Twitch Upcoming!

We're delaying our Twitch till AFTER a very specific KS update. You'll know what one, we'll talk about the twitch in the update. We need all hands to get this one ready.
Which still means something good is coming.
https://www.twitch.tv/missingworldsmedia

Rotty's stream ended.
Check him out at right here

Probably incoherent ramblings of an ex-PvPer from a small and dead game.

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
possiblysilit
possiblysilit's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 12 months ago
Joined: 10/26/2013 - 14:46
Probably incoherent ramblings of an ex-PvPer from a small and dead game.

Yo. After I stopped PvPing, some red names asked why. This was around the time one of them made that really long "Why don't you PvP?" thread.

I typed it off the top of my head like two years ago, so it's probably not the smoothest read, and it's pretty long.

Oh, and I put it into a google docs link as not to screw with the formatting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M9llRKnlROmJf5DnI0uMmmrjSqj2voOKH6-DFpv5Hgw/edit?usp=sharing

I probably won't play your game, as I'm not a big MMO person these days, but, good luck!

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
That's an interesting read. I

That's an interesting read. I can certainly see how, for a game like CoT, it will be a challenge to make the many possible builds equivalent in PvP. Thanks for the post.

(I never did understand from where the idea behind jumping around came (it seemed quite popular in WoW, as well). I can see the use in a FPS type of game, but in most MMOs it makes no sense. Hit 'tab' and the other person is targeted, no matter how many bunny hops per second they can perform.)

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Warsong
Warsong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
Joined: 10/16/2013 - 08:44
I always find it amazing how

I always find it amazing how nerfing powers/game mechanics in use for YEARS are always seen as the solution, and in a game about being a SUPERhero of all things! More amazing is the hubris and indifference these corporate devs showed when their customer's brought well thought out and articulated opinions and then grievances on the changes made to their oftentimes primary style of play, pvp . I mean they would rather LOSE HUNDREDS of devoted pvp players in hopes of getting players, WHO ARE ALREADY PLAYING THE GAME to start pvping all of a sudden??? By dumbing(and I mean REALLY dumbing) it down no less? I mean WTH? Before i13 I thought I'd spend the rest of my coh days slowly tricking out my wp/em tank and pvp'n in RV, that was til someone started passing around that "WoW is popular because it's simple, so let's dumb things down to get players to play" Kool-Aid I guess! What a frickin joke! I'm just glad the PLAYERS are finally taking control of their own destiny and taking it out of the hands of dipstick devs like those.

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
Thanks for posting that.

Thanks for posting that. Everything you discuss are points I try to make about PvP in general in MMORPG's. There are in my view a number of fundamental disconnects in game design between an RPG-style game and a PvP system that PvP'ers would actually want to keep playing. It's not by accident that PvP leagues persist in FPS-style games or in games designed from the ground up for PvP.

A game that tries to be like CoH with hundreds of powerset combos and millions of build options, has no chance to ever be balanced across even a majority of those.

This for me is the money quote:

Quote:

I have no desire to PvP in a game that doesn’t reward skill. I have no desire to play a game that is almost impossible for a new player to pick up - not because it’s hard, but because it would literally take hundreds of hours of gameplay just to create a viable pvp character.

This is probably the most serious disconnect between a PvP system and an MMORPG-style game. RPG's give progressive rewards for effort. That means that over time the barrier to entry to the end game is ever higher to the point that a new player won't want to make the effort necessary to cross it. .

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Darth Fez wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:

... it will be a challenge to make the many possible builds equivalent in PvP.

I say this but it occurs to me, is this really necessary?

Everyone can agree that in PvE some builds will perform better than others in one situation or another. For the most part, if a character can't defeat an EB or AV alone the response is to accept the situation and look for help to defeat that enemy.

Why not admit that it will be the same in PvP: some builds will require a team to have any success in PvP while others will perform well on their own? After all, fighting another player in PvP is not comparable to smacking around some mooks or LTs in PvE.

Agreed:

HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

This for me is the money quote:
Quote:
I have no desire to PvP in a game that doesn’t reward skill. I have no desire to play a game that is almost impossible for a new player to pick up - not because it’s hard, but because it would literally take hundreds of hours of gameplay just to create a viable pvp character.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

possiblysilit
possiblysilit's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 12 months ago
Joined: 10/26/2013 - 14:46
You're on the right track,

You're on the right track, Fez.

Basically, in a team based multi-class system, you're going to have specialists, and maybe some generalists. In CoH, a scrapper was more or less a generalist. Things like blasters and defenders fell more into the specialist category. I'm pretty sure the old AT descriptions even reflected that.

In PvP, it wasn't much different. If you were a healer, you needed a team to heal. Sure, an emp was really survivable on its own, but it could get a lot more done with a team. Could a blaster wreck face solo? Absolutely, but much more so when it had some buffers and defbuffers at its side.

Power sets within the ATs follow the same rules. Pre-i13, a fire/em blaster was an all or nothing ranged damage machine that specialized in team PvP. An Elec/Elec blaster was a slower paced damage dealer, that supplemented its lack of burst damage with endurance drains, and specialized in 1v1s against characters who relied on lots of toggles and had a relatively inconsistent damage output (scrappers, tankers, brutes).

Every powerset/AT doesn't need to be equivalent, but every powerset/AT should have it's place. Not everything needs to be optimal, but everything should be viable.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
That was a very good read.

That was a very good read. But I think if pvp want more attention they should stop trying to run people off with the "accecpt my trash talk and profanity or leave" attitude. Because many people will simply leave and thus it becomes a small group. Although they probably know the ins and out of PVP, when the community speaks and give opinion on what should be done, many will go from the bad experience they had, which could end up bad changes over all for pvp. i.e i13 even when the small group of pvpers protest. Instead be welcoming willing to show new people the ropes, and make people want to come back not "Man, that was frustrating I aint never going back there." feeling.

Because smaller the group of course it wont get much attention compared to the more popular pve side. Thus that is why pve got many updates over a few issues than PVP ever got in just about 20 issues. Not enough players to put heavy resources in.

Me personally, I preferred pre- I13 pvp. Before I 13 each build has it's ups and downs. A brute comes in running the joint tossing around defenders like no tomorrow to get murked by a blaster who then gets murked by the stalker who gets murked by the defender who gets murked by the brute. After I13, Who ever hops around the most and high tails it back to base faster.

But then on the flip of the coin landing on the other side, some people confuse viable with optimal. On a team anything and everything is viable especially when the opponent is out numbered and the tactic is simple zerging the less populated side. Ya can go in with brawl and be viable and be on a team that out number the other side 4 to one and be viable. Do that mean a toon only with brawl is viable in pvp? Depends on how it's looked at.

People tend to go towards what they think is optimal and that becomes the popular. Blasters and stalkers. COX pvp rarely was epic battles. Usually the fight is over in 3 or five seconds thus builds with high burst damage were optimal because after a few second of fighting, the one with the least health is high tailing it back to base anyways. Thus if ya cant kill in a few hits, it's great chance they will get away. Then when the optimal builds are known, then it usually shortly followed by those are the only viable builds then followed by playing anything else in pvp is gimping ya self. Kind of like in PVE a blaster that isn't focusing on aoe damage was commonly said to be self gimping, even though they are viable in other areas that regular blasters wouldn't be.

syntaxerror37
syntaxerror37's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/24/2013 - 11:01
Thanks for sharing that.

Thanks for sharing that. Bitterness in it aside (and I don't blame you for that), It is a good look at what went wrong with a PvP system. I understand now why PvPers were so upset with the i13 changes, and though it's late, I'm sorry I called you guys "whiners" back in the day.

-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!

The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame

Sentry
Sentry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/03/2013 - 18:48
If anyone had skipped over

If anyone had skipped over the Google document, I would really suggest at least going back to skim it. I think it details the history of PvP and what went wrong very nicely.

I came into the PvP scene much later than a lot of the others. I only had the honor of meeting Silit (and playing with him) near the end of the game, but I was always aware of his role as a founder in PvP's history and progression. What surprised me the most was how this player who hadn't been around for a couple years seemed to understand the game even more than I had. I foolishly thought all the old players would come back to PvP and be rusty or outdated; but I was very wrong. I think that document he's prepared has a lot of value that we won't find anywhere else.

That being said, I agree with him completely. The more I learned about the game, the more I realized how chaotic everything was. Nobody knew what they were doing. We didn't have enough man-power or incentive to figure out the system. Instead of complex strategies and meta, it was usually a 6 Blasters/2 Healers team, and I never thought that was actually making use of an 8-man lineup. I knew there were more effective rosters, and they didn't rely on gimmicks that only worked once, but I could never find one. Too many possibilities, not enough time to test, mostly theorycrafting; but making 8 characters (With accolades/incarnates) specifically to test a theory wasn't going to happen.

Silit, when the time comes I hope I can contact you, and a couple other of the big names from CoH, to suggest or criticize the PvP system here at CoT.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 47 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Since I was actively playing

Since I was actively playing in Issues 2-4, and got to see the Arenas go up ... I always wondered what the deal was. It was almost as if Cryptic, and the Paragon Studios afterwards was always allergic to follow up on their own initiatives. I remember how in Issue 3, the idea that adding PvP to CoH was going to make the game incredibly popular because PvP was THE thing to have!

And then the Arenas went up in Galaxy, Talos Island and Peregrine Island ... and they were just big empty buildings that seemingly no one visited. You could go inside of them, and there was no one there. It was like opening up an international airport and not having any planes landing or taking off.

Cryptic basically did the same thing with the Shadow Shard. They made these incredibly beautiful new zones, gave them a whole story and the Rularuu and everything ... and then just let them ROT until dragging Darren Wade in for a surprise "I'm Smarter Than GOD!!!" storyline that had more holes in it than a lump of swiss cheese (or The Hollows, come to think of it).

Time and again, Cryptic, and then later Paragon Studios, would introduce something awesome ... and then pretty much never do anything with it ever again. Just about the only exception to the "rule" I can think of was the Incarnate System, and all THAT seemed to do was put Power Creep on overdrive and break off the key in the ignition. Bare minimum, MWM needs to be able to make decisions about what they want to commit to LONG TERM as far as development and content creation goes, because constantly chasing after the "next new thing" just leaves behind a detrius of a lot of discarded "old things" that never get fixed up. Irony of ironies, it appears that this kind of thing still holds true for Cryptic with how they treat a variety of aspects of Star Trek Online ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Lord Nightmare
Lord Nightmare's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 48 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 15:44
Darth Fez wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:

That's an interesting read. I can certainly see how, for a game like CoT, it will be a challenge to make the many possible builds equivalent in PvP. Thanks for the post.
(I never did understand from where the idea behind jumping around came (it seemed quite popular in WoW, as well). I can see the use in a FPS type of game, but in most MMOs it makes no sense. Hit 'tab' and the other person is targeted, no matter how many bunny hops per second they can perform.)

Amazed no one explained why so far

SEE back in the original release of WoW until Burning Crusade, bunny hopping WAS faster. In fact it was about 125% faster than regular running. So you could catch up to people on their mounts and essentially massacre them. This eventually was fixed so that you still traveled 100% speed when you jumped, but you just went a bit off the ground. However the playerbase and even the mind thinks that real world physics must be at work, so you MUST be going faster. BC changed a lot of stuff, like did you know Taurens didn't have a mount but instead got on all fours?

Revenge is motivation enough. At least it's honest...

Roleplayer; Esteemed Villain

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
TheMoreYouKnow.jpg

TheMoreYouKnow.jpg

I did know that taurens were initially intended to be their own mount, as it were, although I was unclear if that had made it into the game or not. (I wonder if any tauren players are peeved that the worgen now have this and they no longer have access to it?)

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
Lord Nightmare wrote:
Lord Nightmare wrote:

Darth Fez wrote:
That's an interesting read. I can certainly see how, for a game like CoT, it will be a challenge to make the many possible builds equivalent in PvP. Thanks for the post.
(I never did understand from where the idea behind jumping around came (it seemed quite popular in WoW, as well). I can see the use in a FPS type of game, but in most MMOs it makes no sense. Hit 'tab' and the other person is targeted, no matter how many bunny hops per second they can perform.)

Amazed no one explained why so far
SEE back in the original release of WoW until Burning Crusade, bunny hopping WAS faster. In fact it was about 125% faster than regular running. So you could catch up to people on their mounts and essentially massacre them. This eventually was fixed so that you still traveled 100% speed when you jumped, but you just went a bit off the ground. However the playerbase and even the mind thinks that real world physics must be at work, so you MUST be going faster. BC changed a lot of stuff, like did you know Taurens didn't have a mount but instead got on all fours?

That changed during Beta. It was never the case during live.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

Lord Nightmare
Lord Nightmare's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 48 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 15:44
Ah.. I see. XD Always mess up

Ah.. I see. XD Always mess up somewhere when I talk about WoW, I apologize

Revenge is motivation enough. At least it's honest...

Roleplayer; Esteemed Villain

Grouchybeast
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/02/2013 - 02:57
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

This for me is the money quote:
Quote:
I have no desire to PvP in a game that doesn’t reward skill. I have no desire to play a game that is almost impossible for a new player to pick up - not because it’s hard, but because it would literally take hundreds of hours of gameplay just to create a viable pvp character.
This is probably the most serious disconnect between a PvP system and an MMORPG-style game. RPG's give progressive rewards for effort. That means that over time the barrier to entry to the end game is ever higher to the point that a new player won't want to make the effort necessary to cross it. .

First of all, I should say up front that I was never a PVPer, so forgive me if this is something that's already been talked about and dismissed for perfectly good reasons.

If one of the big barriers to people getting into PVP is the PVE work required to build the character for it, is there any reason why it would be a horrible idea to let people build characters solely for use in PVP? Let people pick the character level, pick the powers, maybe even pick all the enhancements they want (or most of them, and have the highest level ones purchasable with some kind of PVP Merits, as a purely PVP reward), and just jump straight into PVP.

Obviously, those characters wouldn't be usable in PVE content, because it would destroy the concept of reward-over-time. But the longevity of the game for PVP players is the evolving challenge of playing against other people -- plenty of first person shooter games exist without the requirement to spend huge amounts of time building every character up from scratch. It seems like people spend a lot of time emphasising that PVE players shouldn't be forced into PVP content, without also acknowledging that PVP players might not want to be forced to play through the PVE game yet again to get the PVP character they want.

---

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for? - Robert Browning

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
You're on the right track I

You're on the right track I believe.

Any advantage you can grind for is not a reflection of skill. A skill-based game needs to eliminate or greatly abbreviate the acquisition phase.

I'd suggest something along the lines of PvP characters that have all the same build options and PvE characters but are restricted to PvP zones (if any) and Arenas.

Using CoH terminology, one could pick pools and enhancements and at whatever game level PvP takes place. You wouldn't have to get any random drops nor craft anything, you just pick off a menu. Imagine having an interface like Mids but when you're done, there's the character.

This will probably never satisfy those who like PvP grinders like Aion, but I'd ask that person why they're even here. Kinda like the guy in a Hami raid who wouldn't shut up about how much he liked SWG. Really, if that's what you like, PLAY IT, vaya con dios.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

This will probably never satisfy those who like PvP grinders like Aion, but I'd ask that person why they're even here. Kinda like the guy in a Hami raid who wouldn't shut up about how much he liked SWG. Really, if that's what you like, PLAY IT, vaya con dios.

That question should be asked to a lot of the ex-coxers that is in CO on the forums and in game constantly dissing the game about how COX is better or COX did it this way or they need to do it like COX, or this game sucks cox was better and on and on and on. And although it gotten worse since COX closed it been going on even before COX was closed or even announced ot be closed.

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
Same question I ask anyone

Same question I ask anyone playing X who can't stop talking about Y in game.

There are doofs who just like to stir up trouble everywhere you go.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

Same question I ask anyone playing X who can't stop talking about Y in game.
There are doofs who just like to stir up trouble everywhere you go.

Indeed.

possiblysilit
possiblysilit's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 12 months ago
Joined: 10/26/2013 - 14:46
For the record, I wasn't

For the record, I wasn't saying that jumping was useless; only that most people jumped very inefficiently/pointlessly.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Sorry Sentry, I had to

Sorry Sentry, I had to comment on this:

Sentry wrote:

I came into the PvP scene much later than a lot of the others. I only had the honor of meeting Silit (and playing with him) near the end of the game, but I was always aware of his role as a founder in PvP's history and progression.

He had no role as a founder in PvP's history and/or progression. Silit hailed from the same server that I did (Protector). He was a duelist for a long time and wasn't involved in team based pvp for most of the early period. If I remember correctly, he was picked as one of Protector's PVPEC server reps but he never showed up for the meetings or conducted events, clinics, etc. like the rest of us. IIRC he wasn't part of the ladder that featured Velocity, Old School, Blacklisted, etc. Maybe around i12? or even later he got involved in some winning tournament teams.

Silit's main contribution to pvp was to be one of those people that constantly disparaged other players. Even now, years after the game ends, he resurfaces to remind pretty much everyone else how bad they are. Read Silit's mission statement from the last league:
http://ware.guildportal.com/Guild.aspx?GuildID=427640&ForumID=2056013&TabID=3643786&Replies=0&TopicID=9863761

From the look of it, his pathological need to gently and self-deprecatingly inform people about the horrible badness of other players remains unabated. Thank god he has some outlet for it lol.

possiblysilit
possiblysilit's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 12 months ago
Joined: 10/26/2013 - 14:46
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Sorry Sentry, I had to comment on this:
Sentry wrote:

I came into the PvP scene much later than a lot of the others. I only had the honor of meeting Silit (and playing with him) near the end of the game, but I was always aware of his role as a founder in PvP's history and progression.
He had no role as a founder in PvP's history and/or progression. Silit hailed from the same server that I did (Protector). He was a duelist for a long time and wasn't involved in team based pvp for most of the early period. If I remember correctly, he was picked as one of Protector's PVPEC server reps but he never showed up for the meetings or conducted events, clinics, etc. like the rest of us. IIRC he wasn't part of the ladder that featured Velocity, Old School, Blacklisted, etc. Maybe around i12? or even later he got involved in some winning tournament teams.
Silit's main contribution to pvp was to be one of those people that constantly disparaged other players. Even now, years after the game ends, he resurfaces to remind pretty much everyone else how bad they are. Read Silit's mission statement from the last league: http://ware.guildportal.com/Guild.aspx?GuildID=427640&ForumID=2056013&TabID=3643786&Replies=0&TopicID=9863761
From the look of it, his pathological need to gently and self-deprecatingly inform people about the horrible badness of other players remains unabated. Thank god he has some outlet for it lol.

Pretty much.

Sentry
Sentry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/03/2013 - 18:48
Maybe I've confused him with

Maybe I've confused him with someone else, it has been a year now. Or maybe I haven't.

That being said, being toxic or mean to new players doesn't mean a person isn't right about something. There's a lot of truth is what he's said.

Dragon_King
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 11/05/2013 - 08:49
To me PVP has always been a

To me PVP has always been a game of rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock. Meaning not everything out there is going to be the end all be all stalwart. Balance is a tricky thing and in COX PVP was bolted on and was not developed with the main game from the ground up. CoT may be able to mitigate balance issues if PVP grows with it instead of being added as an after thought.

Fire Away
Fire Away's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 4 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 09:05
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Since I was actively playing in Issues 2-4, and got to see the Arenas go up ... I always wondered what the deal was. It was almost as if Cryptic, and the Paragon Studios afterwards was always allergic to follow up on their own initiatives. I remember how in Issue 3, the idea that adding PvP to CoH was going to make the game incredibly popular because PvP was THE thing to have!
And then the Arenas went up in Galaxy, Talos Island and Peregrine Island ... and they were just big empty buildings that seemingly no one visited. You could go inside of them, and there was no one there. It was like opening up an international airport and not having any planes landing or taking off.
Cryptic basically did the same thing with the Shadow Shard. They made these incredibly beautiful new zones, gave them a whole story and the Rularuu and everything ... and then just let them ROT until dragging Darren Wade in for a surprise "I'm Smarter Than GOD!!!" storyline that had more holes in it than a lump of swiss cheese (or The Hollows, come to think of it).
Time and again, Cryptic, and then later Paragon Studios, would introduce something awesome ... and then pretty much never do anything with it ever again. Just about the only exception to the "rule" I can think of was the Incarnate System, and all THAT seemed to do was put Power Creep on overdrive and break off the key in the ignition. Bare minimum, MWM needs to be able to make decisions about what they want to commit to LONG TERM as far as development and content creation goes, because constantly chasing after the "next new thing" just leaves behind a detrius of a lot of discarded "old things" that never get fixed up. Irony of ironies, it appears that this kind of thing still holds true for Cryptic with how they treat a variety of aspects of Star Trek Online ...

Thanks for saying this; it really hit home with me. Make no mistake about it... I loved and was a devoted CoH player. We have met and I know you were too. But CoH wasn't the Utoipia that some people have made it out to be this past year (don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you got til it's gone).

Anyway, you can add base raids to this list. Despite exploitive bases and some very poorly done mechanics, base raids were some of the most fun I ever had playing CoH for the brief time they were around. But what always won out in the end with CoH devs was anything like base raiding pvp wasn't "worth fixing"... especially when there were so many other voices in the community saying stuff repeatedly like "I don't pvp therefore resources should not be spent on pvp." I'm not sure CoT can avoid this attitude... many of the same cast are still around. It's way too early to tell. But I was very glad to see the op's (and your) post and the topic honestly discussed.

GH
GH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 10/13/2013 - 08:49
PvP attracts some of the

PvP attracts some of the worst types of people. It also brings out the worst in a whole bunch of normal types.
And of course it makes PvE'ers downright hysterical.

It's not just about providing PvP but also about providing the management to deal with the people who PvP and that seems to be where it all goes wrong.

Back to retirement.

If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
GH wrote:
GH wrote:

PvP attracts some of the worst types of people. It also brings out the worst in a whole bunch of normal types.
And of course it makes PvE'ers downright hysterical.
It's not just about providing PvP but also about providing the management to deal with the people who PvP and that seems to be where it all goes wrong.

I say that prejudice displays the worst in any people. The internet tends to be a hotbed of vitriol and posts exploiting prejudice only makes it worse.

Before gaming was on the internet the social gaming structure (gaming with the people in your living room) even in PvP has been shown to be dependent on the players. The difference of the internet is that people tend to hystericize their opinions and self identify with complex arguments without the complexity of thought such a decision SHOULD require.

PvP is not a problem and thus does not deserve to be treated as a "problem". Player behavior is a problem and Systems Balance is a problem. Lets find solutions for THOSE without waving the "I hate PvP" banner.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 47 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
/em waves "I hate PvP Players

/em waves "I hate PvP Players because of Balance!" banner

;P


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
JayBezz wrote:
JayBezz wrote:

GH wrote:
PvP attracts some of the worst types of people. It also brings out the worst in a whole bunch of normal types.
And of course it makes PvE'ers downright hysterical.
It's not just about providing PvP but also about providing the management to deal with the people who PvP and that seems to be where it all goes wrong.

