to deal with it then you should play a pvm mmorpg. That's exactly what players who like to pvp do : they don't buy and play games where they can't kill other players (unless they also like to pvm; I do from time to time).

    Also for those who begin (low level players), most zones are 75% gas and there's absolutely no risk of being pked. If you happen to be killed as a newbie, it's called learning experience and unless you are stupid you generally get the point and don't repeat the same mistake. Dying repeatedly from other players at low level is just asking for it, you are the only one responsible and to blame.

    At higher level, the most interesting zones are 0% or 25% but it shouldn't be a problem for the following reasons :
    - Twinking is not an issue anymore because almost everyone has high QL equipement. Fights are a lot more fair.
    - If you are level 100+ it means you have a good experience with the game mechanics so unless you are a newbie who bought his character on ebay there's no reason you can't defend yourself against another player. Fighting another player is nothing more than fighting a npc with a brain. If you keep dying it means you are the one with the IQ of a computer controlled mob (it may be the reason those players tend to whine and complain like 10yo children).
    - Group in dangerous zones, your chances to survive as a team will be a lot higher (and who doesn't group after lvl100 to do missions or hunt?).
    - It's only a game and you have to be out of your mind to expect to win everytime. Only kids don't get it generally and end whining.

    To conclude, there's absolutely no excuse to complain about being pked in AO. If you do, you just don't belong to this game.

  13. #53

    Angry Prejudices come true?

    AO story is a war so before buying the game everybody should know that fighting other players is expected. If you are not ready to deal with it then you should play a pvm mmorpg. That's exactly what players who like to pvp do : they don't buy and play games where they can't kill other players (unless they also like to pvm; I do from time to time).
    Where does Funcom state that this is a PvP game? Its an RPG around a conflict but thats the storyline. In fact PvP is just a small fraction of what is AO. All those huge game zones, towns, equipment, clothes, clubs, tradeskills, missions, monster hunting etc. are just a backdrop for a PvP game? Are we playing the same game? PvP is just an option used by a minority of players in AO as far as I can see. The setting is not that different from EQ. This is about roleplaying. I guess Shadowbane or Neocron are more PvP oriented. -> More shoot less talk!

    . Fighting another player is nothing more than fighting a npc with a brain. If you keep dying it means you are the one with the IQ of a computer controlled mob (it may be the reason those players tend to whine and complain like 10yo children).
    Nice one. Tells other ppl about how bright your little light is shining in the dark. (get this guy a candle)

    Val (if this game was a "PvP game" there would be 500 subscribers and it'll cost 40$/month to play)
    Xandro, neutral bureaucract

  14. #54
    First of all I've never PvP'd not because I have anything against it, mostly I havent gotten around to trying it yet.

    The point is, the balance at the moment is about right. 25% zones add a lot to the interest of the game. I love going places like 2HO/4 Holes where I know I might walk into the middle of a takeover or I might find the place deserted.

    I know where the save terminals are, I know I always have a choice where and when to go. I like things the way they are, especially with the grace period.

    OK, so I've been jumped a few times... big deal, I've been killed by red mobs running to missions a lot more often.

    Now, anyone wanna teach me to PvP?


  15. #55

    pvp, rp, and 25% zones

    Overview:

    RP - this is an roleplaying game based on a MILITARY CONFLICT between the clans and omni-tek to determine who will rule Rubi-Ka. It always has been, and always will be unless a third party intervenes like aliens or cyborgs or a common threat.

    PVP - because this is a MILITARY CONFLICT and the players CHOSE SIDES, pvp is inevitable. In most areas pvp is impossible due to suppression gas...except for in the political zones.

    25% zones - this is the only place to pvp except for arenas. these are hottly contested areas that clans and omnis attack eachother over.