I say that prejudice displays the worst in any people. The internet tends to be a hotbed of vitriol and posts exploiting prejudice only makes it worse.
Before gaming was on the internet the social gaming structure (gaming with the people in your living room) even in PvP has been shown to be dependent on the players. The difference of the internet is that people tend to hystericize their opinions and self identify with complex arguments without the complexity of thought such a decision SHOULD require.
PvP is not a problem and thus does not deserve to be treated as a "problem". Player behavior is a problem and Systems Balance is a problem. Lets find solutions for THOSE without waving the "I hate PvP" banner.

I think a solution to the first problem player behavior, and I think it can be simple or hard depending on man power, is simply rule enforcement as tight or tighter than the rule enforcement on the pve side of the house. There is no point in writing rules tha tcover how players are expected to act then simply not enforce them and say "well, it's pvp."

People will always test the fence line. And when they figure out nothing happens, no matter what the rules says, they eventually will stick a toe over the fence line. Then when nothing happens, then a leg, then half the body then full body, then anything goes. But when players realize that something will happen, then they are less likely to cross the line simply because they can. Some will, but they should be around in a temporary manner and on their way out for a bit and not be there day after day after day breaking every rule written in the book that they clicked "I agree to" each time they load up the game with the game makers turning a blind eye to it, and other players simply shrugging and saying, "well it's pvp." That is how the negative image of pvp and pvp players got started with. Mostly with people that are decent acting folks, simply shrugging and or jumping on people that say "something isn't right about that guy's/gal's behavior". They call it whining. Then they have the gall to turn around and get upset when people have negative view of PVP. Well no fish. When people are allowed to run amok with total disregards to the rules and even the people just give up and accept it as "pvp behavior" and or that is how pvp is supposed to be, then of course a negative view will be taken. Then the side effect of that is that then people will start one upping. Taking it further and further under the excuse of "well this is pvp. Don't like it, don't pvp." while adding to the negative stereotype of pvp and pvp players.

There are some decent acting pvp players out there, that is fact. But many are not helping the problem at all by also simply turning a blind eye and silently accepting that type of behavior which indirectly supports that type of behavior. While only getting upset about it when someone have a negative view of pvp due to those types that give a bad name to pvp and pvp players, some that probably should have been banned a long time ago, according to the rules that have been written and would have been banned if they just happened to act like that in a pve zone.

Even before internet gaming, when people had to go to other people's houses. The type of behavior that many pvpers do and get away with, they would have been kicked out, asked to not come back or worse end up hurt in hospital and in worst case dead. AKA, the house owner laying down the law, which seems that many game makers, are either afraid to, don't have the man power to, or simply don't know how to lay down the law of their own house. It's like inviting someone over and saying don't break the china and don't smoke. The first they do is knock over a vase and light up a cigarette. If you stick to your word and get them out of there. They either will not come back or when they come back they will follow the rules. Or if a person does nothing, then they will come back and smoke, break stuff and now muddy up the rug. Eventually, they might simply move in and bring along a few smoking buddies and see how far they can go before the foot is laid down.

Of course with online people do get a lot braver overall. A lot of the way that people act online, they wouldn't dream of doing so in person face to face, although granted, a lot of stuff have to do with simple misunderstanding no non-verbal social cues, and real world situations and fluctuations. So a simple statement can seem warm and fuzzy to one and degrading and condescending to another. And thus people fill in with assumptions of what the person meant and tone based on how they feel about the person. If they don't like the person, then anything they say no matter what will be viewed as hostile. But the same thing can be said from a buddy and it's viewed in a positive light.

Either way short version, behavior problem can be easily solved with simple rule enforcement. If it's written, enforce it. If people are not supposed to be cursing and insulting other players, like it says in most online game rule set , which is usually followed by, this may cause banning without refund, then enforce it or it's no better than telling a kid to be in by 1am but when they come in at 2 am, not a single thing happen. The rule become as toothless and worthless as the AR coving sex positions a soldier is allowed to do with their spouse. That rule is still on the books, but not enforced and is nothing but a running joke. Nothing to be taken serious. But drug policy, which is enforced and come up hot on a piss test, most soldiers that care about their career stay away from the drugs. But that goes for any rules if they didn't enforce the drug rule and no piss test, then more people would test the waters until they decide to go swimming.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Sure that's fine. Get the

Sure that's fine. Get the mods to swing the ban hammer hard on any pvpers that curse or use insulting language. But in the interest of fairness, apply the same standards to the pve side of the game. See how well that goes over with the playerbase. I played cox from launch and pvped from the time the arenas were added. The most explicit and/or offensive conversations I encountered took place in large pve gatherings like Hammi raids or player hangouts like Atlas park.

Cox had a profanity filter by default. You could ignore people and you could turn off zone chat at will. The Devs largely turned a blind eye to a lot of bad language in pvp because players had the means to deal with it themselves--and it would be pretty hypocritical to harass pvpers and not ban pvers who used similar language and were far more prevalent based on population distribution.

Bear in mind that the jack-booted utopia you're envisioning would not prevent some feral tweenie from squashing your pixels and saying something like "haha nub get wrecked." Although it would just take you a couple seconds to ignore them.

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
I think a lot of the player

I think a lot of the player behavior problem in PvP could be resolved by not allowing players in PvP maps/instances to speak outside of teams. No local chat, no zone chat.

Build parity is important to me as well as it is most people and I advocate for all roles and builds to be efficient. But I already welcome the eventuality that many may not be happy with the end result. This is why i hope there is a real mathematic AND intangible baseline.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Sure that's fine. Get the mods to swing the ban hammer hard on any pvpers that curse or use insulting language. But in the interest of fairness, apply the same standards to the pve side of the game. See how well that goes over with the playerbase. I played cox from launch and pvped from the time the arenas were added. The most explicit and/or offensive conversations I encountered took place in large pve gatherings like Hammi raids or player hangouts like Atlas park.
Cox had a profanity filter by default. You could ignore people and you could turn off zone chat at will. The Devs largely turned a blind eye to a lot of bad language in pvp because players had the means to deal with it themselves--and it would be pretty hypocritical to harass pvpers and not ban pvers who used similar language and were far more prevalent based on population distribution.
Bear in mind that the jack-booted utopia you're envisioning would not prevent some feral tweenie from squashing your pixels and saying something like "haha nub get wrecked." Although it would just take you a couple seconds to ignore them.

well actually the mods did patrol and enforce the rules pretty well in pve side of the house. PVP, it was barren of moderator control. So in reality it's the PVP side that needs to be caught up with the PVE side of enforcement.
And I'm not simply talking about only language. I'm talking about behavior too.

In short, yes I agree, BOTH sides should be enforced equally. Not only enforce the rules PVE side like it has been done in COX and not enforce any sort of anything short of someone death threat to the person in PVP.

And apparently there should be something more than a simple ignore function and more enforcement of the rules. Or else what was the point of even having rules? Why not write, Warning-entering online. People will curse you, grief, and make your playing experience as miserable as possible and we, the devs don't give crap. Ignore them and shut the hell up." That would be better than writing rules and great many of them and don't have the nuts to enforce them in PVP but go into PVER swinging the ban hammer like there is no tomorrow. Then wonder why PVP ended up a dead zone.

But givent the rules were there in reality it should be that that sort of behavior that breaks the written rules should nto be allowed, not that people should be allowed to break the rules and it's the victim's fault for being the target. Just as easily as people say they could just ignore them, it's just as easy to act like they have some semblance of common sense and a brain that functions beyond who mom they are screwing.. AKA the action should not have to fall on the shoulder who are following the stated rules but the action should fall on the shoulder of the person breaking the rules. If they cant follow the rules, they should be the ones that should not be allowed to partake and or they should be the ones leaving the zones. Not the victims or target.

It's not about crating a utopia, it's about creating a space where people can come in and have fun so I have more people to kill besides the same old few that sit in there all day running everyone away while cursing the PVERs for ruining PVP when in fact THEY ruined PVP. Not the PVERs. If it wasn't for their nutcase behavior, people would have been willing to try and may have liked PVP more instead of being ran off with a bad taste in their mouth. And to get revenge of course they will vouch for anything that further erodes PVP or fight against development for pvp, due to their bad experience caused by those few PVPers that are not mature enough to follow simple rules, and act like apes and ruining it forever body and the other PVPers that wish to simply PVP. Win or lose, that doesn't mean someone have to act like total jerk about it. PVP doesn't equal jerk. It's jus that a few are trying their damned hardest to make sure as many people as possible think that PVP is nothing but a cesspool of crass immature pimple faced basement dwellers that make themselves feel better for the moment by talking trash and insulting people and inability to take responsibility for their ow actions. Always someone else fault. "Well if he don't want to be insulted, he should ignore me." well if he don't like me acting like a jerk, he should leave." "I was bent over a chair and beaten wit ha stick so if they don't like my insults, they should stop playing," When in reality, they are not keeping up their end up their agreement that they clicked "I agree too" and thus the yare the ones that should be sat aside until they can learn to behave Instead of being allowed to ruin an entire system with their behavior and give it a bad name.

Like with any public space in the real world. If someone don't follow the rules of the court, they don't remove everyone else. They remove the belligerent. In clubs, they don't tell everyone else to leave for the actions of someone that is acting a fool due too much drink, they remove the offender. In grocery store, they don't tell the customers to not shop there because someone feel like harassing other shoppers, they remove the harasser. Or if someone here on this forum started to curse at and say they are screwing everyone moms and acting like an ape, it's not up to everyone else to leave and give up the forum to the ape. No, the ape get the mod hammer and dealt with. Same concept should be applied in the game PVP zone AND PVE, equally, and effectively. The problem. Turning a blind eye or closing the eye to the problem only encourages that type of behavior and encourages the person to take it new levels and not solve the issue at hand. Or if

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
JayBezz wrote:
JayBezz wrote:

I think a lot of the player behavior problem in PvP could be resolved by not allowing players in PvP maps/instances to speak outside of teams. No local chat, no zone chat.

That could work especially if there is no moderators that care to enforce the rules stated and like thye enforce it in pve.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Like with any public space in the real world. If someone don't follow the rules of the court, they don't remove everyone else. They remove the belligerent. In clubs, they don't tell everyone else to leave for the actions of someone that is acting a fool due too much drink, they remove the offender. In grocery store, they don't tell the customers to not shop there because someone feel like harassing other shoppers, they remove the harasser. Or if someone here on this forum started to curse at and say they are screwing everyone moms and acting like an ape, it's not up to everyone else to leave and give up the forum to the ape. No, the ape get the mod hammer and dealt with. Same concept should be applied in the game PVP zone AND PVE, equally, and effectively. The problem. Turning a blind eye or closing the eye to the problem only encourages that type of behavior and encourages the person to take it new levels and not solve the issue at hand. Or if

Unlike the grocery store or the bar, in cox you had the power to disable offensive people at will: the ignore command. Or turning off the zone chat for the pvp area. You haven't explained why these functions, which were put into the game to deal with these types of situations, are not sufficient.

Also, pvp was not barren of moderator control. From my experience, they were far more active there than in pve areas.

Regardless, the whole issue of the success of pvp resting on behavioral issues and moderation is a joke. I pvped in COX, Warhammer, GW2, SWTOR, and the Secret World. The only place where "bad pvper behavior" was a big deal in discussions of the game was COX. Probably because the arenas were inoperable for several issues and never expanded upon. They never even got the tournament system working.

So for most people, the experience of pvp was going to a large zone were there was no real purpose other than deathmatch style pvp (with no real reward or way to determine victory). These were design issues that needed to be dealt with, not a failure to moderate.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

jag40 wrote:
Like with any public space in the real world. If someone don't follow the rules of the court, they don't remove everyone else. They remove the belligerent. In clubs, they don't tell everyone else to leave for the actions of someone that is acting a fool due too much drink, they remove the offender. In grocery store, they don't tell the customers to not shop there because someone feel like harassing other shoppers, they remove the harasser. Or if someone here on this forum started to curse at and say they are screwing everyone moms and acting like an ape, it's not up to everyone else to leave and give up the forum to the ape. No, the ape get the mod hammer and dealt with. Same concept should be applied in the game PVP zone AND PVE, equally, and effectively. The problem. Turning a blind eye or closing the eye to the problem only encourages that type of behavior and encourages the person to take it new levels and not solve the issue at hand. Or if

Unlike the grocery store or the bar, in cox you had the power to disable offensive people at will: the ignore command. Or turning off the zone chat for the pvp area. You haven't explained why these functions, which were put into the game to deal with these types of situations, are not sufficient.
Also, pvp was not barren of moderator control. From my experience, they were far more active there than in pve areas.
Regardless, the whole issue of the success of pvp resting on behavioral issues and moderation is a joke. I pvped in COX, Warhammer, GW2, SWTOR, and the Secret World. The only place where "bad pvper behavior" was a big deal in discussions of the game was COX. Probably because the arenas were inoperable for several issues and never expanded upon. They never even got the tournament system working.
So for most people, the experience of pvp was going to a large zone were there was no real purpose other than deathmatch style pvp (with no real reward or way to determine victory). These were design issues that needed to be dealt with, not a failure to moderate.

It's not sufficient because one it's merely closing the eyes to the rule breaking and not dealing with the problem and thus the rule breaker have no incentive to stop. It's basically an excuse for the offender to continue their bad behavior. Kind of like Saying ,just ignore them they do not know what they are doing, except in this case most of the time they know exactly what they are doing .Two, in the rules it states that that type of behavior is not allowed and says that moderators will deal with it and not, "If a person grieve harass, insult, pulse profanity, it's up to the person to ignore them." The ignore function should be a tool to use as a measure to keep it going in the meantime while the get around to the case not as a replacement for moderation or thus it should be stated that there is no moderation or rules. Ignore is like plugging up the ears to the offender. Like yes in a grocery store, a person can stick two fingers into their ears, go down a different isle, and other things that seem to be suggested for the people the target of that behavior but it don't solve the issue and in real life it's not expected to solve the issue. Because the behavior is still continuing. And like in real life, sometimes the offending behavior goes beyond simple chat channel.

Since i7, I never once heard of a moderator or someone getting banned due to pvp behavior or one even in a pvp zone but seen and heard many in the pve zones and seen and heard about people getting banned, a few forever for certain behavior, even though everyone could have ignored them, pve side, while I seen much worse behavior let by pvp side with not even a simple warning or the person was simply acting like they never got a warning.

Arena not operating was part of it, but not the entire issue. I still think rule enforcement is very important and simply ignoring the behavior don't work. It just make them bolder and take it further because like I said earlier, reason why COX pvp became known as a cesspool and basically barren was because you had the offenders that is continuously there day after day then you had people that defend them and blame the victim although they themselves did not partake in the activities. Zone pvp could have been a lot better even for pvpers if more rule enforcement was into play. Then with a working Arena, it probably would have been epic. I think this is the second shot now. But no matter what options or how good it is, zone or arena, if the rules say one thing, and the enforcement is nill, then no matter what the rules say, people of some are not going to follow them. And people that follow the rule will be left wondering why there is no rule enforcement and what was the point of writing them if the mods are not going to do anything about it. It's like coming in here or most forums where the rules say respectful but there is problem person and the mods do nothing. Even though people mostly can ignore them, it don't stop the behavior at all and no matter the amount of topic or features, it takes a toll to the point eventually that with all the topics or features, it's a brren wasteland of wasted dev. cost and time because no one new sticks around and only af ew people haning about which give a greater view of concentrtation of bad offenders. which then drive more new people way and it keeps going.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
You're turning the problem of

You're turning the problem of potential harassment into a social justice issue centered around rule breaking. I don't know if you played with a group of Mormons or what, but the people I knew ingame constantly used profanity and had inappropriate conversations about sex and other off-topic subjects. This was because it was a game, and most of them were blowing off steam after work. If you're advocating a slavish, by-the-book enforcement of the EULA it's going to affect far more pvers than pvpers.

If you never heard of anyone in pvp getting getting banned, then I have to assume you didn't pvp much. There were always people getting banned. And this also developed into something of a problem, because trolls would incite people to nerdrage and then complain about it to the moderators in a premeditated effort to get them banned. A friend of mine got banned one time because he was standing next to an arena terminal joking with another member of our sg. They made the mistake of talking in local chat. Nobody intended to harass and the recipient was not offended. But someone from a rival group overheard and petitioned my friend for harassment and he got a temporary suspension.

In contrast, the only people that I remember getting banned in pve was due to exploits or in a few cases griefing. And the one guy I knew who got a temp ban for translating the raid leaders commands, at a Hammi raid, into Spanish.

Some people are offended by trash talking, some are not. If you have a thin skin about that sort of thing you can do everybody a favor and use /ignore and/or turn off zone chat. I knew many people who did just that and never had a problem. The obsession with punishing people that diss you is just going to lead to money wasted on excessive moderation and headaches for the mods.

And the truly dismal aspect of this line of conversation is that it does nothing promote good pvp. It's a concern about a symptom of a failed system. If you took cox pvp and somehow made everyone respectful--it wouldn't have made a difference. I can't state that conclusively, but I did run pvp clinics as part of the PVPEC where I tried to teach people how to pvp in the most gentle way possible. No hostility. No farming weak players. Lots of positive feedback about how to improve. It did not work. The attitudes were not the issue--the system itself was the issue.

The solution is simple: make good pvp. Make pvp games that are fun and appeal to a wide section of the playerbase. That's it. Moderation is then trivial because people aren't bored, bitter, and prone to talking crap.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

You're turning the problem of potential harassment into a social justice issue centered around rule breaking. I don't know if you played with a group of Mormons or what, but the people I knew ingame constantly used profanity and had inappropriate conversations about sex and other off-topic subjects. This was because it was a game, and most of them were blowing off steam after work. If you're advocating a slavish, by-the-book enforcement of the EULA it's going to affect far more pvers than pvpers.
If you never heard of anyone in pvp getting getting banned, then I have to assume you didn't pvp much. There were always people getting banned. And this also developed into something of a problem, because trolls would incite people to nerdrage and then complain about it to the moderators in a premeditated effort to get them banned. A friend of mine got banned one time because he was standing next to an arena terminal joking with another member of our sg. They made the mistake of talking in local chat. Nobody intended to harass and the recipient was not offended. But someone from a rival group overheard and petitioned my friend for harassment and he got a temporary suspension.
In contrast, the only people that I remember getting banned in pve was due to exploits or in a few cases griefing. And the one guy I knew who got a temp ban for translating the raid leaders commands, at a Hammi raid, into Spanish.
Some people are offended by trash talking, some are not. If you have a thin skin about that sort of thing you can do everybody a favor and use /ignore and/or turn off zone chat. I knew many people who did just that and never had a problem. The obsession with punishing people that diss you is just going to lead to money wasted on excessive moderation and headaches for the mods.
And the truly dismal aspect of this line of conversation is that it does nothing promote good pvp. It's a concern about a symptom of a failed system. If you took cox pvp and somehow made everyone respectful--it wouldn't have made a difference. I can't state that conclusively, but I did run pvp clinics as part of the PVPEC where I tried to teach people how to pvp in the most gentle way possible. No hostility. No farming weak players. Lots of positive feedback about how to improve. It did not work. The attitudes were not the issue--the system itself was the issue.
The solution is simple: make good pvp. Make pvp games that are fun and appeal to a wide section of the playerbase. That's it. Moderation is then trivial because people aren't bored, bitter, and prone to talking crap.

Well no I didn't play wit ha group of Mormons and yes I pvp very much. Especially between issues 7 and 11, 12 kind of waned off a bit, i13 off and on.

There isa difference between normal trash talk and taking it too far. Of course both are subjective. The thing is with anything, a joke among friend may be be funny but towards others it may be offensive and it's not always the victim that is over reacting .In many cases, the reaction is appropriate by the victim. The issue lies is not "hey your momma sucks "human sausage" and the the target goes, "Hey man that is not funny." with the initiator going "my bad, no offense intended." and the show goes on. Usually people don't stop even when they offend and instead dig in further and take it further. then that is when it is apparent it not simple trash talk and intent on enjoyment both way and instead the intent is simply to piss and insult people and it when beyond simple trash talk jabs. Usually it end up even after the initator is told that what tey are saying is offensive, they dotn lay off and instead take it to mean to take the offensive even further. It'sd not about having thin skin.

Many people have no idea about the art of trash talk. Trash talk is not simply going around throwing insults just to throw insults. It's about knowing the target. Sure, in some groups, there are players who don't care what kind of insults are thrown or their friends actions. In another group, it may be viewed as greifing and harassment. Same action different target. And sometimes it's easy to cross the line. Usually people will say so. Now what happens afterwards makes the difference between trash talk that someone accidentally crossed the line and crossing the line with intent to insult and act an ape. And in many cases I seen, it's not about growing thicker skin for the victim. It's easy to say when not on the receiving end, but how many people grew thicker skin when people was saying get over the closing of the game? Not many. Many took offense to it. And of course the ones that seen no big deal thought the way many players reacted to the closing was over reacting and should grow thicker skin or stay out of the mmo genre. And many people that are saying people in PVP should grow thicker skin, are very guilty of having very thin skin as viewed by some when it came to the subject of the game closer and moving on, especially prior to Dec. 1st 2012.

As you say, some people take offense to trash talk some don't depending on the subject as certain subject affect people different. Just like some were able to move on very soon after the announcement many still to this day haven't gotten over it. And it's ok. It's natural. The thing is if someone trash talk, and they find the target is getting offended, it's easy to simple apologize or at the very least lay off and trash talk to someone that may not find it too offensive. But unfortunately many people don't do that and at that point it isn't simple trash talk anymore. Maybe they do need to grow a thicker skin maybe they don't who can say because depending on the subject, many people even here have shown thin skin in certain areas and definitely didn't react too kindly when people told them to get a thicker skin about the closing subject.

And the example you used, was still one the PVE side of the house in the regards of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about in PVP zones themselves.

And o I'm not advocating slavish by the book enforcement. I'm advocating that there should be some sort of actual enforcement that is based on the rules. I rather them not even bother even writing the rules if they do not intend on enforcing them, pvp and pve side alike. But seeing that the rules have been written in COX case, then someone cant say their behavior is not breaking the rules excuse. it just wasn't being enforced and that did more damage than anything and will continue to do damage if allowed regardless of how good the pvp mechanic is. Because the main thing that pvp entails is player to player interaction fo some sort even more so than PVE. This mean this player to player interaction have an even greater effect on the fun level of pvp. Many pvp complaints in the COX forum didn't focus on the mechanic of pvp but on the player behavior that was allowed to take over the pvp zone and although the rules say it is not supposed to be allowed, it was allowed by the moderation team. Even in the game world pvp realm the one of the biggest complaint why many people avoid pvp as they stated wasn't about mechnics but the people that tend to roam pvp zones and their behavior. . A game can have the greatest pvp mechanics in the world but it doesn't mean anything if there is nothing or no one to fight or pvp with because the few apes made it their job to run and turn off people from it with their behavior that went beyond simple trash talk with impunity.

And as I said, blowing off steam or not, the key is to know the target. It's one thing to do it among friends, and make off color jokes, but that doesn't mean just because the group of friends the person just happen to be in find it ok or funny, means that everyone else should find it funny or else grow thick skin. And as I said, sometimes a person don't know, but from what I seen, when a person say they are bothered by that sort of talk, racist comments and jokes, sexual comments, and etc, directed at tem, the person don't leave it alone they instead intensify their racial comments and sexist jokes and other insulting subjects. And that is not trash talking that is simple being a jerk just to be a jerk. Most people that actually know how to trash talk would have simply left it alone and or find another way to trash talk. ANd again, trash talk doesn't always have to be about crazy subjects directed at everyone and anyone.

Even in real life, there are some group of friends we can talk about girls and what we would do all day and no issues. But another group may find it disturbing and it would be uncouth to totally dismiss and belittle their view and place mine as above and the standard and tell them to grow thicker skin when I could and probably should simply not go there when I know they may be offended. Because dismissing someone view and telling them to grow thicker skin is basically telling them their feeling are not important and my feeling is above theirs and what I find and don't find offensive is final word and their view on what they find offensive is petty and insignificant. Which in itself is an insult to them.

But as I aksed quite afew times, with no answer, if the mods cant or wont enforce the rules, then why not simply just get rid of them. And let people know, "the rules don't apply to pvp, and it's free for all and anything goes? That way a person know what the yare walking into, and know what is expected and the rules or in this case lack of rules that is supposedly being enforced. Instead of players, especially new ones seeing the rules then get ran out of it and end up adding to the divide and tension between pvp players and pve players and adding fuel to the stereotypes tha ta certain few seem intent on making sure it looks true.

Kind of like here and on COHtitan. There are forum rules. What would those mean if they not enforced. And if enforcement is not needed and it is truly depended on the player and the victim to ignore, then what is the point of the moderator? I always thought it was to prevent people how want to act like apes from making the forum toxic. So why not enforce the rules in pvp to prevent the pvp areas from becoming toxic? And here, they are not ban hammer happy, but when people get out of line, mod tend to step in and at least say cool it, so that it wont get out of hand. What is wrong with that for a moderator to do that in a pvp zone? From the activity levels here and cohtitan, and even with rule enforcement it don't look like a depressing state of a forum simply because there are rules and the apes are not allowed to run amok. Or if there shouldn't be no rules in pvp and it's up tot he victim to protect themselves, then why have rules elsewhere I nthe game? why have rules in PVE? Then if behavior rules are not or should not be enforced, then why enforce any rules? Why enforce exploit rules, hacking rules? Why not simply leave the entire game rules less and players left to defend for themselves? I think there is a point of rules and rules have it's place. When they are not enforced, it can die, like pvp did in COX.
And when pvp dies, then it's even harder to convince that resources should be spent on the mechanics when there are people being allowed to run players from it, hindering the return of investment on the time and of implementing features. Especially when many players end up with bad taste of their mouth from those apes and take out their frustration on voicing against pvp due to it. Which would be more of a waste than simple moderators that are already there looking at PVP cases and actually taking action.

PVP can be fun, but with a little bit more rule enforcement, it can be great and more enjoyable for more people. Even most sports have rules. Sure football watching, without rules may be fun at first but then when players start to get needlessly injured, players refusing to play or show up to games at all, or refusing to play against this team or that team or allowed to stab each other in the name of a touch down, then the time and money saved on ridding of the referees is lost as people get tired of it being lawless. And yes in most sports some sort of trash talk is allowed but crossing the line may get players ejected. Rule enforcement.

I think pvp can be fun and can be done without people acting like complete apes. It's just sad some people cant separate PVP from that type of behavior and think it is one in the same. Like I said, though, those same people that say, well just ignore them, or grow thicker skin. I wont call no names, but many of those people didn't grow thicker skin or used too much of their advice of ignore when it came to the closing when people was saying cox deserved to be shut down, or get over it, or move on, or it was just a game. They got more upset than some people they claimed in pvp that should have grown a thicker skin. It's funny how they think their feelings are king and how they feel is righteous and everyone else that find their behavior offensive is always over reacting and should ignore and grow thicker skin when it comes to something that upsets them, they cant follow their own advice. That just shows different thing affect people in different ways and just because it affects one group of people in one way and another group different, it doesn't mean one group feeling is right and the other group is over reacting should grow thicker skin and get over it. Because as things that have happened, majority of the people here on this forum and COX forum have something online that bothered them too and didn't take too kindly to people belittling their feelings like they are quick to do when it comes to pvp.

Trash talk- Test the subject out on the person. If they take to it, then ya in the green. IF they take offense.

Back off. Just as much as you may be releasing steam after work, so they may be and insulting them isn't making it better.

Trash talk with different approach, or way. Sometimes a simple My bad, no offense meant relieves lots of tension.

Trash talk- know the subject and have different trash talk subjects. Keep it funny and not personal. No one like to hear about how other players want to screw their mom in the tight orifices when she is laying up ina hospital fighting for her life. "Well how am I supposed to know their mom is hurt?" Ya don't, and thus either should ask or simply don't assume the mom stuff especially the heavy stuff will fly. Start light and easy. Remember keep it funny.

Trash talk- the person seem tense. Leave them tense leave them alone. don't add fuel to the fire.

Trash talk- Best if not only used when ya defeat people. Then really come off as a douche without realizing it. Trash talk, when standing around trash talk when defeated, trash talk when entering zone, trash talk when having a laugh and keep it funny and not personal until ya get to know the subject.

Trahs talk- best to avoid some subjects, religion, politics, family. If it something you wouldn't say to a person in real life, then it probably not a good thing to say online.

Trahs talk- remember tone is hard to convey sometimes. Sometimes the reaction to when someone say they find it offensive can make a difference between "ok, it happens" and 'Ok you rae doing it on purpose now." Telling them to grow thicker skin usually don't win anyone over and if trash talking comes after that statement then it really look like, you know they are offended, but you don't care and doing it simply to offend them. At this point it's no longer trash talking and plain simple trolling.

It's a thin line, and not always clear at times but it's easy if one get good at social cues and not go intehre wit hthe attitude of "well I don't find it offensive so anyone that do need to grow thicker skin" then yeah, it really make things tense and come off as a person is there simply to being a troll.

All this from pvping through out the years and observing how people react to different ways of trash talk and interaction.

In reality those that don't seem to pvp much are the ones that cant see or understand that what is ok to one group may be offensive to another. That looks like in reality they are the ones that either don't go to social events much, interact with people much or simple do interact with people and hold the view that their view is supreme. AKA narcissism complex. I don't know but if they pvp often but still don't get that people have different threshold of what is offensive and what is not and their view of what is offensive is not right and anything view otherwise is wrong and over reacting or need to grow thicker skin, is either lying about their pvp experience and mostly stayed only within a few group of people or really are suffering from narcissism complex or simply maybe a bit of a sociopath.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
You could really benefit from

You could really benefit from some editing. A few points:

Your whole stance seems to rest on the idea that there was no moderation in pvp zones. This is just false. There was quite a bit going on all the time.
The thing about moderation is it involved receiving a complaint, finding and checking the logs for the incident, putting it in context of other comments going on at the time, checking the player's history of complaints, and then deciding what the punishment would be. At which point they would contact the person in private. It's quite possible that no one would know they received a ban unless they told other people and word got around.

I've been pvping in SWTOR for a couple years. I've never interacted with a mod in pvp or known anyone that got a ban. I'm not naïve enough to assume that there are no moderators covering pvp because I haven't seen anything.

Quote:

In reality those that don't seem to pvp much are the ones that cant see or understand that what is ok to one group may be offensive to another. That looks like in reality they are the ones that either don't go to social events much, interact with people much or simple do interact with people and hold the view that their view is supreme. AKA narcissism complex. I don't know but if they pvp often but still don't get that people have different threshold of what is offensive and what is not and their view of what is offensive is not right and anything view otherwise is wrong and over reacting or need to grow thicker skin, is either lying about their pvp experience and mostly stayed only within a few group of people or really are suffering from narcissism complex or simply maybe a bit of a sociopath.

Or maybe some people don't have the maturity to use something like ignore. Maybe it bothers them the offender can still talk unheard or that the offending person did not get sufficiently punished for their heinous acts. They take little avatars jumping around and beating up on each other extremely seriously and hearing someone mock them on top of it is just too much to bear. Ignore be damned, they just have to have the game company ensure that other players are punished for insulting them.

Maybe I'm a sociopath. Or maybe you got so deeply butthurt in a pvp zone some time that you are still working through the trauma to this day.
Either way, the rational thing to do is look at current MMOs that feature pvp and take note of the respective health of their pvp communities, as well as the relationship between pvp and pve. For the ones that are successful, are the company's moderation policies/participation more or less the same--or somehow radically different. My bet is that moderation of player behavior is pretty standard across the board. The key to success lies in design and implementation.

This is a red herring.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

You could really benefit from some editing. A few points:
Your whole stance seems to rest on the idea that there was no moderation in pvp zones. This is just false. There was quite a bit going on all the time.
The thing about moderation is it involved receiving a complaint, finding and checking the logs for the incident, putting it in context of other comments going on at the time, checking the player's history of complaints, and then deciding what the punishment would be. At which point they would contact the person in private. It's quite possible that no one would know they received a ban unless they told other people and word got around.
I've been pvping in SWTOR for a couple years. I've never interacted with a mod in pvp or known anyone that got a ban. I'm not naïve enough to assume that there are no moderators covering pvp because I haven't seen anything.
Quote:
In reality those that don't seem to pvp much are the ones that cant see or understand that what is ok to one group may be offensive to another. That looks like in reality they are the ones that either don't go to social events much, interact with people much or simple do interact with people and hold the view that their view is supreme. AKA narcissism complex. I don't know but if they pvp often but still don't get that people have different threshold of what is offensive and what is not and their view of what is offensive is not right and anything view otherwise is wrong and over reacting or need to grow thicker skin, is either lying about their pvp experience and mostly stayed only within a few group of people or really are suffering from narcissism complex or simply maybe a bit of a sociopath.
Or maybe some people don't have the maturity to use something like ignore. Maybe it bothers them the offender can still talk unheard or that the offending person did not get sufficiently punished for their heinous acts. They take little avatars jumping around and beating up on each other extremely seriously and hearing someone mock them on top of it is just too much to bear. Ignore be damned, they just have to have the game company ensure that other players are punished for insulting them.
Maybe I'm a sociopath. Or maybe you got so deeply butthurt in a pvp zone some time that you are still working through the trauma to this day.
Either way, the rational thing to do is look at current MMOs that feature pvp and take note of the respective health of their pvp communities, as well as the relationship between pvp and pve. For the ones that are successful, are the company's moderation policies/participation more or less the same--or somehow radically different. My bet is that moderation of player behavior is pretty standard across the board. The key to success lies in design and implementation.
This is a red herring.

From what I seen moderation in most other pvp areas of the game are a bit more strict and thus it runs more smoothly. When stuff get out of hand, the moderator is right there. *Pop* sometimes the guy disappears. And usually thep layers are more behaved and the pvp zone is more populated. And when the same person is acting an ape day after day after day and not all or even most was directed at me. I'm not naïve to think that it must only affect me me me me in order to recognize it's an issue.

And no it's not about banning. IT's about rule enforcement. Banning isn't the only way.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
If the same person was being

If the same person was being an ape day after day after day, why did you not have them on ignore?

So are you suggesting that moderators should be actively observing pvp zones/matches so that they can be right there to punish infractions? And if that's the case, should they also be actively monitoring pve zones/missions so that they can likewise police the rules? How many people do you think they should staff for this?

Quote:

I'm not naïve to think that it must only affect me me me me in order to recognize it's an issue.

But you are assuming that this is an issue for other people. And for reasons not clearly understood ignoring the jerk or disabling zone chat is not an option for them either.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

If the same person was being an ape day after day after day, why did you not have them on ignore?
So are you suggesting that moderators should be actively observing pvp zones/matches so that they can be right there to punish infractions? And if that's the case, should they also be actively monitoring pve zones/missions so that they can likewise police the rules? How many people do you think they should staff for this?
Quote:
I'm not naïve to think that it must only affect me me me me in order to recognize it's an issue.
But you are assuming that this is an issue for other people. And for reasons not clearly understood ignoring the jerk or disabling zone chat is not an option for them either.

Nope mostly just suggesting they do something about those types of people.

I thought about putting may of those people on ignore and I did, you would have flipped around and said and asked, then how do I know what hey are saying?

Well I'm not assuming anything. Like I said, I experienced it, listened, observed. Many people complained about the problem especially when the game was running many times about COX PVP. I asked people, some that I used to see in zones, and some said it was because there was nothing being done about those type of people. And a few times I experienced it first hand.

I never said disabling chat zone was not an option and thus probably reason why you cant understand it. But you seem to think that the behavior should be ok and it's the fault of the victim.

In reality, people should not be forced to have to disable chat zone, and potentially miss out on the good stuff due to a few people's apish behavior. And also as I said earlier, ignore can be used, but it shouldn't be a substitute for moderation. Because what I gather from what you are saying it should be the responsibility of the victim and the offender should not be held accountable or even have to take responsibility for their actions even if they are breaking the rules and the reporting system is moot and shouldn't be used.

All I'm saying is that moderators is supposed to enforce the rules, which I thought was their purpose. If not and it's left to the victim to defend themselves, then why have them, anywhere? Like, in forums with ignore buttons, as you say, it's up to the victim to ignore the person and thus basically allow the ape to control whether or not they can see chat zone or other channels, and there is no reason people should be accountable for their own rule breaking behavior. Which then from what I gather from you and the question I ask, then what is the point of the rules in the first place if they are not meant to be enforced and people are not expected to follow them at all and it's the victim's fault for being the target? Hell, then what is the point of moderators PVE side, or even on the forums that have ignore feature if ignore is supposedly y supposed to be that efficient and it's up to the victim themselves to take action and not the moderators? Or even rules period?

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Quote:
Quote:

Nope mostly just suggesting they do something about those types of people.

Based on the assumption that they DIDN'T do something about harassment, which is false.

Quote:

I thought about putting may of those people on ignore and I did, you would have flipped around and said and asked, then how do I know what hey are saying?

What? If you had them on ignore you wouldn't have received communication from them, correct? What's your point?

Quote:

Well I'm not assuming anything. Like I said, I experienced it, listened, observed. Many people complained about the problem especially when the game was running many times about COX PVP. I asked people, some that I used to see in zones, and some said it was because there was nothing being done about those type of people. And a few times I experienced it first hand.

Actually this is a point that undermines the credibility of your argument. The pvp experience your discussing is zone pvp. Not arena. Not base raids.

I pvped from the beginning, with the addition of the arenas. That initial period was probably the highest level of participation in pvp. And there wasn't the animosity between pvers and pvpers. On my server, after the weekly Hammi raids, I organized arena nights for the people that wanted to stick around and pretty much everyone had a good time. At the height of things, players organized server vs. server arena battles on test server. Anyone who had a desire to participate was encourage to come out and represent their server.

Now out of all the possible reasons why pvp declined, if I accept your thesis that unmoderated "apes" ruined pvp I have to assume that:
1. Jerk personalities somehow inexplicably became more potent after COV was introduced.
2. The moderators just arbitrarily decided to not bother addressing pvp complaints. This is particularly odd, given all the extra effort of the community reps to organize the PVPEC, promote and offer prizes for pvp events, etc.

Rubbish.

Quote:

In reality, people should not be forced to have to disable chat zone, and potentially miss out on the good stuff due to a few people's apish behavior.

And apparently it's too much to ask to ignore a few people? I can sympathize with people who have been harassed. But the tools are provided to the players to remedy most situations. When people have this sense of entitlement that they "shouldn't have to do something" they are working to the detriment of EVERYONE else's benefit by consuming staff time.

Yes, there are people who clearly should be petitioned and reprimanded. Then there are grey areas. Then there are bogus petitions. The more of a glut there is, the longer it's going to take for any serious matter to be addressed.

Quote:

All I'm saying is that moderators is supposed to enforce the rules, which I thought was their purpose. If not and it's left to the victim to defend themselves, then why have them, anywhere?

You keep throwing this strawman up. I'm not arguing against the enforcement of the rules. I have good reason to believe they DID enforce the rules. You're just not being realistic about how that moderation would play out IMO.
And some higher degree of moderation, if that were even feasible, would have done nothing to solve the problems that plagued COX pvp.

Sentry
Sentry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/03/2013 - 18:48
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

yes I pvp very much. Especially between issues 7 and 11, 12 kind of waned off a bit, i13 off and on.

Could I ask what your global name was? I should be able to recognize the most active players from i13 to the end.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Quote:
Nope mostly just suggesting they do something about those types of people.
Based on the assumption that they DIDN'T do something about harassment, which is false.
Quote:
I thought about putting may of those people on ignore and I did, you would have flipped around and said and asked, then how do I know what hey are saying?
What? If you had them on ignore you wouldn't have received communication from them, correct? What's your point?
Quote:
Well I'm not assuming anything. Like I said, I experienced it, listened, observed. Many people complained about the problem especially when the game was running many times about COX PVP. I asked people, some that I used to see in zones, and some said it was because there was nothing being done about those type of people. And a few times I experienced it first hand.
Actually this is a point that undermines the credibility of your argument. The pvp experience your discussing is zone pvp. Not arena. Not base raids.
I pvped from the beginning, with the addition of the arenas. That initial period was probably the highest level of participation in pvp. And there wasn't the animosity between pvers and pvpers. On my server, after the weekly Hammi raids, I organized arena nights for the people that wanted to stick around and pretty much everyone had a good time. At the height of things, players organized server vs. server arena battles on test server. Anyone who had a desire to participate was encourage to come out and represent their server.
Now out of all the possible reasons why pvp declined, if I accept your thesis that unmoderated "apes" ruined pvp I have to assume that:
1. Jerk personalities somehow inexplicably became more potent after COV was introduced.
2. The moderators just arbitrarily decided to not bother addressing pvp complaints. This is particularly odd, given all the extra effort of the community reps to organize the PVPEC, promote and offer prizes for pvp events, etc.
Rubbish.
Quote:
In reality, people should not be forced to have to disable chat zone, and potentially miss out on the good stuff due to a few people's apish behavior.
And apparently it's too much to ask to ignore a few people? I can sympathize with people who have been harassed. But the tools are provided to the players to remedy most situations. When people have this sense of entitlement that they "shouldn't have to do something" they are working to the detriment of EVERYONE else's benefit by consuming staff time.
Yes, there are people who clearly should be petitioned and reprimanded. Then there are grey areas. Then there are bogus petitions. The more of a glut there is, the longer it's going to take for any serious matter to be addressed.
Quote:
All I'm saying is that moderators is supposed to enforce the rules, which I thought was their purpose. If not and it's left to the victim to defend themselves, then why have them, anywhere?
You keep throwing this strawman up. I'm not arguing against the enforcement of the rules. I have good reason to believe they DID enforce the rules. You're just not being realistic about how that moderation would play out IMO.
And some higher degree of moderation, if that were even feasible, would have done nothing to solve the problems that plagued COX pvp.

And you're basing it on they did enforce the rules, which in my experience is false. It isn't too much to ask to ignore people but I'm saying that ignore shouldn't not be the only method and that is it because that do not always remedy the situation. Sometimes griefing goes beyond simple chat and verbal stuff.

The point is, whether or not I had them on ignore, right now is basically a no win. If I had them on ignore there would be nothing to observe. and it would be guessing. Without ignore I could actually see and observe better. And thus I did.

And yes, talking about mostly zone pvp. I did Arena a few times early on, and few base raids didn't so thus I cant speak was about what went on in the arena pvp and only the experience I noticed and the experience of other people that I know and talked to and my observation. Now you can call it rubbish all day simply because you didn't see it or disagree, but I know what I saw and if you don't want to have discussion about it and already made up in your mind it's rubbish then there is no point in discussing this because you think what you think and I know what I saw and observed.

And that is not strawman, you are purposely avoiding it and basically suggesting it. You already said even in you reply now, ignore is supposed to be the end all solution to the situation and it's up to the players to use it. And I'm not ONLY talking about simple chat stuff. You just chose to single focus on that one thing. I'm talking about the other stuff like harassment, griefing and other things that go beyond chat. Most of that stuff isn't solved with a simple ignore the chat zone. And yes I seen many people do stuff to harass without saying a single word and nothing is done about it. Maybe you seen them enforce the rules and have good reason to believe they did. That is fine. But I haven't seen any sort of that and thus have good reason to believe they did not force the rules from my observations and experience. But over all COX is dead and this is a new game.

All I'm saying, is that hopefully in CoT the moderators will enforce the rules and not leave the players solely to defend themselves, which you are saying they should do with the ignore. Defend themselves- Have to take action on their own without expectation of any further action or investigation into the matter. Which you say will waste resources, suggesting it's not feasible, and would do nothing to solve the problem. I don't see, how it's strawman, you basically yourself validated the point of what I was saying about leaving the victim to defend for themselves right there with that point. But maybe you seen moderation in your experience, but I didn't. Maybe there was maybe there wasn't, but the entire point is that I hope they do some moderation in CoT and not leave the player to defend themselves only with an ignore button and think that is sufficient to solve the problem as you are suggesting. Because if the ignore button and it's up to the player to defend themselves, then there shouldn't be any written rules or statement in the EULA, the agreement, that there will be rule enforcement or moderation and it's up to the players to solve the problem among themselves. Because contrary to your belief, moderation is possible, it has been proven because they were pretty common in PVE. If the moderation do not have enough people, as I said a few times already, they could simply just abandon the rules and say that PVP is a free for all no holds barred no rues zone. Because then, with no rules, there is no expectation to enforce the rules.

I didn't realize though it was unrealistic though to expect that rules that have been written to be enforced. That is news to me. I think it is unrealistic to think the ignore button as you suggested is the end all solution to the issue though when in many cases, the cases are more complicated than that.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Sentry wrote:
Sentry wrote:

jag40 wrote:
yes I pvp very much. Especially between issues 7 and 11, 12 kind of waned off a bit, i13 off and on.

Could I ask what your global name was? I should be able to recognize the most active players from i13 to the end.

Jaguar40x

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Quote:
Quote:

And you're basing it on they did enforce the rules, which in my experience is false. It isn't too much to ask to ignore people but I'm saying that ignore shouldn't not be the only method and that is it because that do not always remedy the situation. Sometimes griefing goes beyond simple chat and verbal stuff.

Yeah, I think I know where this is going. But why don't you explain how griefing goes beyond simple chat and verbal stuff. How were people in pvp zones griefing others in a way that did not involve written communication?

Quote:

I didn't realize though it was unrealistic though to expect that rules that have been written to be enforced. That is news to me. I think it is unrealistic to think the ignore button as you suggested is the end all solution to the issue though when in many cases, the cases are more complicated than that.

In these more complicated cases, how are the rules being broken?

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Quote:
And you're basing it on they did enforce the rules, which in my experience is false. It isn't too much to ask to ignore people but I'm saying that ignore shouldn't not be the only method and that is it because that do not always remedy the situation. Sometimes griefing goes beyond simple chat and verbal stuff.
Yeah, I think I know where this is going. But why don't you explain how griefing goes beyond simple chat and verbal stuff. How were people in pvp zones griefing others in a way that did not involve written communication?
Quote:
I didn't realize though it was unrealistic though to expect that rules that have been written to be enforced. That is news to me. I think it is unrealistic to think the ignore button as you suggested is the end all solution to the issue though when in many cases, the cases are more complicated than that.
In these more complicated cases, how are the rules being broken?

Truthfully I think I answered enough of you questions without you answering none of mine. It's give and take. I gave. Now it's your turn to give.

But what is meant in the context of "Complicated" is meaning more is needed to solve than simple ignore which do solve the target, the victim from seeing the chat but not necessarily halt the behavior. Which ties into the answer of the first question.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Really? I believe I addressed

Really? I believe I addressed your points. You keep asking things like "what's the point of having rules if they don't enforce them?" I thought you were speaking rhetorically.
I reject your premise that there was no moderation, so the question is moot. I've been thinking back about cases of people being banned and I even remember cases of pvpers being banned on test server.

But if there's something I missed, go ahead and ask. It's funny that you're demuring to answer a question that clarifies your position on exactly what behavior was an infringement on the rules that they supposedly failed to enforce.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Really? I believe I addressed your points. You keep asking things like "what's the point of having rules if they don't enforce them?" I thought you were speaking rhetorically.
I reject your premise that there was no moderation, so the question is moot. I've been thinking back about cases of people being banned and I even remember cases of pvpers being banned on test server.
But if there's something I missed, go ahead and ask. It's funny that you're demuring to answer a question that clarifies your position on exactly what behavior was an infringement on the rules that they supposedly failed to enforce.

I'm not demurring. And plan on answering as soon as you answer some of mine. You should not expect someone to answer all your questions without answering any of theirs. What? I'm expected to answer all of your but you are not expected to answer mine? And when you don't, it's simply you're not answering the questions but when I don't answer yours it's demurring. How is it demurring for me, for one post, yet you been doing thatfor multiple posts yet don't call it demurring?

For an example here are a few you missed.

-what is the point of moderators PVE side, or even on the forums that have ignore feature if ignore is supposedly to be efficient and it's up to the victim themselves to take action and not the moderators? Or even rules period?

-Why not simply leave the entire game rules less and players left to defend for themselves? especially if ignore is as effective as you say.

-How would enforcing the rules, that they wrote and put down, "ruin pvp" and be extra work?

Answer those and then I'll share my answer to your current, but it ain't going to be one way. I answered all of yours and you answered none of mine but you're saying I'm demurring yet don't call your own self out for doing the same thing many times over than my one post where I did not answer your question. So how about you apply your standard you're trying to impress on me to your own self before saying one person is demurring for refusing to answer all your questions without the other person answering any of theirs.

And if I keep asking something it's probably because it doesn't seem you answered it at all. I see replies, even a few posts where you quote the question but the answer is not even in regards to the question. So of course I ask a few more times just in case it was missed.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Ok here ya go--

Ok here ya go--

Quote:

-what is the point of moderators PVE side, or even on the forums that have ignore feature if ignore is supposedly to be efficient and it's up to the victim themselves to take action and not the moderators? Or even rules period?

The moderators serve a variety of function besides policing behavior. Some of the behaviors they police (eg. use of exploits) don't involve text messages. Their "point" doesn't just hinge on resolving chat-related complaints.

Why have rules? To indicate how the game is to be used and what kinds of behaviors are unacceptable. When the mods receive a complaint, they will evaluate it and decide whether a significant infringement has occurred. The rules provide the justification for why they might take action.

The ignore function is a type of moderation power the devs give to players so that they can eliminate communication with people at their discretion, whether they have a legitimate gripe with them or not. I believe most pvp zone spats could've been resolved with ignore or turning off zone chat (some games don't even allow zone chat between warring factions). That doesn't ALL of them could.

Quote:

-Why not simply leave the entire game rules less and players left to defend for themselves? especially if ignore is as effective as you say.

Because there are things that require moderation. Going into a pvp zone and giving out someone's personal information. Conducting criminal activity ingame. Things that might be legally defined as hate speech. Etc.
This is a strawman anyway. Suggesting that people should've ignored a small number of abrasive pvpers is not an argument against moderation or having rules.

Quote:

-How would enforcing the rules, that they wrote and put down, "ruin pvp" and be extra work?

It wouldn't. It didn't. But apparently that level moderation isn't enough to satisfy you. Your comments seemed to indicate moderation that would be "right there" to react instantly to infringement. This would require more staffing obviously.

I don't even think you're talking about people breaking the rules that were part of the EULA. You're insinuating that there was rule breaking in pvp zones that didn't involve chat. What was it?

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:

I'm a man of my word.

Things that chat ignore don't solve.

-Switching accounts to continue the harassment.

Hospital kill grieifing. Easier to do in the siren's call hero hosp. Get in insde, usually invis and tp helped. Wait until your target respawns and kill them over and over.

TP into the floor. A place in Bloody bay and word of one but unconfirmed in sirens call where you can tp the taget into the floor over and over and sometimes if done right, they cant get out until they kil themselves and respawn or else they can be stuck there regardless of how many /stuck and relogs they use. Usually have to sit and wait and hope eventually a mod shows up. Then repeat process.

Friendly TPing into the enemy drones over and over. Harder to do after the tp prompt became available.

Giving out other people's personal information, which I seen done many times. But I na way that involves chat but ignore doesn't prevent the information from getting out there.

And still, even with ignore as I said, even with chat it does not stop the behavior. It only closes the victim's eyes to it but doesn't mean the offender doesn't still continue their chat behavior.

And those complicated cases fall more into the griefing and exploit section of the rules of COX EULA. Things that chat ignore doesn't solve and just because the target cant see it, doesn't mean the behavior is not still breaking the rule.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Ok here ya go--
Quote:
-what is the point of moderators PVE side, or even on the forums that have ignore feature if ignore is supposedly to be efficient and it's up to the victim themselves to take action and not the moderators? Or even rules period?
The moderators serve a variety of function besides policing behavior. Some of the behaviors they police (eg. use of exploits) don't involve text messages. Their "point" doesn't just hinge on resolving chat-related complaints.
Why have rules? To indicate how the game is to be used and what kinds of behaviors are unacceptable. When the mods receive a complaint, they will evaluate it and decide whether a significant infringement has occurred. The rules provide the justification for why they might take action.
The ignore function is a type of moderation power the devs give to players so that they can eliminate communication with people at their discretion, whether they have a legitimate gripe with them or not. I believe most pvp zone spats could've been resolved with ignore or turning off zone chat (some games don't even allow zone chat between warring factions). That doesn't ALL of them could.
Quote:
-Why not simply leave the entire game rules less and players left to defend for themselves? especially if ignore is as effective as you say.
Because there are things that require moderation. Going into a pvp zone and giving out someone's personal information. Conducting criminal activity ingame. Things that might be legally defined as hate speech. Etc.
This is a strawman anyway. Suggesting that people should've ignored a small number of abrasive pvpers is not an argument against moderation or having rules.
Quote:
-How would enforcing the rules, that they wrote and put down, "ruin pvp" and be extra work?
It wouldn't. It didn't. But apparently that level moderation isn't enough to satisfy you. Your comments seemed to indicate moderation that would be "right there" to react instantly to infringement. This would require more staffing obviously.
I don't even think you're talking about people breaking the rules that were part of the EULA. You're insinuating that there was rule breaking in pvp zones that didn't involve chat. What was it?

Alright now to the points here.

I am talking about people breaking the rules. I stated that many times. And again, I also stated I did not expect them to be sitting right there to react instantly. That is your invention added to what you somehow think I'm saying. Which I'm not.

Your first point is the point I was getting at and was saying .Not all things can be s0olved with ignore which his a fact you seem to say does solve all. I was saying it doesn't and there is moderation needed. And again even if the person ignored them, it doesn't end the behavior another point that moderation would be needed. And never said it wasn't enough for me simply enforcing the rules. That is another thing you added that wasn't there and something I didn't say. My entire point was they should enforce the rules. So I dont know how you even get that them if they would enforce the rules wouldn't be enough. The only person strawmanning here is you. You are arguing points that I didn't even bring up and or assigning points that wasn't the point then turn around and using the point I was making as your point.

Basically just about everything you said in response to those questions is what I was getting at. Moderation is needed, the rules should be enforced if they are written in the pvp zone just as they are in the pve zone. You're the one that said that is what the ignore button is for and insinuated that the only problem is all chat related and moderators are not needed and it would only cause problems if moderators got involved. Which then why I asked my questions based on your points in if that was the case and ignore was all that was needed then what would be the point of the moderators. Everything you said in response to that question is my point why moderators are actually needed inside pvp zones.

And again that isn't strawman. Your entire argument against what I was saying and things you thought I I saying, was that the player should ignore and that is all that is needed. That is you inventing points that isn't there to argue against those points that wasn't part of the point in the first place.

Now you're saying there are cases that ignore may not be the end all and moderation would be needed, which was my ENTIRE point that moderators are needed, the same point you was arguing against. It seems your entire argument is just based around mostly misunderstanding what I was saying and the point I was trying to make. Maybe that is my error for not making myself clear.

Basically it's pretty simple. Moderators are needed in PVP zones, even with the ignore function which doesn't solve the behavior. It may help the person to close their eyes to the issue but it doesn't mean the issue goes away. And thus pvp zones should be moderated and the rules enforced. A bit more than what I seen in the COX pvp zones. You said you seen it, I haven't ever. I seen it in PVE but not in the pvp zones. But either way, in CoT the rules should be enforced if they are bothered to be written. And I do not think enforcing the rules is a hassle or waste of resources. That is what moderators are supposed to be there in the first place for. Even if a player ignores someone one that doesn't mean it's the end of the issue, if the offender breaking the rules continues, whether or not the target can see them or not, then something should be done Because it have been shown that ignore doesn't work and or doesn't solve every single problem inside a pvp zone. In fact it may actually encourage the offender because if they know the person is supposed to ignore them then they can break the rules with impunity with no hope for help for the victim or someone putting a stop to their behavior because the expectation is that ignore is suppose to suffice. So in reality relying solely on ignore does nothing but worsen the problem and let the rule breakers know they have nothing to worry about because it's up to the target to ignore. Thus there is not a single incentive to follow any of the rules because there is no worry that moderator will come in and lay down the law because ignore is the tool, which is as effective as a wet noodle trying to hit a baseball. Better than nothing but inefficient.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
LOL that's it? Let's look at

LOL that's it? Let's look at these:

Quote:

-Switching accounts to continue the harassment.

I don't see how you reasonably expect moderators to prevent this. If someone someone receives a ban for harassment. They lose the use of that account. That's the punishment. If they continue the behavior on another account--then that one presumably gets banned as well.

Quote:

Hospital kill grieifing. Easier to do in the siren's call hero hosp. Get in insde, usually invis and tp helped. Wait until your target respawns and kill them over and over.

I believe there was a 5 second countdown where you couldn't be affected, that was put in specifically to deal with situations like this. Also, I think they moved the drones to make this less doable. In other words it was treated as a design flaw.

Quote:

TP into the floor. A place in Bloody bay and word of one but unconfirmed in sirens call where you can tp the taget into the floor over and over and sometimes if done right, they cant get out until they kil themselves and respawn or else they can be stuck there regardless of how many /stuck and relogs they use. Usually have to sit and wait and hope eventually a mod shows up. Then repeat process.

That's irritating, but again they added various temp powers, tp resistance inspirations, and even a tp resistance enhancement to help. In 7 years I got trapped once in Siren's Call. I just asked someone to vet tp me out. I know the guy who did it received a lot of petitions. Can't be sure be he was notably absent the next day, so I suspect he got a ban. Also, another design flaw.

Quote:

Friendly TPing into the enemy drones over and over. Harder to do after the tp prompt became available.

Lol friendly tping? You mean your own team was dropping you on drones? Just don't team with them? And the prompt was added to address this issue. I also had things like that happen to me in pve--accept a team invite and then get dropped from a tall building for example.

Quote:

Giving out other people's personal information, which I seen done many times. But I na way that involves chat but ignore doesn't prevent the information from getting out there.

Yeah I mentioned this. It involves chat. It shouldn't even be listed here.

These are the things the apes did to ruin pvp? You've got to be kidding. The introduction of stalkers alone probably did far more to drive out casual players than all of this combined.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Quote:
Quote:

I am talking about people breaking the rules. I stated that many times. And again, I also stated I did not expect them to be sitting right there to react instantly. That is your invention added to what you somehow think I'm saying. Which I'm not

Well when I pointed out that moderation in other games was basically the same as it was in cox, you said this:

Quote:

From what I seen moderation in most other pvp areas of the game are a bit more strict and thus it runs more smoothly. When stuff get out of hand, the moderator is right there. *Pop* sometimes the guy disappears. And usually thep layers are more behaved and the pvp zone is more populated.

You painted COX to be absent of moderation while describing other games as having moderators that act right away. I didn't invent anything, apparently you don't remember what you wrote.

Quote:

Now you're saying there are cases that ignore may not be the end all and moderation would be needed, which was my ENTIRE point that moderators are needed, the same point you was arguing against.

If your point was that moderation was needed, I wouldn't have bothered to reply. Your actual ENTIRE point was that the cox moderators didn't enforce the rules, which allowed the bad behavior of "apes" ruin pvp.

Which is a weak, unsubstantiated argument. I think this would be more evident if your position wasn't based entirely on zone shenanigans.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

LOL that's it? Let's look at these:
Quote:
-Switching accounts to continue the harassment.
I don't see how you reasonably expect moderators to prevent this. If someone someone receives a ban for harassment. They lose the use of that account. That's the punishment. If they continue the behavior on another account--then that one presumably gets banned as well.
Quote:
Hospital kill grieifing. Easier to do in the siren's call hero hosp. Get in insde, usually invis and tp helped. Wait until your target respawns and kill them over and over.
I believe there was a 5 second countdown where you couldn't be affected, that was put in specifically to deal with situations like this. Also, I think they moved the drones to make this less doable. In other words it was treated as a design flaw.
Quote:
TP into the floor. A place in Bloody bay and word of one but unconfirmed in sirens call where you can tp the taget into the floor over and over and sometimes if done right, they cant get out until they kil themselves and respawn or else they can be stuck there regardless of how many /stuck and relogs they use. Usually have to sit and wait and hope eventually a mod shows up. Then repeat process.
That's irritating, but again they added various temp powers, tp resistance inspirations, and even a tp resistance enhancement to help. In 7 years I got trapped once in Siren's Call. I just asked someone to vet tp me out. I know the guy who did it received a lot of petitions. Can't be sure be he was notably absent the next day, so I suspect he got a ban. Also, another design flaw.
Quote:
Friendly TPing into the enemy drones over and over. Harder to do after the tp prompt became available.
Lol friendly tping? You mean your own team was dropping you on drones? Just don't team with them? And the prompt was added to address this issue. I also had things like that happen to me in pve--accept a team invite and then get dropped from a tall building for example.
Quote:
Giving out other people's personal information, which I seen done many times. But I na way that involves chat but ignore doesn't prevent the information from getting out there.
Yeah I mentioned this. It involves chat. It shouldn't even be listed here.
These are the things the apes did to ruin pvp? You've got to be kidding. The introduction of stalkers alone probably did far more to drive out casual players than all of this combined.

You asked for examples that couldn't be solved by ignore, I gave some examples. Nor did I say that is all or saying this is all. Just some examples.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Quote:
I am talking about people breaking the rules. I stated that many times. And again, I also stated I did not expect them to be sitting right there to react instantly. That is your invention added to what you somehow think I'm saying. Which I'm not
Well when I pointed out that moderation in other games was basically the same as it was in cox, you said this:
Quote:
From what I seen moderation in most other pvp areas of the game are a bit more strict and thus it runs more smoothly. When stuff get out of hand, the moderator is right there. *Pop* sometimes the guy disappears. And usually thep layers are more behaved and the pvp zone is more populated.
You painted COX to be absent of moderation while describing other games as having moderators that act right away. I didn't invent anything, apparently you don't remember what you wrote.
Quote:
Now you're saying there are cases that ignore may not be the end all and moderation would be needed, which was my ENTIRE point that moderators are needed, the same point you was arguing against.
If your point was that moderation was needed, I wouldn't have bothered to reply. Your actual ENTIRE point was that the cox moderators didn't enforce the rules, which allowed the bad behavior of "apes" ruin pvp.
Which is a weak, unsubstantiated argument. I think this would be more evident if your position wasn't based entirely on zone shenanigans.

I didn't paint them as being there with immediate action although I did say, and the word you missed was SOMEWTIMES, meaning at time there are times where I seen the guy disappear in other games but I never said that it was all the time everytime it happened like that. Again, the all the time part is your invention. I remember what I wrote. In other games you put in the petition, the moderator comes and deal with the problem usually within the short amount of time. In COX, that didn't happen and usually didn't happen at all as the person was still there. That doesn't mean they were literally sitting right the there the entire time as you trying to make it mean. Again that is your own invention and you assigning your meaning to something that I'm not meaning. Then trying to argue that is what I meant when I told you already that is not what it meant.

I just told you my entire point, which was that moderation is needed. You decided to twist and misinterpret a few words and make that the ENTIRE point for you to argue when while contained in it wasn't the entire point, which I mentioned the point was that moderators was needed even a few replies ago and before that and each time you conveniently missed it and still stuck to saying my entire point was what you think the entire point was and stuck to arguing about that, the point that isn't even the point. Yes I don't think COX moderators enforced the rules in PVP but that was the small part of it. Many times in the statement I stated what the point was, moderation is needed and I hope that there will there will be moderators in CoT. YOU chose to focus only on that one little piece and say that was the entire point when I already said many times it wasn't the entire point but yet and still you stuck to trying to argue that little part as if it was the entire point even after I told you that the point is that moderation is needed.

ANd in rerality your argument that the rules were enforced is also unsubstantiated In fact you didn't even attempt to provide any evidence that showed that moderators was in pvp zones either. Only way you tried to prop up your arguement your point is twist my words around and assign meanings that isn't there and say "I experienced the opposite so that mean my experience is better than yours and your experience is invalid"> And nothing you said stand on it's on merit. Mostly because you are trying to argue a point that isn't the main point but yet insist on trying to make it t=THE Main point simply so you can argue. Because we all know that if your experience and view is always right automatically and everyone else experience and view is wrong. :p

Either way of course it's going to be unsubstantiated That's a given because it's based on my observation, but again that isn't the point. Because experience and observations will vary.. That is why it wasn't the main point . The point is that moderation is needed in pvp zones just as much as it's needed in pve zones and I hope that CoT will have moderators in pvp zones or simply state that it's a free for all zone

I guess you missed the part a few post back wehre I even said

But maybe you seen moderation in your experience, but I didn't. Maybe there was maybe there wasn't, but the entire point is that I hope they do some moderation in CoT

Keywords there: maybe there was maybe there wasn't. Meaning maybe there was moderation in COX maybe there wasn't. Meaning that whether or not there was or not is not the main point. I just hope there will be some in CoT because moderation is needed.

And many times I said, maybe there isn't going to be enough and thus make pvp zones a free for all zone that states that it will be a free for all.

That is why I was kind of confused of why you were trying to argue the point that moderators was not needed when I stated the main point more than a few times yet you still continued to take small bits and parts and add your own stuff and try to make it to mean that is MY main point.

Again, even after I stated that wasn't the main point. If you would have read what I was saying and listened and not assigned a point to it simply because you think and want it to be my main point, then you wouldn't have replied probably. But you didn't. You insisted even after I said what the main point was many times in just about all of my replies, insisted on making up your own point and what you wanted my point to be and decided that is my point when it wasn't and even after I said it wasn't and said what the main point was.

That is why sometimes it's best to read the entire post and not just hunt for a few word you disagree with and assume that is the main point even af6ter the poster you are replying to states many times that what you arguing about isn't the main point. Sometimes it's best to simply ask instead of assume. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, and that is why I stated the main point over and over and over and over. Yet you kept insisting on what you thought the main point was, which is the main point you choose to assign. That is why the discussion wasn't going anywhere because the main point you think you are arguing wasn't the main point. the main point is simply" that moderation is needed. That I said many times,. Moderation is needed, I hope that CoT have moderation, moderators serve a purpose and needed in cases that ignore don't work, moderators are needed to enforce the rules, moderators should be there to enforce the rules, ignore doesn't solve everything and thus moderators are needed." Yet through all of that you stuck to the your belief and view that the main point is that COX didn't have moderation and you decided to keep arguing from the view that the main point was indeed that COX didn't have moderators. which had me wondering why do you you insist on arguing that point so much as if it's the main point when the main point was pretty simple probably dead simple. Moderators are needed. Sure I don't think moderation was there in COX but that doesn't mean it was the main point as I said it wasn't many times.

Because ignore doesn't solve all everything and some of those cases moderation may not solve it either. But in complicated cases, like account jumping usually moderator have access to IP to look at suspected account jumpers that do it to harass and also to see suspected people that is account hopping to get around bans that may have been places on them. SO yeah in other games moderators have a tool to deal with account hopping to harass people problems. Maybe not in COX, but in other games. But just because you didn't see it or think it didn't exist in COX doesn't mean it doesn't exist in other games or is a problem that cant be solved by moderators.

But now I see maybe this entire thing was simple misunderstanding. (NOW DONT GO MAKING THAT THE ENTIRE POINT NOW!) So either way lets do it this way to make it as clear as possible so what is the point and what isn't the point cant be mixed up cant longer., even if you didn't read the entire post hopefully maybe you at time skip to the end on your way to the reply button.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Even putting it in it's own

Even putting it in it's own post so that way you cant say it was hidden in a "wall of text".

The point is in a simple manner -*****MODERATION IS NEEDED IN PVP ZONES******

NOT THE POINT in the following but still a view from my experienced. You may have experienced differently but my view is no more or less supported with evidence than your view. And no just because it's YOUR view doesn't mean it's better now and everyone elses that is opposite is less. Both are based on what have been viewed. Thus THIS IS NOT THE MAIN POINT .----->>>>>

Now do I think that moderation was lacking in COX? yes. It was from my view and from what I seen. BUT THAT ISNT THE POINT. I didn't see moderation in COX <<<<<<---- NOT THE POINT. Once more NOT THE POINT. See above with stars for the point.

Now id\f you mix up the points again after that...wow, But anyways if it happens, please tell me what is confusing so I'm not guessing what you find or found confusing.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Quote:
Quote:

I didn't paint them as being there with immediate action although I did say, and the word you missed was SOMEWTIMES, meaning at time there are times where I seen the guy disappear in other games but I never said that it was all the time everytime it happened like that.

I don't know whether you're changing your tune or if you just don't pay attention to what you write. I quoted you as saying when things get out of hand in other games the moderator is "right there." As if that is or should be the standard. Whether or not they take immediate action is moot. If they are actively monitoring matches or zone activity this implies a certain staffing commitment on the part of the publisher.

Quote:

I just told you my entire point, which was that moderation is needed. You decided to twist and misinterpret a few words and make that the ENTIRE point for you to argue when while contained in it wasn't the entire point, which I mentioned the point was that moderators was needed even a few replies ago and before that and each time you conveniently missed it and still stuck to saying my entire point was what you think the entire point was and stuck to arguing about that, the point that isn't even the point.

AAAAAARGHHHHH! THIS ABUSE OF ENGLISH--IT BURNNNNNNNNSSSSSS!!!!!!

Ok let's disregard your "side points" because you obviously don't want your reasoning subject to criticism. Your main point:

Quote:

-*****MODERATION IS NEEDED IN PVP ZONES******

I absolutely agree, although I would consider something like the ignore function to fall under the umbrella of "moderation". Without all that other jazz you put in about apes ruining pvp and whatnot, this is a completely agreeable assertion. Bravo!

Here's something I would consider equally helpful:

*****PVP NEEDS WORKING COMPUTER GRAPHICS*****

I know I need to be able to see what my character is doing. Because in COX....well...actually apropos of nothing this is a general concern that I think they need to address. If we keep up this type of helpful input, the CoT devs should have a really good general sense of what kind of game they might need to make to be successful.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Quote:
I didn't paint them as being there with immediate action although I did say, and the word you missed was SOMEWTIMES, meaning at time there are times where I seen the guy disappear in other games but I never said that it was all the time everytime it happened like that.
I don't know whether you're changing your tune or if you just don't pay attention to what you write. I quoted you as saying when things get out of hand in other games the moderator is "right there." As if that is or should be the standard. Whether or not they take immediate action is moot. If they are actively monitoring matches or zone activity this implies a certain staffing commitment on the part of the publisher.
Quote:
I just told you my entire point, which was that moderation is needed. You decided to twist and misinterpret a few words and make that the ENTIRE point for you to argue when while contained in it wasn't the entire point, which I mentioned the point was that moderators was needed even a few replies ago and before that and each time you conveniently missed it and still stuck to saying my entire point was what you think the entire point was and stuck to arguing about that, the point that isn't even the point.
AAAAAARGHHHHH! THIS ABUSE OF ENGLISH--IT BURNNNNNNNNSSSSSS!!!!!!
Ok let's disregard your "side points" because you obviously don't want your reasoning subject to criticism. Your main point:
Quote:
-*****MODERATION IS NEEDED IN PVP ZONES******
I absolutely agree, although I would consider something like the ignore function to fall under the umbrella of "moderation". Without all that other jazz you put in about apes ruining pvp and whatnot, this is a completely agreeable assertion. Bravo!
Here's something I would consider equally helpful:
*****PVP NEEDS WORKING COMPUTER GRAPHICS*****
I know I need to be able to see what my character is doing. Because in COX....well...actually apropos of nothing this is a general concern that I think they need to address. If we keep up this type of helpful input, the CoT devs should have a really good general sense of what kind of game they might need to make to be successful.

I don't mind critic of my reasoning and point, but you are not criticizing that. You're criticizing things you think I mean and even after I tell you that is not what I'm saying you stick to THAT is what I'm saying simply because that is what you think I mean and you're never wrong. Want to criticize the point then criticize the point and not one point you invent to criticize and then when told that is not the meaning, you stick to it instead of just simply swallowing a bit of pride,. admitting you misinterpreted the point and make criticism on the actual point. In stead you bull headedly stick to what you think the point is and try to argue it to death. So no it's not that I have issue with critic of the point or reasoning. It's in fact you. You have a problem of simply admitting you misinterpreted the point. Which is ok, it happens, it's no big deal but most people are not afraid to admit they made a simple mistake and adjust fire. But you, oh no, you're acting like it would be the end of your world. When the point is pretty simple. Moderation is needed in PVP zones. Like that English language don't look like criticizing of the reasoning nor have your other pot shots been criticism of the reasoning. Basically all you been doing is trying to make points that isn't the point and turn a simple point into something it isn't about.

because some games specifically state that there will be no moderation in the pvp zones or the moderation will be especially lax. Or it is indeed stated that it's expected that players are own their own. While in other games it is said tat moderation and the rules will be enforced.

Again, some may do active monitoring other you have to put in a ticket and in my experience. KEYWORD THERE MY EXPERIENCE, most of that have rules in the pvp zones usually enforce those rules. Some are quicker than others but the moderation is there.

My experience means that yours may not be the same but since you experience is not mine and mine is not yours I cant speak from the point of your experience. And you cant, although you try, and speak for my experience.

And it's not as simple as saying that PVP zone needs graphics. I see you being a smart butt because you seem angry because you missed the point this entire time. Seriously, relax, it's not that serious.

Like I said, stop appearing to be salty or angry because you missed the point .Like I said, it happens, it's no big deal. Hell it even happen to me every so often. No hard feelings from me but just because the point is simple doesn't mean it isn't helpful. Maybe to you, in your opinion but doesn't mean it's fact just because it's your opinion. Because as I said moderation varies and basically while as you said, ignore falls under the umbrella of moderation it isn't or shouldn't be regarded as the end all to moderation unless that is the entire [purpose and the rules are written as such like in some games without pvp moderation. But if the rules are there then there should be moderation to enforce the rules Because without enforcement, then yeah people will only do what they can get away with and how much they get away wit hand how much they can affect the pvp community depends on whether or not moderators enforce the rules. Without rules, then that creates an entire different community of pvp, not saying it's good or bad, so don't try to invent it in a way that I'm saying that. Ruless pvp can work as long as it's written and players going in know what to expect compared rules are written as if the moderation is taking a tough stand against certain behaviors but in reality they are sleep on the job, which then breed resentment and that usually have a negative effect on the community.

If you want to criticize the point criticize the point for once now that you know exactly what the point is.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
I see the gist of my satire

I see the gist of my satire went over your head.
Your point isn't rocket science. You've repeated the same 3 assertions multiple times in this thread.

1. Moderation is needed in pvp zones.
2. There was no moderation in cox pvp.
3. This allowed the bad behavior of a small number of pvpers to ruin pvp.

I really don't care which of these points you consider primary. You used #2 and #3 to support #1. I can quote you doing so if necessary. But then again I just quoted you contradicting yourself but you totally blew that off., so I think you're being disingenuous at this point.

Quote:

My experience means that yours may not be the same but since you experience is not mine and mine is not yours I cant speak from the point of your experience. And you cant, although you try, and speak for my experience.

Both of our accounts are anecdotal. And they appear contradictory. But however farfetched it may seem, it's possible that both are true. Some servers had very low pvp populations-- maybe you didn't ever encounter moderation. My experience doesn't negate you experience. But it DOES weaken the conclusion that you draw from your experience.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

I see the gist of my satire went over your head.
Your point isn't rocket science. You've repeated the same 3 assertions multiple times in this thread.
1. Moderation is needed in pvp zones.
2. There was no moderation in cox pvp.
3. This allowed the bad behavior of a small number of pvpers to ruin pvp.
I really don't care which of these points you consider primary. You used #2 and #3 to support #1. I can quote you doing so if necessary. But then again I just quoted you contradicting yourself but you totally blew that off., so I think you're being disingenuous at this point.
Quote:
My experience means that yours may not be the same but since you experience is not mine and mine is not yours I cant speak from the point of your experience. And you cant, although you try, and speak for my experience.
Both of our accounts are anecdotal. And they appear contradictory. But however farfetched it may seem, it's possible that both are true. Some servers had very low pvp populations-- maybe you didn't ever encounter moderation. My experience doesn't negate you experience. But it DOES weaken the conclusion that you draw from your experience.

Oh it weakens my position but strengthen yours simply because you said so? So tell me how does your view view weakens the point that moderation is needed, which is the conclusion that I drew from my experience? Explain.

There you go insinuating that your point and experience is more important than mine and thus weakens mine. And I didn't contradict myself and blew it off. You made up some points aka put some words in my mouth and assumed that is what I was talking about so it would appear contradictory. Instead of trying to put words into people's mouth then when they point out that is not the meaning or point of what they said, stop trying to force it as that is what they are saying and then saying "Oh ya being contradictory>" Just because you want ot draw some sort of made up conclusion from what a person said doesn't make it it true simply because you said so. You misinterpreted it, and if the author of the writing to you you misinterpreted, who is you to tell the author what they meant when they are telling you what they meant? That is a clear sign of you thinking you are higher than the author and your word is more powerful than their to the point that you know what what the author met better than they do. Which quite frankly is very insulting to the author and not very good for conversation because it looks like no matter what the author said or what the point is your mind is already iron clad made up with what you think they met and you will stick to that no matter what because you know better than the author. That is why the conversation haven't went anywhere and even after three 3 times that you even admitted I said what the point is , you still continued to act dense and basically make a what should have been a simple conversation, and yes it wasn't meant to be rocket science, into something it's not simply because you want to have a god complex into thinking you know what the author wrote better than the author. Because both view point is anecdotal and thus both should be equal not your weakens mine because you think you are better.

If still want to take that position that is fine but either why at this point now I'm blowing you off because you basically been blowing me off this entire time and I tried to be patient and restated my point and even you noticed it 3 times at least. And really sticking to thinking there are other points besides the one point. No, it's one point and then what I experienced, and then what I believe is the effect of that experience which Based on my experience can be prevented by moderation. And COX is not the only game where rules are not enforced and most of those other games it is said pvp is crappy by many other players, and said so by some people that is here that played those other games by COX players themselves for the reason that the ere is no moderation. But oh now, that couldn't be the case in your eyes. For other games sure, but not for your dear old COX> COX was perfect, there was no faults besides the ones YOU decide are faults, and no improvements are needed besides the one YOU say needs to be improved. And with a stance like that and stuff, and since you just love discussing points., Tell me this, then what is or was the point of trying to have a discussion when you already think your view is infallible and anything that is not the same is faulty?

Which his apparent when you still you still blow it off and stick to your way and thinking your way is more better and powerful and weaken any other point it comes across simply because it's your view point. and thus above everyone else view point. "Oh you experienced moderation so that means those that haven't have weak point." Ok lets say moderation was abound in COX and you are 100% correct. That doesn't change the fact that moderation is needed Unless you want to argue that point too somehow. There is only one point and not one primary and two secondary points. Those are my observations that I use to support my point. They are not the point or a point or etc simply that is what you want to focus one and STILL don't want to simply admit that you missed the entire point and confused my experience as being the point.

Basically if you apply the same standard you are trying to apply to me, your points are

COX had moderation
There is was need for moderation because ignore button works and solves all problems
Moderation is a waste of resources and time.
This is true because I said so. you are wrong because I said so.

You didn't even attempt to explain why this was true besides it is simply because that is your view and thus is supposed to be assumed it's automatically true It's easy to sit there and point out what you view as faulty support for the main point and try and to say they are the point too all day, but at least try to apply the same standard your self and provide supporting evidence to your points and before saying someone else is contradicting try to not be contradicting yourself. You first said that moderations is waste of resources and not needed because the the ignore button is a tool provided to the players that made moderation unneeded. And tried to argue that point for a while. Then eventually said that moderation is not needed and try to brush it off by saying its too simplistic of a point. Yet somehow the entire time you missed? I think that speaks more about you than anything. First missed the point, more than three times, then try to diss it once it was so clear that you couldn't deny it anymore as a point that is as simple as saying pvp needs graphics. Yet then turn around and said that I repeated the point three times in various posts, which means you seen the point but chose willingly to be dense about it for no reason. Or for a point you have yet to state yet.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Ugh, I will try to explain it

Ugh, I will try to explain it to you again. Hopefully you WILL blow me off and stop regurgitating the same wall of incoherent blather.

Quote:

Oh it weakens my position but strengthen yours simply because you said so? So tell me how does your view view weakens the point that moderation is needed, which is the conclusion that I drew from my experience? Explain.

I don't take issue with the idea that moderation is needed in an MMO. I don't think anyone would. But that's not an issue that's specific to pvp. It begs the question: why even post it here in the pvp section, in a thread that is discussing specific things that went wrong with pvp? You shifted the goal post when I criticized your other points. You started in this thread complaining about how jerks ruined pvp and that it was because the mods did nothing about it. Stop trying to rewrite history and saying that I missed "your one point." Go back and reread what you wrote if you need to be reminded.

The problem with your argument is that it's derived from faulty reasoning based on your limited experience. You claim that you never experienced moderation firsthand and didn't know anyone who did. That's fine. The problem is when you use this lack of firsthand experience to generalize that it NEVER happened for anyone, anywhere in the game. Then you draw a further generalization that this supposed lack of moderation lead to a decline in pvp.

Let's talk about a real world example. I live in a small city. I've never seen anyone actually get arrested. I haven't spoken to anyone that has been arrested, or knows somebody else that has been arrested. Now if I adopted your logic, I would assume that our police don't make arrests. And then I would assume that the economic downturn that our city was experiencing was the result of the police making no arrests.

And then I would go to the city council meeting and tell the mayor the solution to our economic woes: WE NEED POLICE.
And I would look like an idiot, because someone who actually had experience with arrests would stand up and correct me. The same way I'm correcting you.

A direct claim based on direct experience > An indirect claim based on a lack of experience. Capiche?

Thank god you don't run a courtroom.

witness #1: I saw the defendant pick up the gun and shoot the victim in the face.
witness #2: I live in that apartment building and I've never seen something like that happen.
judge jag40: Well, conflicting testimony and all...I guess I'll throw this case out of court.

Quote:

Ok lets say moderation was abound in COX and you are 100% correct. That doesn't change the fact that moderation is needed Unless you want to argue that point too somehow.

It doesn't change the fact that it's needed. But it's a non-sequitur. Moderation is not a problem that needs to be addressed in order to fix pvp.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Ugh, I will try to explain it to you again. Hopefully you WILL blow me off and stop regurgitating the same wall of incoherent blather.
Quote:
Oh it weakens my position but strengthen yours simply because you said so? So tell me how does your view view weakens the point that moderation is needed, which is the conclusion that I drew from my experience? Explain.
I don't take issue with the idea that moderation is needed in an MMO. I don't think anyone would. But that's not an issue that's specific to pvp. It begs the question: why even post it here in the pvp section, in a thread that is discussing specific things that went wrong with pvp? You shifted the goal post when I criticized your other points. You started in this thread complaining about how jerks ruined pvp and that it was because the mods did nothing about it. Stop trying to rewrite history and saying that I missed "your one point." Go back and reread what you wrote if you need to be reminded.
The problem with your argument is that it's derived from faulty reasoning based on your limited experience. You claim that you never experienced moderation firsthand and didn't know anyone who did. That's fine. The problem is when you use this lack of firsthand experience to generalize that it NEVER happened for anyone, anywhere in the game. Then you draw a further generalization that this supposed lack of moderation lead to a decline in pvp.
Let's talk about a real world example. I live in a small city. I've never seen anyone actually get arrested. I haven't spoken to anyone that has been arrested, or knows somebody else that has been arrested. Now if I adopted your logic, I would assume that our police don't make arrests. And then I would assume that the economic downturn that our city was experiencing was the result of the police making no arrests.
And then I would go to the city council meeting and tell the mayor the solution to our economic woes: WE NEED POLICE.
And I would look like an idiot, because someone who actually had experience with arrests would stand up and correct me. The same way I'm correcting you.
A direct claim based on direct experience > An indirect claim based on a lack of experience. Capiche?
Thank god you don't run a courtroom.
witness #1: I saw the defendant pick up the gun and shoot the victim in the face.
witness #2: I live in that apartment building and I've never seen something like that happen.
judge jag40: Well, conflicting testimony and all...I guess I'll throw this case out of court.
Quote:
Ok lets say moderation was abound in COX and you are 100% correct. That doesn't change the fact that moderation is needed Unless you want to argue that point too somehow.
It doesn't change the fact that it's needed. But it's a non-sequitur. Moderation is not a problem that needs to be addressed in order to fix pvp.

If my wall of blather is indeed incoherent then how can you logically give a rational in your eyes, explaination of criticize the point? Which is it? Either it's incoherent meaning you cant understand it and thus cant really give a proper response to it or it's is coherent and you are trying to give a proper response to it? It cant really be both. I suspect you are just saying it's incoherent as a convenient way to cover for the fatc that you have no point besides the fact that you say this and thus I'm supposed to take what you say and throw my point out the window simply because it's what you believe.

I'm not trying to rewrite history. In fact, I wrote it about towards PVP but someone chimed in that it should be fair in PVE too and I agreed to that. You're the one that keep focusing on one smidge of it and only the pvp part. Even in the beginning the entire point was and tsill and haven't changed from being moderation is needed. You chose to argue about something else entirely. Even a while back, look it up, you seem to remember everything else besides what is important, on Dec. 14th when I said in my post that maybe there was moderation maybe it was not, yet you still insisted on this tangent.

And speaking of applying generalization based on experience. You are doing the same thing. You say there was moderation because you seen it and thus that means any other view is automatically false. ANd basically don't havea single leg to stand on now and still seething about you missing the point. Instead of simply admitting that you missed it, you still resort to attacking the style now you are calling it incoherent blather yet somehow call your response logical response to it and claim to know what the point of it was? Like I asked, Which is it? It's is either incoherent and thus there is no way you knew or can justify or correct something you cant understand i not knowing what the point is if it's incoherent or it is indeed coherent and you are justifying what you think is the point?

Like I said, it's my experience. You and different and no matter how you repeat your self and try to invent points and tell me, the author what I meant, what the point was and etc, it still don't change the fact. I stated my point .Moderation is needed. And you said you agree. So what is there to discuss? It's all incoherent to you anyways according to you. You basically nullified your whole entire argument because by your own admission, you cant understand it. Thus, how can you logically tell me or anyone what the point is in something you don't even understand?

And yes, if you keep missing it, I'm going to keep repeating my self. Now you know what to expect. Keep repeating you self in the manner of *insult insult* "My opinion is better than yours and your opinion is trash" nonsense, then I still will repeat myself. Want me to say something new, then bring something new to the table .I'm not changing my view simply because you think you are better than everyone here and have some misplaced sense of self importance. You keep saying "You're wrong because I think different." I'm going to keep saying my point regardless of how many times you repeat it. Don't like it, then don't try to engage in conversation with me especially since it's all incoherent to you in the first place. In order for a person to make a rational response to something they must first have to understand it. Since you don't understand it, by your own admission, then there is no way you can make a rational response or correction.

By your logic it's like me saying, "I don't understand Chinese, but it says Flower because I said so. While the Chinese person is trying to tell you what it means. all the while you are going ,"It's incoherent. It means flower! I'm right I'm right. I'm always right."

So go ahead and keep repeating yourself with your self righteous talk trying to tell someone what they meant even after they are telling you what they meant, then I will continue to repeat myself. There you have it. As you said, you can always ignore someone. Prove that it works. I say it's ineffective you say it is for every situation. I say moderation is needed you say...that isn't the point. Well believe what you believe but it doesn't make it fact. That is like me telling you your entire point is nothing but bullcrap that have no merit. You say it's trying to correct. So since you can tell me, the author of my point what the point is that I'm trying to make since obvious ly you know me better than my self and know what I'm thinking, I guess, it works both ways. And basically your entire point Is "I'm butt hurt because I make a monkey out of myself by missing a simple point so I'm just need something to take my angst out on to make my pride feel better." Well I guess that sums it up then. You have your view of my point and of course think you are right. I have my view of my point and using you logic, which you seem to view as infallible, then that means I'm 100% correct about your point and thus this entire discussing was nothing on your end but a bunch of pride hurt over missing a simple point. You may not think moderation or lack of is a problem in pvp. I do. Just because you say it's not an issue do ti automatically mean it isn't. You haven't shown a single bit of "why" it isn't a problem Only thing you said for your point is because I said so. And the rest is busy criticizing the other point but not offering any points to support your own. I know why. Because you may not want ot admit it, it may kill you to admit it, but the simple fact, is that you know and I know that your point is weak and have nothing to stand on but call the point, you are supposedly in a rational manner responding to, incoherent and other jabs. Yet you don't offer any for your case. I say moderation is a problem. I stated my case I said why I think it can be an issue and stated what I seen. What have you stated. "I seen moderation so it is not a problem so your point is invalid because my point is more valid than your."

And your bring up court, in any court, even ones that I'm not running, your point would have been thrown out and need more than simply "I say this and thus, judge, you must take my word for it." Self righteousness don't get you far in the court of law. And it don't get you far here. I still say moderation is needed, I stil lstand by my point. You didn't even give me anything of importance to consider besides your stuffy "I'm better than thou" attitude in the form of "My word trumps yours". And while you are quick to criticize other people's points, why not put up and step up to the plate and make some actual points yourself. You say moderation was not an issue, lets hear it. I say it can be if not done enough or if it's too laxed. You criticize other people's points but offer none of your own for your position? I think it's because you have no position and just want to make noise. Luckily I have plenty of time but I'll tell you now just in case you didn't get it as you seem adept at missing the important stuff. I'm not changing my stance based off of "I said so." from you. State your case and why you think moderation is not a problem that should be addressed in pvp, since as you pointed out it is a pvp forum. Come on you like to criticize other peoples point, show them how it's done in the most eloquent manner you can think of or was the aboe your best? "incoherent" "AAAAAARGHHHHH! THIS ABUSE OF ENGLISH--IT BURNNNNNNNNSSSSSS!!!!!!" and all that other nonsense and simply make a case for you side for once. It might be a good one but no one will ever know if you hide behind the "Because I said so" "and other insults, and too busy picking up everything but the entire point. But that is up to you. But based on your past work here and in other places, I say you know you cant. Only way you know how to is attack everything but the point and the person and have no clue how to offer up an argument for own points besides "This is my opinion and you're supposed to take it as fact." Well not me buddy. Sorry to say. Again yes I'm repeating myself again, and will do so again and again and again. Moderation is needed. And will still repeat myself until you get the point. Moderation is needed.

Of course you are more than welcome to reply and repeat yourself many more times about how you're right and more attacking comments. Because I really don't mind writing and repeating myself. If even to prove that I'm not scared of you and you are not going to bully me into backing down from my point simply because you say so. Live with that or solve it the problem. Your move.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Is English your second

Is English your second language? That would explain a lot. Incoherent does not mean incomprehensible. Here are some definitions from the Free Online Dictionary:

1. Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony; not coherent: incoherent fragments of a story.
2. Unable to think or express one's thoughts in a clear or orderly manner: incoherent with grief.

Or maybe incoherent with rage in this case. I called your writing incoherent babble because it's long winded, rambling, repetitive, and poorly constructed in terms of argument. And it's oddly cowardly in the way it retreats from comments you've made throughout about player behavior ruining pvp as the result of no moderation. Yes we agree that moderation is necessary. But why do you believe that's an issue for pvp in particular? Why are you belaboring that point in this thread?

Because your position is based on 2 assertions you've made repeatedly: there was no moderation and jerks thus drive players away. These claims are based on a logical fallacy know as "the hasty generalization": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
Look it up. Maybe reading some other examples will make your mistakes clearer to you.

Quote:

And your bring up court, in any court, even ones that I'm not running, your point would have been thrown out and need more than simply "I say this and thus, judge, you must take my word for it." Self righteousness don't get you far in the court of law. And it don't get you far here.

Do you even have any inkling how the legal system works? Eye witness testimony is one of the primary sources of evidence in a criminal case. I don't know if you're really that appallingly ignorant or if your just talking nonsense because you're angry.

Quote:

State your case and why you think moderation is not a problem that should be addressed in pvp, since as you pointed out it is a pvp forum. Come on you like to criticize other peoples point, show them how it's done in the most eloquent manner you can think of or was the aboe your best? "incoherent" "AAAAAARGHHHHH! THIS ABUSE OF ENGLISH--IT BURNNNNNNNNSSSSSS!!!!!!" and all that other nonsense and simply make a case for you side for once. It might be a good one but no one will ever know if you hide behind the "Because I said so" "and other insults, and too busy picking up everything but the entire point. But that is up to you. But based on your past work here and in other places, I say you know you cant.

I don't think you understand the word "entire." I'm addressing your conclusion AND the reasoning that led to you making it.
I did state my case, but it apparently went over your head so I'll repeat it.

1. There was moderation in pvp. Off the top of my head I remember two cases of people in my sg receiving temp bans. I also remember Vinnie, from Silit's sg, receiving a three day ban for making a racial slur during the last pvp league.
2. I pvped from I4 onward. I did arena on Protector, Freedom, and test server. I also did zone pvp daily and participated in 2-3 base raids per week while they were online. By far the majority of pvp behavior related complaints pertained to zone pvp.
3. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that the complaints were indicative of poor design decisions for zone pvp on the part of the develops rather than a lack of moderation or player behavior in general. This assumption is supported by my experience pvping in Warhammer, SWTOR, GW2, and The Secret World.

I don't recognize your global and don't remember discussing anything with you before, so I don't know what "past work" you're referencing. If you're going to try to ad hom, at least be clear about it.

Quote:

Of course you are more than welcome to reply and repeat yourself many more times about how you're right and more attacking comments. Because I really don't mind writing and repeating myself. If even to prove that I'm not scared of you and you are not going to bully me into backing down from my point simply because you say so. Live with that or solve it the problem. Your move.

LOL! You go from "now I'm going to blow you off" to "I will fight you to the death!" in the course of one post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPJPFnesV4

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Is English your second language? That would explain a lot. Incoherent does not mean incomprehensible. Here are some definitions from the Free Online Dictionary:
1. Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony; not coherent: incoherent fragments of a story.
2. Unable to think or express one's thoughts in a clear or orderly manner: incoherent with grief.
Or maybe incoherent with rage in this case. I called your writing incoherent babble because it's long winded, rambling, repetitive, and poorly constructed in terms of argument. And it's oddly cowardly in the way it retreats from comments you've made throughout about player behavior ruining pvp as the result of no moderation. Yes we agree that moderation is necessary. But why do you believe that's an issue for pvp in particular? Why are you belaboring that point in this thread?
Because your position is based on 2 assertions you've made repeatedly: there was no moderation and jerks thus drive players away. These claims are based on a logical fallacy know as "the hasty generalization": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
Look it up. Maybe reading some other examples will make your mistakes clearer to you.
Quote:
And your bring up court, in any court, even ones that I'm not running, your point would have been thrown out and need more than simply "I say this and thus, judge, you must take my word for it." Self righteousness don't get you far in the court of law. And it don't get you far here.
Do you even have any inkling how the legal system works? Eye witness testimony is one of the primary sources of evidence in a criminal case. I don't know if you're really that appallingly ignorant or if your just talking nonsense because you're angry.
Quote:
State your case and why you think moderation is not a problem that should be addressed in pvp, since as you pointed out it is a pvp forum. Come on you like to criticize other peoples point, show them how it's done in the most eloquent manner you can think of or was the aboe your best? "incoherent" "AAAAAARGHHHHH! THIS ABUSE OF ENGLISH--IT BURNNNNNNNNSSSSSS!!!!!!" and all that other nonsense and simply make a case for you side for once. It might be a good one but no one will ever know if you hide behind the "Because I said so" "and other insults, and too busy picking up everything but the entire point. But that is up to you. But based on your past work here and in other places, I say you know you cant.
I don't think you understand the word "entire." I'm addressing your conclusion AND the reasoning that led to you making it.
I did state my case, but it apparently went over your head so I'll repeat it.
1. There was moderation in pvp. Off the top of my head I remember two cases of people in my sg receiving temp bans. I also remember Vinnie, from Silit's sg, receiving a three day ban for making a racial slur during the last pvp league.
2. I pvped from I4 onward. I did arena on Protector, Freedom, and test server. I also did zone pvp daily and participated in 2-3 base raids per week while they were online. By far the majority of pvp behavior related complaints pertained to zone pvp.
3. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that the complaints were indicative of poor design decisions for zone pvp on the part of the develops rather than a lack of moderation or player behavior in general. This assumption is supported by my experience pvping in Warhammer, SWTOR, GW2, and The Secret World.
I don't recognize your global and don't remember discussing anything with you before, so I don't know what "past work" you're referencing. If you're going to try to ad hom, at least be clear about it.
Quote:
Of course you are more than welcome to reply and repeat yourself many more times about how you're right and more attacking comments. Because I really don't mind writing and repeating myself. If even to prove that I'm not scared of you and you are not going to bully me into backing down from my point simply because you say so. Live with that or solve it the problem. Your move.
LOL! You go from "now I'm going to blow you off" to "I will fight you to the death!" in the course of one post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPJPFnesV4

Now I'm retreating? First you said I keep saying the same thing over and over now you' re saying I'm retreating. You cant make up your mind at all can you? Which is it. I think you're just throwing everything and everything you can with really no purpose goal or aim. Just throwing stuff out there just because you can.

Blowing you off doesn't mean not talking, or responding. It means that your point is no longer the issue at hand just as you blew my point off and is no longer the issue at hand with you.

And I already told you why I thought it was a problem in PV> You immediately dismissed it. You didn't address it, you dint even talk about it. Just immediately dismissed it and made up some portion to try and build your case on filled with assumptions and twisted words and meanings you assigned and stuck to with the apparent mindset of "I don't give a crap about your point or what the point is. I want the point to be this and it will be this because I said so." The point and answer to your question have already been answered.

And while you're talking about fallicies, try looking up some yourself.

There is no ad hom about it. See there you go doing it again. Just becausde you said so and your view it is expected to be taken as fact. That is not what I seen. And unfortunately I know what I seen, you cant tell me what I sdee or didn't see, and just because you seen it and stuff wont change my mind to "Oh yeah since you said so, massa, I seen moderation. Knowing good and well that I didn't. My experience. Yours may be difference but while you're are looking up fallicies look up the one you are doing. In the end the point remains the same. Now if you want to talk about the point, lets talk about the point. If you want to throw around insults, and diss other people's experience

Now you ask me to explain my self and ask more question and yet again totally ignored my question. State your position on it.
I have a pretty good idea how trhe legal system works. You seem to be the one that don't have any clue. It don't work on, "You say so and thus it must be taken as truth. And you tell other people what they experienced or didn't experience. Go read up on Law a little bit and you'll see it don't work in the manner you think it works in. Eye witness account is important everyone know that but YOUR account isn't automatically important more so than say mine. If there is no evidence of either one, you don't automatically win simply because YOU think you are a god. I thought I made that clear but yet again, you I think are purposely being dense. Not to mention ins court of law to prove a case you have to go beyond simply insulting the person and dodging the points and issue at hand. And have to make your case beyond "Well your honor, you should take my word over their because I'm better than everybody." Usually, if you have any idea how court proceedings works, your attitude probably would draw more ire from most judges than anything. Looks like I have a better grasp of how it works than you. For real go look up law and how the court system works. While you may be used to people in your life revolving around you and kissing your butt and treating you like you're special, in real life in the real world, you're nothing but a number among numbers. And your word isn't simply taken over someone else simply because you said they should or simply because you disagree. You must state your case like everyone else. You think you stated a case but really you haven't. I'll get back to that later.

Plus I wouldn't make assumptions because you don't know my occupation or what I do. Maybe I do work in the legal system maybe not, maybe I'm a regular joe in a cubicle or maybe I'm code enforcement. Maybe I'm a self employed business man, maybe I'm a spy. You don't know. Yet again, you assume you know and think you know and thus think it's a fact simply because that is what YOU think. Not everyone go online wearing their personal life and who they are or try and brag about hwo they are in the real world. Sometimes those that claim to be English professors online are not. Those that write proper to show how bright they are, might be some self conscious loser where their only sense of self importance is onle. Or they may indeed be a genius. Or someone that write is odd ways may be well off and accomplished and writing in anyway they please online is a relief for them from the everyday rigid stuff. WHile maybe they are complete idiots. Who knows and who are you to decide and make assumptions about a perso noccupation and try and pass it off as truth. Not everyone pride is tied to who they are in real life and look at how well I can type and use spell check online. Some people simply don't give a crap, some do, some stop giving a crap because people like you will find something to nit pick anyways either way so why put forth much effort? Which category am I, only I know. Not you unless I tell you. But of course you can simply stop thinking you know everything and everyone and simply ask. That probably will be a bit less hostile than the way you been coming off this entire time instead of going in like "I say this YOURE WRONG because I"M ALWAYS RIGHT> BOW DOWN! YOU DONT BOW DOWN? I'm Going to insult you and talk about everything but the point to prove how "smart" I am!" attitude you are displaying now. But maybe you are not like that in real life, maybe you are maybe you are not. WHo knows besides you. But here right now, regardless of who you are, lawyer judge POTUS or some leeching bum living on the street, your attitude is hostile and been hostile and I''m not budging no matter how hostile you get and what you give me I'm going to give you right back. So even after this, how you reply is how I'm going to reply. Make a point I'll make a point. Continue to avoid the point and insult, and act like just because you experienced different it means everyone else experience is automatically wrong, busy pointing out falliciesd while making numerous fallies in your own argument then I will simply give that ack and continue to drive you up tha wall. Me I'm good. Calm, good. Because as you see, from here and prior all I did was simply gave what ever you gave to me given it right back. And you seem flustered. Flailing around like a drunkard that is drowning. You tried throwing just about every insult, besides a racial slur at me and still my point remain the same. Moderation is needed. You try and doge it, you say I repeat it, then flip flop saying I retreated from the point, say it's incoherent babble then say you're trying to make rational responses, you take jab about me and English language, tried making assumptions about what I do in life, what I know, what I don't know, hell you even tried telling me what point I was trying to make and trying to argue that you know what point I was trying to make better than me, yet say it was incoherent babble. You are not making any sense. Simply flailing around.

But again, still I stand by my point a point I haven't ran away from a point I not changing no matter how you try to twist it turn it, ignore it, Moderation is needed in PVP zones. Because when rules are there and not enforced, it creates lots of problems. And As I said, in my view, my experience, my opinion, it seemed to lead to pvp being a dead zone in PVP. Never said it was fact, never said it was the absolute truth. I just said that Moderation Is needed, stated, why I think so, and stated my experience. Yours is difference. You seem to have a problem with differing experiences. You accuse me of making hasty generalizations yet your points is still nothing but

1) I seen it.
2) Yours is false
3) Thus my reason and view is automatically the right view.

You're so tied up in trying to point out faults in other arguments that you are blind to the fault in your own arguments which is really a bit more faulty than mine. Mine don't revolve around saying your view is wrong. My view focus around the main point of I think moderation is needed, because this is what I seen, this is what I think happened. You are stating your opinions as absolute fact and trying to use it as meaning that my view is absolutely wrong.

I'm actually very calm right now. Don't worry you'll know when I'm angry. Don't try to project your feelings onto me now. You been angry and had and angry tone from the beginning. And even more so when it became apparent that you missed the point and seemed to be very embarrassed about it.

And yeah like I said, if it wasn't clear, like it said in the definition you even posted, then how can you draw any sort of actual rational form of opinion on something that isn't clear to you? Nott to mention you said incoherent babble

Babble- To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds.

Meaning if that was truly the case as I asked, then how could you understand it enough to make what you call a rational response if it was incoherent babble to you? AKA, unclear meaningless confusion of words. You said that, incoherent babble. So either all this time you been trying to discuss something you don't understand and thus, have even leg to stand on in trying to tell me what my point is. Or you can understand it and it wasn't just incoherent babble and just saying stuff just to be saying stuff and avoiding the point just to avoid the point. So which is it? Actual incoherent babble and you have not a clue what it meant and thus have not a clue what you are talking about. Or you can actually understand it and just trying to throw more insults out there in your childish attempt to try and work off the and save face from totally missing the point. Which his totally possible if it was actually incoherent babble as you said it was. And maybe it was. Who knows. But then that would mean you replies is basically null and you really shouldn't speak on a point and try to tell the author what the point of their writing if you cant understand it yourself and should just listen to the author as they tell you what their point was. Because then if it was incoherant babble, then how can you tell the author what the point was if you cant even understand it at all and it's all just babble to you?

Who ever said it was past work only dealing with me. And just because you didn't recognize my name, what importance is that? Are you now trying to say since you don't recognize me, that I didn't exist at all?
Basically is that this isn't the first time you displayed this "My opinion trumps yours because my opinion is fact" attitude.

Overall, lets cut to the chase, because it seems you don't have the slightest clue about what you are arguing about. Remember, the Point-Moderation is needed in pvp zone. Why did I say pvp zone, well because this topic is about pvp. Of course it's needed in PVE zone too as I said earlier when someone brought up pvpe area. In fact I even expanded and say it should be equal.

The rest is experience and my opinion.

Now maybe you can argue the fact whetehr or not moderation is needed but my opinion and myexperience isn't going to change just like yours, where you claimed that you seen it will change. I probably can tell you, like you are doing me, "No you didn't see it no you didn't see it? Submit or I'll insult you some more." all day but it wont change you experience and probably wont change your experience. Now, imagine you stated you opinion in another topic and I came at you like you came at me. "Your point is stupid., AAAAAARGGHHH YOU R ABUSE OF TEH ENGLISH LANGUAGE!! IS ENGLISH YOUR SECOND LANGUAGE? YOU MUST NOYT KNOW THE Justice system. No! You don't tell me what your point is I tell YOU what your point is because I'm always right. My opinion is better than your." I'm sure you wouldn't consider it a proper way to have a discussion. Or maybe you would and have no clue how to talk to people and state your point in a rational non insulting manner. You will find out once you learn how to communicate with people without attacking people they might be more receptive to what you are saying. Or you go in with your attitude, it ends up like this where in the end it's nothing but empty talk and the actual point of how to fix pvp is off the wayside. AKA not solving nothing. Where the aggressor you continues and I refuse to back down, because I know that is what you want. You come off as someone that may be used to people cowering and withering away from your assaults especially when your counter point is weak and in this case weaker than the points you choose to attack, which wasn't the point to begin with. So I again, it's your choice, yes I'm repeating myself, because maybe it was missed the first time, I asked, and suggested it and want to make sure without jumping to conclusions. Either we can go pages and pages like this, knowing good and well it wont solve anything. Or we can stick to the point and get productive. The effect of moderation or lack of moderation the pluses and minuses, the up to having moderation the downs of moderation the ups of having none the downs to having no moderation. Like I again, it's your choice. I will reply in the same manner you give me. Come at me like a rational person I will reply to you in a rational person as if you are a rational human being. Come at me with the attacking attiude of "My point is better than everyone" then we can go 90 pages. You want power, that is the power you have. But you don't have the power of making me bow before you. Might as well forget that and having me change my mind and dismiss my experience and opinion simply because you want to dismiss them and think I should too. Especially when you haven't offered a single good reason why. Unless you think 'Because I said different." is good enough reason. Then we have too different definitions and views of a good reason. But I'm fine and calm either way. It's your stress and your health. But again so you know, no matter what insults you throw and assumptions and repeating that "I'm right, because I'm right. And you're wrong because I'm right." it isn't going to change anything. Just letting you know so later you cannot accuse me of wasting your time of causing you get angrier and stuff. It's on you. I have plenty of time right now to waste. And quite frankly having fun seeing you trying every single move in the book to squirm and dodge the simple fact that, You missed the point and jumped the gun." I'm kind of curious of how long will you go. Remember I am an observer. And observed the forums, pvp, pve, COHTITAN, for years. I figure observing a specimen such as your self and seeing how long they can go is time that I have to spend. Might as well get something out of it. You probably wont get nothing out of it, I don't think you entered it with any intention of getting anything out of it but I'll make it work. Besides, you cant understand it anyways it's all incoherent babble. XD.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Lol weak. Babble from the

Lol weak. Babble from the Free Online Dictionary:

1. To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds: Babies babble before they can talk.
2. To talk foolishly or idly; chatter: "In 1977 [he] was thought of as crazy because he was babbling about supply side" (Newt Gingrich).
3. To make a continuous low, murmuring sound, as flowing water.

Looks like you missed out on #2 there pal. Ooops. Too bad, that was an awesome semantic ninja death trap you were trying to set for me, truly.

Quote:

There is no ad hom about it. See there you go doing it again. Just becausde you said so and your view it is expected to be taken as fact. That is not what I seen. And unfortunately I know what I seen, you cant tell me what I sdee or didn't see, and just because you seen it and stuff wont change my mind to "Oh yeah since you said so, massa, I seen moderation. Knowing good and well that I didn't. My experience. Yours may be difference but while you're are looking up fallicies look up the one you are doing. In the end the point remains the same.

LOL.
I'm not disputing your experience. I'm disputing the conclusion that you draw from it. That's where you're committing to a fallacy. You apparently didn't read the entry I linked or didn't understand it.

Quote:

You're so tied up in trying to point out faults in other arguments that you are blind to the fault in your own arguments which is really a bit more faulty than mine. Mine don't revolve around saying your view is wrong. My view focus around the main point of I think moderation is needed, because this is what I seen, this is what I think happened. You are stating your opinions as absolute fact and trying to use it as meaning that my view is absolutely wrong.

You haven't addressed my points. I don't think you even understand them. If we accept that moderation was absent in pvp, why were there so many more behavior related complaints coming out of zone pvp than arena and base raids? Why is there a discrepancy? It's all pvp and all subject to moderation. Why was there such an increase in antagonism between the pve and pvp communities post the introduction of zone pvp? I believe a strong case can be made that the majority of pvp ills, behavioral or otherwise, stem from design issues.

Also, as I mentioned earlier I ran pvp events that I basically moderated myself. It didn't change much. The same underlying problems were still there.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Lol weak. Babble from the Free Online Dictionary:
1. To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds: Babies babble before they can talk.
2. To talk foolishly or idly; chatter: "In 1977 [he] was thought of as crazy because he was babbling about supply side" (Newt Gingrich).
3. To make a continuous low, murmuring sound, as flowing water.
Looks like you missed out on #2 there pal. Ooops. Too bad, that was an awesome semantic ninja death trap you were trying to set for me, truly.
Quote:
There is no ad hom about it. See there you go doing it again. Just becausde you said so and your view it is expected to be taken as fact. That is not what I seen. And unfortunately I know what I seen, you cant tell me what I sdee or didn't see, and just because you seen it and stuff wont change my mind to "Oh yeah since you said so, massa, I seen moderation. Knowing good and well that I didn't. My experience. Yours may be difference but while you're are looking up fallicies look up the one you are doing. In the end the point remains the same.
LOL.
I'm not disputing your experience. I'm disputing the conclusion that you draw from it. That's where you're committing to a fallacy. You apparently didn't read the entry I linked or didn't understand it.
Quote:
You're so tied up in trying to point out faults in other arguments that you are blind to the fault in your own arguments which is really a bit more faulty than mine. Mine don't revolve around saying your view is wrong. My view focus around the main point of I think moderation is needed, because this is what I seen, this is what I think happened. You are stating your opinions as absolute fact and trying to use it as meaning that my view is absolutely wrong.
You haven't addressed my points. I don't think you even understand them. If we accept that moderation was absent in pvp, why were there so many more behavior related complaints coming out of zone pvp than arena and base raids? Why is there a discrepancy? It's all pvp and all subject to moderation. Why was there such an increase in antagonism between the pve and pvp communities post the introduction of zone pvp? I believe a strong case can be made that the majority of pvp ills, behavioral or otherwise, stem from design issues.
Also, as I mentioned earlier I ran pvp events that I basically moderated myself. It didn't change much. The same underlying problems were still there.

Here is where I got the babble definition from. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babble. Not weak you are only trying to use a part of it to look like it's a way out. And again thinking your definition is better simply because it's what you choose, when you only chose part of the definition and only a part which still boils down to speech that is not understandable. Like the example you used, a baby's babble. So again I ask, if it indeed that, you can quote all the definitions you want, even the ones you quoted means the same thing, and mine is no weaker than yours. So you chose a different website and I based mine off of Dictionary.com. Can you prove for a fact that your website that you choose is better than dictionary.com or is it another one of those "It's better because I choose it. deals?" But back to the topic you are dodging. If my speech was as you said incoherent babble, like a baby's babble., then how can you make a response to it as if you understand the point? Or is it that you do understand it and it's not incoherent babble and just trying to do everything you cant to dodge the point and red herring you way out of the fact you missed the point and have no defense. You haven't disputed the conclusion, and yes you have been disputing my experienced., You said more than a few times stapled wit hvarious insults, that there was no way I didn't see any moderation, simply because you say that you seen some. Thus fro mthere you took the position of "SIince I seen it., MY experience trumps yours" you never disputed the consluion you already said you agreed to you to the conclusion that moderation is needed. Unless now you changed your mind. But in the term of a dispute, you haven't offered up any dispute. You just mostly said fallacy this fallacy that English this English that babble, incoherent and other insults without giving a single sentence dedicated to why you dispute it, and you view on it and why and how you came to that. Only thing you said, was your view and after that mostly "Because it's my view and I'm right and better than your view." Basically all you been during the entire conversation is criticize attack criticize and not offering any points for you position and instead sit on the belief that your experience, view opinion automatically make my wrong and you're going to throw around insults to prove it.

I addressed all your points each time you simply immediately dismissed them or focus on the English. Have you forgotten the incoherent babble part or was that also called "addressing the point?" I addressed those points. It's your turn t address those points. You haven't addressed those points at all since this conversation happened besides with the "I say this and thus my point is better than yours>" Which that attitude even extends to word dictionary websites and denying that there is more to the definition you quoted simply because that is the part you want to choose and ignore the rest as wrong, or as you call it, weak. Of course I don't understand your points. From what I see, is insult insult, nit picking my points, telling me what I meant, saying your opinion is better than mine, your definition of babble is undeniable regardless of what the dictionary website says, Because if you paid a single attention to my point instead of busy attacking attacking attacking the entire time you would have seen I addressed that especially zone pvp. which is what I directly referring to and the reason why it had issue. Although I couldn't speak so much, as I said too, for arena and base raids because it was harder to observe what was going on. People didn't talk much in arena, many times in ***MY EXPERIENCE**** in arena people chose their opponents and mostly because I spent a lot of time in the zones observing and doing my thing there. Thus as I said I was mostly talking about zone pvp in the pvp aspect. And the reason was as I stated because more moderation is needed. Because in a game with rules and allowing people to run wild with no recourse besides an ignore button that doesn't solve every single little problem, some moderation will be needed. Without it, it may turn the pvp into a dead zone and create resentment among those that pvp and those that either been ran off or seen people ran off from pvp and that spreads as the negative word spreads and thus, even people who never been into pvp zone may not go simply because of the word of the mouth. Plus usually with arena and base raids, you choose your opponents. Zone, may not. And I don't think it's a problem with the mechanics. the mechanics could have been perfect but would do no good if the rules set in place are not enforced at all. It may be better to simply make it a free for all, something else I already said, more than a few times, that way people don't walk into the zone expecting rule and moderation and thus moderations don't have extra tasks to do. I still think moderations is needed. And the conflict between pver and pvpers it wasn't usually about the mechanics that kept them out of pvp zones it was about people behavior from what I seen on the forum. Some looked like "well it's a jerk butt move but legal" things to some stuff that was, "well that is definitely against the rules". Of course usually, statements like that were followed by a bunch of flaming for the pvp side and stuff about how pvpers should stay out the zone, and how pvers are carebears and stuff. And less and less people willing to try pvp. Of course in that case, that was left to the moderation team of the forum. I'm not saying they must be right there hand and foot. But I do wished that PVP got investigated more into what happened instead of left falling to side whether if they found it to be people's behavior truely or actual something is bootleg about the mechanics. I wished they simply took a peek instead of mostly ignoring it. **** MY VIEW****

So why do you think it's all from design issues? Without it being buried in a bunch of insults and other crap if you can or else, the tone of the conversation is what ever you give me. See in your last paragraph you started to act somewhat reasonable and I act someone reasonable with you. I stated my position many times and why, many times, and my experience many times, and my view on it, my opinion many times. Yet, you haven't stated yours once. Just a line about bragging about being in PVP since I4. That is when I started pvp. So what does that mean? Or you moderated your own groups. But were you an actual NCSOFT Paragon studio Moderator? And your view of the underlying issue is that it's mechanics, ok, I'm interested, how so. I say it isn't, Wooo boy did that seem to get your goat like no tomorrow. God forbid someone say something different than you eh?

Conversation takes two. give and take. Listening. If you listen I'll listen, if you act dismissive, I'll act dismissive. If you stick to your point simple because you think you're right all the time, I'm going to dig my heels in and you will NEVER get me to surrender to you. If you actually act like you are trying to act civilized and discuss this topic, then I will act civilized and discuss this topic. You throw around word like babble and stuff I will write more babble and even longer able and soon I wont even bother with spaces to make sure it's fit for your reading and liken. single space, 10 font, fiction babble since you somehow seem fluent in it, format, with probably a good amount of words to match. And will get a kick out of it too watching to see what other nonsense you can come up with. At first, it seems you was on your A game with the insults until you threw so many out you don't even remember which ones you said or didn't say and crossing yourself up. Or we can solve a problem and be productive.. Bah but I cant deny you are proving my point of another post that people don't quit even when they know they are being insulting, they just dig in and keep on insulting just to keep doing it. You could have proved me dead wrong on that point if after the first volley of insults you laid off but you didn't. Observation. And of course more than likely later down the road you may deny it, but unlike a lot of stuff that happens in game when after a while it simply becomes he said she said I say no I saw different, it's all here, on record, it's all right here in chat form on the forum in an undeniable form.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Quote:
Quote:

Here is where I got the babble definition from. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babble. Not weak you are only trying to use a part of it to look like it's a way out. And again thinking your definition is better simply because it's what you choose, when you only chose part of the definition and only a part which still boils down to speech that is not understandable. Like the example you used, a baby's babble. So again I ask, if it indeed that, you can quote all the definitions you want, even the ones you quoted means the same thing, and mine is no weaker than yours.

That's funny. The definition you posted is word for word the same as the Free Online Dictionary I used. The one you linked is different. Could you possibly be confused? Hmmm...
The point of a dictionary is to list the standard usages of a word. It's not to authoritatively highlight one understanding and say "this is the legitimate definition", although they do generally indicate which usages are slang. All usages are correct but the meaning is contingent on context. And, like I said, weak. You stated that a few apes ruined people's pvp experience because of a lack of moderation. This is absolute nonsense. Completely false. Apes can't type English. They don't have the hand-eye coordination to manipulate a character in 3d space. Their thumbs are too fat to hit the correct buttons on a Razer Naga. At best maybe they can be taught to spam heal other.

See how that works?

Quote:

So why do you think it's all from design issues?

1. Because games with better pvp systems have healthier pvp populations that lack the focus on bad player behavior found in cox.
2. Non-zone pvp contexts in cox pvp also lacked the same focus.
3. There was a substantial outreach effort to get more people involved in pvp when NCSoft purchased the game. Players who did not pvp were asked why they didn't.
While bad behavior on the part of players was a fairly common response, by far the majority of people simply didn't like the implementation. Things like:
1. Lack of meaningful rewards for pvping.
2. Awesome pve builds not being effective in pvp.
3. No sort of ranking system. A new players wanders into a zone and gets pounded on by a 5 year veteran with maxed out gear.

And so on.

Let me try to explain something to you. Consider these claims:

1. Jerks ruined the experience of pvp for me.
2. I kept getting griefed in pvp and I never saw a moderator do anything about it.

These claims are true because they are about an individual's perception. They may not reflect my experience, but I cannot say they are false for that reason.

Now the claim you made that I've been shredding--

1. There was no moderation in pvp.
2. Pvp declined because there was no moderation.

These claims cannot be assumed true just because of your experience. You're taking your experience and extending it to encompass a population of hundreds of thousands of people. This is where the fallacy comes in. Furthermore the absolutism of your claim makes it very easy to debunk. If you're saying there was NO moderation, it takes a minimum of one account to the contrary (me) to falsify that claim. It's not a matter of me being self-righteous or wanting to be right all the time. There's a flaw in your reasoning. The simple solution is to restate your position in more reasonable terms.

Wanders
Wanders's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 20:12
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

1. Because games with better pvp systems have healthier pvp populations that lack the focus on bad player behavior found in cox.
2. Non-zone pvp contexts in cox pvp also lacked the same focus.
3. There was a substantial outreach effort to get more people involved in pvp when NCSoft purchased the game. Players who did not pvp were asked why they didn't.
While bad behavior on the part of players was a fairly common response, by far the majority of people simply didn't like the implementation. Things like:
  1. Lack of meaningful rewards for pvping.
  2. Awesome pve builds not being effective in pvp.
  3. No sort of ranking system. A new players wanders into a zone and gets pounded on by a 5 year veteran with maxed out gear.
And so on.

Yeah, I had friends who did zone PvP regularly and tried to get me to join them, but I could never get into it there, despite enjoying PvP scenarios in fps games. The builds were an issue, of course, since it would have taken an investment of attention and resources for me to tweak out a pvp build, but I think even that was just a symptom of CoX zone PvP pretty much boiling down to really-disorganized deathmatches. If CoT is better about ranking, and especially if they provide more of the objective-based game PvP modes (where the relative build strength between two individuals can be less of a factor), then it would be easier to take the plunge.

Global: @Second Chances
SG: Fusion Force
"And it's not what I wanted
Oh no, it's not what I planned
See it's not where I thought I'd be
It's just where I am"

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Quote:
Here is where I got the babble definition from. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babble. Not weak you are only trying to use a part of it to look like it's a way out. And again thinking your definition is better simply because it's what you choose, when you only chose part of the definition and only a part which still boils down to speech that is not understandable. Like the example you used, a baby's babble. So again I ask, if it indeed that, you can quote all the definitions you want, even the ones you quoted means the same thing, and mine is no weaker than yours.
That's funny. The definition you posted is word for word the same as the Free Online Dictionary I used. The one you linked is different. Could you possibly be confused? Hmmm...
The point of a dictionary is to list the standard usages of a word. It's not to authoritatively highlight one understanding and say "this is the legitimate definition", although they do generally indicate which usages are slang. All usages are correct but the meaning is contingent on context. And, like I said, weak. You stated that a few apes ruined people's pvp experience because of a lack of moderation. This is absolute nonsense. Completely false. Apes can't type English. They don't have the hand-eye coordination to manipulate a character in 3d space. Their thumbs are too fat to hit the correct buttons on a Razer Naga. At best maybe they can be taught to spam heal other.
See how that works?
Quote:
So why do you think it's all from design issues?
1. Because games with better pvp systems have healthier pvp populations that lack the focus on bad player behavior found in cox.
2. Non-zone pvp contexts in cox pvp also lacked the same focus.
3. There was a substantial outreach effort to get more people involved in pvp when NCSoft purchased the game. Players who did not pvp were asked why they didn't.
While bad behavior on the part of players was a fairly common response, by far the majority of people simply didn't like the implementation. Things like:
1. Lack of meaningful rewards for pvping.
2. Awesome pve builds not being effective in pvp.
3. No sort of ranking system. A new players wanders into a zone and gets pounded on by a 5 year veteran with maxed out gear.
And so on.
Let me try to explain something to you. Consider these claims:
1. Jerks ruined the experience of pvp for me.
2. I kept getting griefed in pvp and I never saw a moderator do anything about it.
These claims are true because they are about an individual's perception. They may not reflect my experience, but I cannot say they are false for that reason.
Now the claim you made that I've been shredding--
1. There was no moderation in pvp.
2. Pvp declined because there was no moderation.
These claims cannot be assumed true just because of your experience. You're taking your experience and extending it to encompass a population of hundreds of thousands of people. This is where the fallacy comes in. Furthermore the absolutism of your claim makes it very easy to debunk. If you're saying there was NO moderation, it takes a minimum of one account to the contrary (me) to falsify that claim. It's not a matter of me being self-righteous or wanting to be right all the time. There's a flaw in your reasoning. The simple solution is to restate your position in more reasonable terms.

Actually I already stated and restated my position in the terms of "my experience". You keep taking it to mean absolutism.

By the same token neither can your claim of majority of the players felt this way, or that way and thus it's reason as the failing of pvp failing, unless you actually know and or talked to actually majority of the player or majority of, as you put it, hundreds of thousand players. And that is just using the logic you just stated. basically you are doing something no different then what you accuse me of doing. The difference is the different side of the fence of the reason of why it happened. Because even with your claim of majority, I seen more responses to PVP more about behavior than implementation. And thus even your claims cant be assumed true either. In reality your view is no more actual truth than my claim, but I already said, it was my experience my observation with my opinion that moderation is needed in pvp settings.

Wit hthat said, at least we are now getting somewhere with the conversations, but still remember don't point out the fallicies of the opposite argument while ignoring your own fallacies or committing the same fallacies.

But just in case, as it has been missed it seems, what I was stating was my experience my view my opinion and not saying it was absolute fact but nothing more than what I seen and experienced. And what I think the what caused the downfall (used loosely) of pvp in COX. Which I think it's behavior of other players and that could have been solved with more moderation and if moderation was a bit more, in my view based on my experience, on my opinion, it could have been better. Even if the mechanics were solved, it wouldn't have solved anything without proper moderation according to the stated rules, again my opinion. You view it differently. and based on your view, I now can see how you came to that conclusion. Doesn't mean it's fact or that majority of players actually believed that because as you said and only going by what you just said in that post there, there was hundred thousand players and unless you actually knew majority of them, then you cant even say majority of them felt it was mechanic of the pvp that made them not want to pvp.

GH
GH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 10/13/2013 - 08:49
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

If you're saying there was NO moderation, it takes a minimum of one account to the contrary (me) to falsify that claim.

There was some moderation, I helped get people banned for certain behaviours but it wasn't pvp behaviour, it was racism mostly. Being an asshole doesn't get you banned. PvErs are not good people to ask about PvP.

PvP declined because the devs ruined it, zone PvP was the tip of a healthy iceberg until i13 when it became the terrible public face of PvP. Do not base your experiences on that.

PvErs have an odd sense of entitlement and I include myself in that, at times.

If there was an AV you couldn't kill, you may get friends or randoms to help you. You may even swap character to see if it helps. You may pimp out a build for a solo challenge. Deathsurge, Ghost of Scrapyard, Rikti Pylon spring to mind.

Yet that rarely gets applied to PvP. Need an expensive PvP build? NO WAY! Should have brought friends? NEVER! Keep being ganked? WHY SHOULD I NEED A TEAM OMG IT'S HAX AND UNFAIR.

There is no such thing as casual pvp, it's srs bsns.

Back to retirement.

If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 17 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
GH wrote:
GH wrote:

If there was an AV you couldn't kill, you may get friends or randoms to help you. You may even swap character to see if it helps. You may pimp out a build for a solo challenge. Deathsurge, Ghost of Scrapyard, Rikti Pylon spring to mind.

I used the same point to illustrate why it's a good idea to build PvP around teams. There's no changing the fact that some ATs and power sets will be better at going it alone in PvP (or PvE) than others. The only way to get true PvP balance is to have everyone play the same AT with the same power sets and the same enhancements/boosts. Bam. Balance.

1v1 balance in a game that will have as many AT and power sets permutations as CoT will sport is as mythical as an EULA that will keep griefers and gankers away from the game.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

GH
GH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 10/13/2013 - 08:49
I also don't believe it's

I also don't believe it's something anybody would want

Me: wtf.. why am I dead again?
You : I shot you first.
Me: but I popped +hp sweets
You : I popped more
Me: but 10 times in a row? That's not fair!
You : not my fault I live next door to the datacentre and you live across the world.

That is what it would boil down to.

Back to retirement.

If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 32 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
GH wrote:
GH wrote:

Slan wrote:
If you're saying there was NO moderation, it takes a minimum of one account to the contrary (me) to falsify that claim.
There was some moderation, I helped get people banned for certain behaviours but it wasn't pvp behaviour, it was racism mostly. Being an asshole doesn't get you banned. PvErs are not good people to ask about PvP.
PvP declined because the devs ruined it, zone PvP was the tip of a healthy iceberg until i13 when it became the terrible public face of PvP. Do not base your experiences on that.
PvErs have an odd sense of entitlement and I include myself in that, at times.
If there was an AV you couldn't kill, you may get friends or randoms to help you. You may even swap character to see if it helps. You may pimp out a build for a solo challenge. Deathsurge, Ghost of Scrapyard, Rikti Pylon spring to mind.
Yet that rarely gets applied to PvP. Need an expensive PvP build? NO WAY! Should have brought friends? NEVER! Keep being ganked? WHY SHOULD I NEED A TEAM OMG IT'S HAX AND UNFAIR.
There is no such thing as casual pvp, it's srs bsns.

No. There is such a thing as casual pvp, most players just don't have the mental attitude required for it. It means wanting to go into PvP for the fun of button smashing and going against other players. It means accepting that you will in fact lose.

A lot of PvE players can't handle losing.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

No. There is such a thing as casual pvp, most players just don't have the mental attitude required for it. It means wanting to go into PvP for the fun of button smashing and going against other players. It means accepting that you will in fact lose.
A lot of PvE players can't handle losing.

Could be said that a lot of "harcore" PvP'ers cannot handle losing either ;)

Actually, that is a white lie... the *vocal* ones cannot handle losing either, but once again, its the vocal bunch that get the bad rap.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 32 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

Brand X wrote:
No. There is such a thing as casual pvp, most players just don't have the mental attitude required for it. It means wanting to go into PvP for the fun of button smashing and going against other players. It means accepting that you will in fact lose.
A lot of PvE players can't handle losing.

Could be said that a lot of "harcore" PvP'ers cannot handle losing either ;)
Actually, that is a white lie... the *vocal* ones cannot handle losing either, but once again, its the vocal bunch that get the bad rap.

True, it could be that hardcore PvPers can't handle losing either. I just know a lot of PvErs who won't PvP because they don't want to lose. :p

robopez
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 18:42
I would like to weigh in on

I would like to weigh in on this topic.

I have played many online multiplayer games, in fact, since they were first introduced back when cutting edge was X-Wing VS Tie Fighter. One of the main things that makes a game 'successful' was balance. Just as an example, X-Wings were well shielded, had good flight capabilities, and were well armed. Tie Fighters had NO shields, but were faster and more maneuverable. Tie Bombers and Y-Wings were slower but had more armor/shields and carried way more armaments. A player could choose any class and have any great time. This balance has been the trick for multiplayer games ever since. If a game had an element that made a player overpowered, the game would quickly fall out of popularity, and it would die much faster than other 'fair' games.

...Aaand then I played City of Heroes. Got my first toon to 50. Decided to see if I could extend my gameplay experience the way I had in so many other games I had played before, by going into the multiplayer (PvP) side after having beaten the 'single player game' (PvE). You know what happened. Got destroyed SO BADLY that I knew I could never go in there and have fun, at least not with that beloved toon I had just had so many wonderful experiences with. I went back later after having leveled up a couple more 50s. I took another awesome and beloved toon, my new main in there, one that I thought (based on my PvE performance) was uber powerful. What happened this time was slightly different, although it boiled down to the same thing:
I got (practically) one-shotted by a player THAT WAS PERFECTLY INVISIBLE AND UNDETECTABLE. One who, in addition to being invisible, mezzed me so I couldn't run, placated me so I couldn't fight back, used an Assassin Strike that took 60% of my HP, and then finished me off with two more swipes before I knew what happened. I spent 15 minutes reading the battle log to even know what had just happened.

CoX hands down had the worst PvP I have yet seen in any game EVER. I know balancing would have to have been a nightmare, between ATs, and between the many powerset options. But... it was like they didn't even try or something. I KNOW players who PvP a lot SHOULD beat me most of the time at least. But I SHOULD also feel that I had a chance. And the Stalker thing? Holy Moley. That would not exist EVER in ANY other game. A character that CAN NOT be detected? No matter how much perception I build into my character? No. But atleast, if he IS going to be so well concealed, HIS ATTACKS would be BALANCED to account for this. Period. So I don't want to get picked on right now for not 'knowing' how to handle a Stalker, this is just an example of how no effort or interest in making a 'balanced' PvP experience was evident in CoX. But I think we all agree on that much.

The question is, how can CoT be made better? I still want to take my Empathy/Energy Blast Defender into the PvP instance and help defend a cargo shipment from Villians, or whatever the case may be in the new game. How could this be viable in a world filled with Dominators, Corrupters and Brutes? Is there any way to make things more balanced?

Here are some of my thoughts.
When you take your toon into PvP for the first time, you are offered a Respec. You can choose your powers, and fully level and slot your character to max level. Then you are offered (the equivalent of) SOs to slot into your toon. Then you can even choose Set Enhancements, maybe... 5 or 6 sets, mix and match however you like. The Respecification Screen should display your stats (like Mids Hero Designer), and have radio buttons for effects that you can toggle on/off so you can see their affect on you. This would likely take a new player a little bit of time to complete, but once done, this new player will be at no disadvantage where there gear is concerned, because all players will have had the same range of choices. Perhaps this player plays for a while, and regrets some of the decisions he made. He actually has TWO MORE TRIES to get it right, because he has two more PvP build respecs. (These respecs are ONLY for his PvP build, when the player plays PvE, that is a different build entirely, unaffected by these PvP activities.) Then at certain intervals, maybe every couple weeks, you get a free respec, or perhaps you can earn one in game if you like that idea better. But this would take elite gear out of the equation, now it would just be an issue of build choices.

Encounters with Enemies in PvP should not be 3-hits-you're-dead kind of affairs. EVER! Fights should be FIGHTS. Perhaps, in order to steal the cargo shipment out from under me, all a Villain needs to do is slow me down for a few seconds, but it's no fun to just get pwned. Even defenders should be able to endure a handful of smacks before being in mortal jeopardy. But this possibly creates a problem in that no one ever gets defeated, because they run away. I think that was the idea behind i13 Travel Suppression. But i still had people successfully run away from me, because my attacks rooted me, and they just kept getting farther and farther till they were out of my range. Whatever.
How to answer this? I haven't figured this one out fully in my mind, but I'm thinking something like special-PvP powers, like for melee characters, a harpoon gun/tractor beam/lasso power to keep someone in a fight, or for ranged characters, an increased range buff. These powers can be long-recharge and/or long animation times so that the affected player still has a 'chance', but is now compelled to fight to the death instead of running away.
Players should have an aggro cap, so that they can't get beat up on by more than say, two Enemies. Perhaps more for Tankers or even Scrappers, maybe less for Defenders. Maybe more for Masterminds, I dunno.
Also, defeats shouldn't feel like such a horrible thing. Perhaps players who fight to the death, are just fighting to 'Knock-Out', where you just get knocked out of the acton for 10 seconds. No going to respawn until after 5 KOs, or something like that. A KOed player can't be attacked for another 10 seconds by an enemy player, or until he attacks an enemy first. These are just ideas, these values may need adjusting to be 'balanced' and fun. Also, all these ideas were with an objective-based PvP mode in mind, like escort/steal the cargo shipment, and winning the match would be much more valuable to the players in rewards than racking up kill-count.
Looking at the differences in AT and still trying to make a somewhat balanced PvP experience I think is doable. I definitely think it can be done better than it was in CoX. Well, it would be hard to as bad as that without deliberate effort to make it that bad.

Anyway /end_rant
thank you all for tuning in

robopez
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 18:42
Holy smokes I didn't realize

Holy smokes I didn't realize my post was that long, heh
hope it didn't snooze you out too much

GH
GH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 10/13/2013 - 08:49
Maybe if there had been any

Maybe if there had been any of the things that made UT fun, assault, domination, that weird ball thing 2k4 had.. but instead PvP was what it was.
Maybe it there had been any kind of map rotation as with TF, CS etc.. sure you could pvp on different maps but your level 50 wouldn't work (chances are) on the level 30 map.

Maybe if there had NOT been badges and missions in the pvp zone, some people might not have been griefed. Hard to say, really.

I wouldn't attempt to balance individual ATs, groups should do that. There will always be the uber guy who can beat your whole group singlehandedly, it's possible that someone should do something about that but I'm on the fence about what.

Back to retirement.

If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev

Rheckawrecka
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 01/03/2014 - 20:21
I spent 1000's of hours pvp'n

I spent 1000's of hours pvp'n in CoX.

I dont think any kind of post I13 pvp should be implemented in CoT.

I also dont believe arena pvp should be the base line for balance either. That was serious business. Teams on voicechat that practiced weekly? Those are the min/max'ers that eventually will figure out whats good and whats not in terms of builds/powers.

I thought the sweet spot was zones. Though base raids while they lasted were incredibly fun as well.

Im all for paper rock scissor balance style. Unless the arguement is balance within AT themselves, youd have to standardize damage/endo/recharge for the sets. Which might not be a bad idea either.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Quote:
Quote:

...Aaand then I played City of Heroes. Got my first toon to 50. Decided to see if I could extend my gameplay experience the way I had in so many other games I had played before, by going into the multiplayer (PvP) side after having beaten the 'single player game' (PvE). You know what happened. Got destroyed SO BADLY that I knew I could never go in there and have fun, at least not with that beloved toon I had just had so many wonderful experiences with. I went back later after having leveled up a couple more 50s. I took another awesome and beloved toon, my new main in there, one that I thought (based on my PvE performance) was uber powerful. What happened this time was slightly different, although it boiled down to the same thing:
I got (practically) one-shotted by a player THAT WAS PERFECTLY INVISIBLE AND UNDETECTABLE. One who, in addition to being invisible, mezzed me so I couldn't run, placated me so I couldn't fight back, used an Assassin Strike that took 60% of my HP, and then finished me off with two more swipes before I knew what happened. I spent 15 minutes reading the battle log to even know what had just happened.

CoX hands down had the worst PvP I have yet seen in any game EVER. I know balancing would have to have been a nightmare, between ATs, and between the many powerset options. But... it was like they didn't even try or something. I KNOW players who PvP a lot SHOULD beat me most of the time at least. But I SHOULD also feel that I had a chance. And the Stalker thing? Holy Moley. That would not exist EVER in ANY other game. A character that CAN NOT be detected? No matter how much perception I build into my character? No. But atleast, if he IS going to be so well concealed, HIS ATTACKS would be BALANCED to account for this. Period. So I don't want to get picked on right now for not 'knowing' how to handle a Stalker, this is just an example of how no effort or interest in making a 'balanced' PvP experience was evident in CoX. But I think we all agree on that much.

I know you don't want to hear it, but more than anything you are describing learn to play issues. Anybody, in any game, that starts out in deathmatch style pvp is going to get wrecked. My beloved scrapper got destroyed. My favorite blaster was mediocre at best. After long hours and endless embarrassing defeats I finally found a controller build that worked for me and I developed some skill with it. And then once I had a grip on that, I was able to branch out to other ATs. It took a lot of time and effort.

Anytime someone in a videogame gets decisively beaten down by another player, there is a kneejerk assumption that the other player's build is overpowered. I'm not saying that there were no problems with stalkers. If I had my way, MMOs would stop including stealth based ATs in pvp--I think whether or not they are op, they are detrimental to the fun of the experience. But before I would declare a stalker as grossly imbalanced, I would play one in pvp myself. Did you? If you were prepared and understood their weaknesses, the majority of them were not a huge problem.

I had multiple non-stalker characters that could destroy other characters very quickly. My psi blaster could kill pretty much any non-tank AT in one attack chain if I got the drop on them--and this was from pretty long range. However, slowing things down to give players more of a chance leads to other sorts of problems. Dedicated emps were a huge problem in pvp. You have a character that, in pve, is meant to keep an entire team alive. When they show up in pvp, they are very difficult to kill. Heal decay was added to pvp because a blaster and dedicated emp could just show up and destroy greater numbers on the other side while being virtually unkillable. Imagine how bad things would be if characters in general took longer to kill.

An example of an off the hook unbalanced thing was the SHARKZOOKA: when you'd get 8 stalkers on vent, all with spirit shark epics. You'd all fire on the same target at once, from stealth, to melt a single target with 8 crits which would hit at about the same time.

Also, in regard to the thing you said about respecs: this is 2014. You should be able to respect your character any time you want, for whatever reason whether it be pve or pvp. The whole issue of locking characters into specific power choices and then setting up timesinks for when they want to change things has got to go.

possiblysilit
possiblysilit's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 12 months ago
Joined: 10/26/2013 - 14:46
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

An example of an off the hook unbalanced thing was the SHARKZOOKA: when you'd get 8 stalkers on vent, all with spirit shark epics. You'd all fire on the same target at once, from stealth, to melt a single target with 8 crits which would hit at about the same time.

Yo, your post's logic is flawless. But the "Shrakzooka" was actually when you put a bunch of stalkers into that one tall, metal, tubular chimney looking thing near the hero base in RV (using phase shift to stack them in), and then used sharks in unison like you said. Thus the "zooka" part of the name ('cause it legit looked like you shot 8 sharks out of a bazooka at someone). It made it really easy to land sharks at the same time on someone, since you were all the exact same distance from the target.

Tiger
Tiger's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Developerkickstarter
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 21:43
A truth of MMORPGs and PvP is

A truth of MMORPGs and PvP is that there is always a superior build and that there is no such thing as game balance. This is not because of game mechanics, it's because players are brilliant. A great player will always find ways of doing things in game that the developers will never think of. A casual gamer such as myself is never evenly matched for an avid PvPer. Not because I can't, but because most great PvPers are great because they work at it and have experience that I do not.

Aside from the questioning of the legitimacy of my birth and tea bagging my character, I respect PvPers, and think that they should have a part in this game. A PvPer should be able to have a 1-50 experience doing what they love without having their toys being broken to make non-PvPer's like me happy.

-Tigs

"If people say it can't be done, then you're on the right path."
Comic Book Lead

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Tiger wrote:
Tiger wrote:

A truth of MMORPGs and PvP is that there is always a superior build and that there is no such thing as game balance. This is not because of game mechanics, it's because players are brilliant. A great player will always find ways of doing things in game that the developers will never think of. A casual gamer such as myself is never evenly matched for an avid PvPer. Not because I can't, but because most great PvPers are great because they work at it and have experience that I do not.
Aside from the questioning of the legitimacy of my birth and tea bagging my character, I respect PvPers, and think that they should have a part in this game. A PvPer should be able to have a 1-50 experience doing what they love without having their toys being broken to make non-PvPer's like me happy.
-Tigs

Indeed.

But sometimes PVP-ers end up breaking their own toys by taking it a bit too far.

And when you havea tuned in dev team where what is popular or not is mostly decided by who speaks the loudest, then it ends up people with complaints about pvp and how it's affecting their enjoyment, then on the other end, you have PVP-ers instead of making their case for pvp are too busy calling everyone "noob" and telling them to "Learn to play". So when devs looking for constructive ways to improve, "learn to play, noob." is hardly ever considered constructive way of getting a point across. And it may be very well true they simply need to get I nthe practice and increase skills. But so is "Learn to not be a jerk, pvper." True as hell also but not very constructive in the subject how ot make a game better. Thus, those that do speak their thing, whether or not it is truly popular or they are simply the ones that care to speak o nthe subject, usually get listened to and things are implemented. Then when it gets implemented in a way that negatively affect pvp. While frustration and anger may be the first response to come up and deride all pver and call them whining noobs. It really do not make much case of why, how, when it affects PVP in a negative way.

And I love PVP. I didn't like PvPers that seem hell bent of destroying it by driving all players that they come across away. Because that hurts PVP. Player on player cannot happen if there is no or not many other players to fight. It gets boring, it sucks. Then when it's dead, what happened. Those same PVPers went back on the forum blaming the PVER's whining and saying that negative impacted PVP. When in reality, in many cases it was their own behavior that had a very negative impact, directly or indirectly, on the PVP scene.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Your posts really make me

Your posts really make me wonder if there's a type of PTSD that one can develop after getting beat down by belligerent tweenies in a pvp zone.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Your posts really make me wonder if there's a type of PTSD that one can develop after getting beat down by belligerent tweenies in a pvp zone.

Nah just a look at what I observed. I didn't always win but didn't always lose either. Actually won a bit more than lost. But just because I like to PvP that doesn't mean I'm going to say PvP is perfect and didn't have any problems and it's all PVE people fault when in reality, some of the unchecked behavior of PVPers had probably a greater effect on lack of participation in PVP than anything PVEers did.

As people always mentioned. "Don't like the behavior of PVPers, then leave." the problem is, many people actually did just that. Then those same PVPers get on the forums, crying, "it's the PVEers fault that PVP is messed up!" When in reality, they put the bullet into their own foot. And not all PVPers were boars, but the thing is by being silent about it looked like the condoned it and thus kind of gave silent encouragement to those false PVPers whose only interest was not the well being of PVP but instead was in it for it's destruction.

I'm just a real PVPEr that rather not have that portion of the game ruined again by those tweenies who claim to be PVPers but in reality are probably simply anti-pvp and have succeeded in giving PVPers a bad name and soured the entire concept of it in COX. Then had the audacity to try and place the blame on PVE people.

I'm just the brave one that have the balls to step up, and point out that it's not all the PVEr fault as many seem to want to believe and stick the blame too. Whether others have the guts to do the same, I do not care. And if that make it that I'm viewed as PTSD or other things for having the guts to stand up and let it be known that it's not all the PVPers fault, and not all PVPers were perfect angels and their behavior had absolutely no effect on other's view of PVP and part of the reason that it eventually got empty, then so be it. Because I think putting the sole blame on PVEers and "their whining" is a blatant cowardly lie. And if they were too cowardly to stand up to those that made it a hobby to drive everyone away from PVP, that is their problem. I'm not one of those cowards because I love PVP. Seemingly more than they do. They are too scared to stand up for it, and rather go the easy route and point fingers at people that it's simply convenient to point fingers at instead while ignoring the issues within the PVP zones and when someone say something about those internal pvp problems, it seemed to be assumed "Oh that person must be mad because they got beat up." A cowardly assumption. No, it's because I have the guts to speak on what really happening. If one only see problems when they are losing or ignore those same problems when they are winning, then that is not a good thing. I guess it seemed to become so common in the COX community that only time their is an issue is because they were losing that it's automatically assumed that anytime someone speaking about an issue it means they must have been losing too. Well surprise, not everyone is like that in the COX community. Some people are able to see the issues regardless if they are winning or losing. They could be winning 100% of the time, and still see the underlying issues. I'm assuming, which one probably shouldn't do, that I'm not the only one where whether I'm winning or losing have no bearing on the issues I see and issues that are there. But then again, maybe I am, because from observation, there have been cases of if one see a problem, the first thing someone assume "Oh they must have been losing."

But even if I so happen to have lost every single fight? What of it and what does it have to do with my point I was making?

Another thing to make clear, not all of those "belligerent" people were tweenies. Some, assuming their forum reveal was near true, was in their 40s, some were 30s, most held post graduate degrees, some had some pretty prestigious jobs, so lets not place undue blame on the tweenies because most of those people in that age group actually seemed more mature in their actions than some of those that posted that were in their 40s. So it seemed that true age had little to do with it. Maybe mental age is what you meant?

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Quote:
Quote:

I'm just the brave one that have the balls to step up, and point out that it's not all the PVEr fault as many seem to want to believe and stick the blame too. Whether others have the guts to do the same, I do not care. And if that make it that I'm viewed as PTSD or other things for having the guts to stand up and let it be known that it's not all the PVPers fault, and not all PVPers were perfect angels and their behavior had absolutely no effect on other's view of PVP and part of the reason that it eventually got empty, then so be it. Because I think putting the sole blame on PVEers and "their whining" is a blatant cowardly lie.

Yes you have the balls to stand up and whine about the bad behavior of some people, long after the game has stopped running and in a way that mischaracterizes how things actually were. You have the bravery to repeat this crap endlessly, clogging up threads while offering no practical solution to anything.

Pvpers were mad at the developers: for neglecting the arena, permitting endless bugs and imbalances, and eventually letting Castle screw them over completely. I don't know who you think blamed pvers for the decline of pvp. That doesn't make a lot of sense given that all pvpers were pvers--you had to pve in order to level and equip a character to begin with.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Quote:
I'm just the brave one that have the balls to step up, and point out that it's not all the PVEr fault as many seem to want to believe and stick the blame too. Whether others have the guts to do the same, I do not care. And if that make it that I'm viewed as PTSD or other things for having the guts to stand up and let it be known that it's not all the PVPers fault, and not all PVPers were perfect angels and their behavior had absolutely no effect on other's view of PVP and part of the reason that it eventually got empty, then so be it. Because I think putting the sole blame on PVEers and "their whining" is a blatant cowardly lie.
Yes you have the balls to stand up and whine about the bad behavior of some people, long after the game has stopped running and in a way that mischaracterizes how things actually were. You have the bravery to repeat this crap endlessly, clogging up threads while offering no practical solution to anything.
Pvpers were mad at the developers: for neglecting the arena, permitting endless bugs and imbalances, and eventually letting Castle screw them over completely. I don't know who you think blamed pvers for the decline of pvp. That doesn't make a lot of sense given that all pvpers were pvers--you had to pve in order to level and equip a character to begin with.

Well many blamed PVEers for the decline of PVP, here, in COX forum and the COHtitan forum. I'm not whining about bad behavior I'm just saying what I saw and I perceived it, just like you and everyone else do. Just because I see it different and say what I saw doesn't make it anymore or less whining or repeating than what you say. If repeating is an issue, then why is it when PVP comes up, there is someone blaming PVEers for the condition that PVP was in. And as usual you seemed to have no qualms or even mentioned it they were repeating the same thing over and over and over and over. Thus either way I speak on how I see it and what I seen. Only reason you seem to even think or now call it whining and repeating is simply because you disagree. Which is fine. But at least address the point and stop dancing around it. Maybe you didn't see this behavior maybe you did. But you cant tell me that I didn't see it. Because as you say, you haven't offered solutions to anything yourself. while I have offered many solutions in the past to this issue on many occasion. While in fact you offered not a single one besides tell people that they didn't see that and attack people because they say something you do not agree with.

So since you are about solutions, point out where you offered any such solutions to the problem instead of trying to hide the fact that it wasn't all PVEers fault, or denying that many people did blame pvpers, and that the behavior of some pvpers have effect on the state of pvp.
Because if I repeat myself then you have seen that within those posts, if you bothered to read them instead of immediately dismiss them because I'm not saying "oh yeah it's all the people that don't play PVP fault" you would have easily seen that I offered many things that I think was the solution to the issue.

Yet while you are quick to point out me for repeating, you might want to get on the people who keep bringing the subject up then since repeating is so bothering to you. And maybe you should come up with solutions yourself before trying to point out, in a false manner at that, that someone else have offered no solutions.

Even though the COX is gone, there seemed to be PVP planned for COT and thus of course I'm going to speak on it because it's aimed at the same people and thus pointing out things I observed, and thigns that have happened, and hoping that it's not repeated in the new game, before it is created unlike COX where PVP came later and the method and stuff that created the end result. If one isn't supposed to talk about the subjects because the game is long gone, then by your logic, most of these topics, including the topics you chose to speak on shouldn't exist at all. But seeing they do exist, I feel that the real thing is that you have nothing much to offer on the subject besides that you disagree, but deep down you know what I say had some truth, but the you are simply not ready to accept it and thus have no clue how to deal besides lash out in a haphazard way and accuse other people for doing something you had no issues with when the point was one you agreed with. Accuse others of not making suggestions with solutions without yourself making suggestions for solutions. Call it whining, for no other means than because you disagree. Because the truth of the matter is that the point that people that didn't like or play PVP is blamed for the downfall of {PVP have been repeated a lot more than I repeated my point that part of it is PVP participants themselves behavior. Yet you do not say they are whining or repeating themselves. Not to mention you didn't call it whining when everyone but PVP behavior is blamed. So what I think PVP behavior was a factor, you don't. Big deal, but at least state your case instead of attacking people and throwing out cliché quips while ignoring that the points you believe did what you accuse me of doing many times over and you didn't say a single word about it. WQhat ever you call it, I know what I saw and I'm sure it will be a matter of time before someone else, blame non-pvpers and their "whining" for the downfall of PVP. And I bet you will conviently overlook that and wont say they are whining or repeating themselves once more. But as soon as I say, "Well I think PVPers had a hand in it" here you come quick to say 'WAAAAAAHHHHH! You're whining. You're repeating yourself. You're not offering solutions." Either way, my view will not change. So if you cant discuss the view and have the whole goal of trying to shame me into changing my view. You are in an uphill battle that you will not win. Because I know what I saw. And if talking about topics is off limits, because COX is long gone, then I guess you have nothing else and better get on the ball because you have a lot of topics to cover and remind people that COX is long dead so they shouldn't talk about it because in just about every single topic on this forum alone, COX comes up, including the topic that you agree with that it's the fault of non PVP players that PVP went downhill. Why not tell those folks that they shouldn't be taking about it and basing it on a long dead game long before I even replied. You didn't. Because it wasn't an issue and isn't an issue. Only reason you're trying to make it look like an issue, because you have no clue how to have a discussion of varying views.

While yes you are correct in the fact that PVPers are by definition PVEers too, I didn't invent the term. Players of both side started to make the distinction between the two. And again, you have no qualms with going with that distinction until I brought it up. Another thing you trying to make look like an issue but wasn't an issue at all until it is used within a point that you disagree with. Because if it was truly an issue, you would have mentioned that fact a long time ago. Nearly when PVP was first mentioned on these forums. Yet you didn't.

But if you practice what you preach, then offer some solutions at least? I already offered many myself. If you chose to ignore them, that is your problem. If you simply didn't see them I would understand. But since you already said I'm repeating myself, that mean you must of seen the post and simply voluntarily chose to ignore them, and thus that is on you. Maybe I made the mistake of not making my points much on the COX forums, but yeah I do nto plan on making that mistake again. And each time some repeat that other non-pvp players are to blame, and they are allowed to repeat that point again and again and again and again, then I will and can repeat my point again and again and again. And if that is not considered whining on their part then it's not considered whining on my part. Because my point and what I saw and observed will not change even if COX is still dead ten years from now. If you or anyone else do not want to hear again what I observed or feel about the subject then maybe then the point of blaming it on everyone else but the behaviors should not be repeated either. But since it is, then of course I will repeat myself. If the subject does not come up, I probably wont mention it again. But if it's expected that your view wont change no matter how much the point that you agree with comes up and it's no issue, then I see it shouldn't be a single bit of an issue if I repeat my point even if you do not agree with it. You want a solution, here's one. Stop repeating that it's the fault of everyone else and PVPers or people that participated in PVP's behavior had no bearing on the outcome of the health of PVP. Or else yes, I will repeat my point how ever many times I see fit just as you and others may see fit to repeat their point of that it that the behavior of PVP participants were angel like. You wanted a solution to be suggested there you have it, I offered another. Although I am kind of curious to see what you will come up with next that is totally besides the point and subject and try to weasel out of following your own supposedly suggestion of that a person is supposed to offer a solution, well everyone that you disagree with, but I guess by your logic, you are not bound to your own words but anyone that you disagree with is supposed to follow it to the teeth. AKA, other people that you disagree with is supposed to offer solution even when you ignore all their other suggested solutions, yet you are not required to offer a single one. And it's ok that people repeat points that you disagree with but they are not allowed to repeat points you disagree with or else you will call it whining. But like I said, my solution to your stated issue is easy. Don't want repeat, then do not repeat that it was non-pvp player's fault. Want more solutions, then offer some solutions yourself. Want to call something whining then look within the points you agree with and you will easily see that it's been repeated many times, much more than I repeated that some PVP participant's behavior had an effect on the state of PVP. Because if as many people as you claim was truly mad at the arena bug or Castle I-13 result, then there would have been way more posts about that and how to avoid that than "hate that PVP got affect because of the whining of PVE players" or " PVE players enter the zone then go to the forum whining about how they got ganked." "PVE players always whining when they get killed when they enter PVP zone to get the badges." Or the assumption that when someone see issue with PVP it's simply because they must have been killed a lot in PVP, and assumption you even thought and portrayed. Because if you truly believed the devs were the main issue then you have stated that instead of assuming in your first post addressing me, you have stated that .Only reason you seem to be trying to bring those up is simply because it looked convenient now. Although they may have some truth to it. But even with Castle, there wasn't much hate that I seen on the COX forum COHtitan forum or even in this forum towards Castle but more that those things implemented in that issue was because "PVErs started whining about PVP and they got listened to."

possiblysilit
possiblysilit's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 12 months ago
Joined: 10/26/2013 - 14:46
This argument is like a

This argument is like a dragon ball z battle, if psypunk were a DBZ villain.

Slan
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/15/2013 - 23:34
Haiku?

Haiku?

jag has chafed backside
from bad pvp epeen
rages endlessly

in b4 wall of text.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Slan wrote:
Slan wrote:

Haiku?
jag has chafed backside
from bad pvp epeen
rages endlessly
in b4 wall of text.

all baseless assumptions and guess. One I don't have chaffed backside. Just because someone makes a point that is opposite of yours doesn't mean they are raging or have chaffed backside. It may simply mean that they had different experience and or view of the situation.

The one that sounds like they are chaffed is you. You ignore the points, and make personal assumptions. You offer no solution, yet demand solutions yourself yet while demanding solutions from the other. And how long my posts are, is how long my posts are. It didn't break any record and there are plenty that are longer than what I wrote there. Yet, you said nothing about their length and only bring it up as another means to dodge the subject and topic. If I have lot to say, I'll type a lot. If I have not much to say I type little. Either way, it's irrelevant to the point at hand.

Because the fact of the matter the person that got aggressive is you. Like I said, instead of addressing the points you go personal. So really who is the one that is really chaffed and raging? From the looks of it, that would be you, sir or ma'am.

If you call that raging then you can call it what you want but you're wrong because how I'm feeling or felt is known by me. Unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, then you have nothing but petty insults and assumptions because "Waahhhhhh, some one disagreed with me. They must be raging because I'm raging and crying because how dare someone disagree with me." attitude that you are clearly displaying right now. When in reality, it seems you seem to be the angry one. And it seems you cant deal with your own emotions so you try and say someone is feeling the way you feel. Usually they say that comes from a childhood where one is too afraid to stand on their own and need constant validation to their self worth and feel they must defend that misplaced self worth by attacking anyone that disagree with them.

In short, if length was a problem then you would have said something to the other long posts floating around on this forum. Two, you have nothing but assumption in my mood and whether or not I was raging but an empty guess. And you guess wrong, my friend. Three, people will disagree with you from time to time and have different experience, different views, different opinions and feelings about a subject. There is ways to discuss differing views whether you believe it or not without making personal assumptions and attacks against the person, and trying to use every cheap cop out to dodge the subject matter. Four, you really should follow your advice, in this case offering solutions, before demanding that from another person.

While we on the subject about length, there is no rule that says you determine what post is too long or too short or how long of a post someone can reply. If you choose to keep it short, pointless and personal attack, that your choice. I may choose different. If length is such an issue, then why not speak about length in the other posts and threads? Or is it only an issue when someone disagrees with you which it seems right now given your lack of response to much longer posts, and only bringing up length when it's apparent you have nothing constructive to add.

Either way, in a nutshell, I will keep replying with what ever length I deem necessary to get my point across whether you like it or not or rage or personal attack or make assumption or what ever trick you think of to dodge the point. If the length bothers you that much where you feel you cannot grasp the point then simply stating, you do nto understand helps, and I will try and clarify or as you call it, repeat myself. If it's that enraging where you feel like it'e raging and you do not like it, you can simply ignore it. Nothing is stopping you from doing that either if the posts are too long. But if you choose to not ignore it, then I may choose to make another reply that may be shorter or longer than the previous reply depending on how much I feel I need to say because then I must assume that you either have no self control in resisting the urge to dodge the points, ignoring the points, and instead making baseless personal assumptions, or doing it by choice, either way, I cant control your choices. Only you can do that .But I can control my choices and I might just reply in a lengthy way to get my point across. Or I may decide to return the favor of being an ass to one that is being ass towards me and make sure to make my post as long as possible to watch you squirm so I can get a kick and a laugh out of the next personal assumption they will come up with in an attempt to hide their own low self esteem issues. And may to add icing on the cake reiterate my point that they cant stand when someone disagree with them to watch them try and make baseless assumptions about the poster by trying to project their own feelings onto the poster. Although right now, it's not the latter case and simply a case that I feel like saying what I feel like saying and if it takes a few hundred to a few thousands words, then so be it. But keep on being a butt towards me and making personal assumptions then I have no choice but assume that you have not the slightest interest in the topic at all, or simply cant stand and hate it when people disagree with you and will dig the knife deeper and will make a post that may break the record for this forum, and make sure I reiterate my point to watch you squirm some more, and then reiterate my point again and again and again until you get sick of it and then reiterate it once more until you cant stand it and explode with rage or ball up into the fetal position at the audacity of me having the gall to disagree with you and not really caring much about your opinion of what is a post that is too long or your hatred towards someone that disagree with you. Or you can go the easy route and simply come to terms with ,"Hey, there are people out there that have different point of views out there that differs from mine." Or else it may be a long road ahead for you in interacting me because there may be some points that we agree on depending on the subject. But there will be some points where the views differ. Like I said, if you cant stand that, then there is nothing I can do for you. That is something you must learn to deal with. Because nothing you say or how many times you dodge the subject, or personal attack because someone differ in view or assumptions about the person you know nothing about you make, it wont stop me. It may have worked on other people In the past to get them to be quiet and go along with your view but it do not work on me. And as a matter of fact you kind of proved my point with how people behavior affected the PVP zone