    -----------------------------

    if you don't want to pvp, stay out of political zones. this would be consistant with role play. it doesn't matter if you are an "innocent" clanner or omni running through a 25% zone. if an enemy character sees you, he WILL attack you. that is the nature of war.

    do you think that a pakastani soldier could just run through cashmir guns in hand because he wanted to go shopping at a certain store without the threat of being shot by an indian soldier, or vice versa?

    someone stated on this thread that who ever says "stay out of 25% zones" misses the point of the non-pvp whiners. i say, NO...you are missing the point.

    this is a war, if you don't want to get shot stay out of the places where you can get shot. while this game is not build around pvp, it is an aspect of the game that is fully integrated into the RP storyline, and you non-pvp'ers will have to deal with it...and stop whining about it.

  16. #56

    Re: pvp, rp, and 25% zones

    Originally posted by Borrace
    Overview:

    RP - this is an roleplaying game based on a MILITARY CONFLICT between the clans and omni-tek to determine who will rule Rubi-Ka. It always has been, and always will be unless a third party intervenes like aliens or cyborgs or a common threat.

    PVP - because this is a MILITARY CONFLICT and the players CHOSE SIDES, pvp is inevitable. In most areas pvp is impossible due to suppression gas...except for in the political zones.

    25% zones - this is the only place to pvp except for arenas. these are hottly contested areas that clans and omnis attack eachother over.

    -----------------------------

    if you don't want to pvp, stay out of political zones. this would be consistant with role play. it doesn't matter if you are an "innocent" clanner or omni running through a 25% zone. if an enemy character sees you, he WILL attack you. that is the nature of war.

    do you think that a pakastani soldier could just run through cashmir guns in hand because he wanted to go shopping at a certain store without the threat of being shot by an indian soldier, or vice versa?

    someone stated on this thread that who ever says "stay out of 25% zones" misses the point of the non-pvp whiners. i say, NO...you are missing the point.

    this is a war, if you don't want to get shot stay out of the places where you can get shot. while this game is not build around pvp, it is an aspect of the game that is fully integrated into the RP storyline, and you non-pvp'ers will have to deal with it...and stop whining about it.
    You know, for a clanner, you're not half-bad. Ever thought about taking up a position within Omni-Tek? We could use more intelligent individuals like yourself.

    -D
    -First Order-

  17. #57

    Taking out the edges

    RP - this is an roleplaying game based on a MILITARY CONFLICT between the clans and omni-tek to determine who will rule Rubi-Ka. It always has been, and always will be unless a third party intervenes like aliens or cyborgs or a common threat.
    Hmm, actually the game world is a planet with colonists on it leading on their lives. The conflict (and its not just a military c.) is in the storyline, its NOT the game itself. Thats what sets an RPG appart from games like counterstrike where you just "roleplay" a fighter going against another fighter PERIOD. To reduce AO to the fighting isnt doing the RPG idea here justice.
    I agree that PvP can add to the game and might be even necessary for the storyline at some point, but its not the basic aspect.

    PVP - because this is a MILITARY CONFLICT and the players CHOSE SIDES, pvp is inevitable.
    Sure is evitable. Like right now for example there is a ceasefire and an amnesty in effect. There should be no fighting right now. At least OT being a highly organised and totalitarian organisation should act according to OT regulations you would think.

    this is a war, if you don't want to get shot stay out of the places where you can get shot. while this game is not build around pvp, it is an aspect of the game that is fully integrated into the RP storyline, and you non-pvp'ers will have to deal with it...and stop whining about it.
    Its not a war. Right now at least it isnt. I agree with the rest of the statement, but just want to add that lots of the "whining" from non-PvP players is not about the fact that there is pvp in the game but what PvP actually looks like in the game right now. Due to how alot of players are acting and due to how its integrated into the game mechanics. Way to go.

    Val
    Xandro, neutral bureaucract

  18. #58

    !

    I dont PvP, and never will.
    This f***ing PvP has brought on so many nerfs that I will NEVER PVP!

  19. #59

    val

    i'm a lev 55 advent still using pistols 8*)

    if they institute that 'over equipment' nerf...i'm toast.

  20. #60
    I admit PvP is fun...even being jumped on by 4 groups of people at the 2ho grid is fun. I've never once trash-talked when I was ganked, fairly or unfairly except to one agent whose AS only did 50 odd against me.

    MA's are weird class in PvP. If...IF...we get our hands on an opponent, we'll hurt. Root an MA, all over red rover...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •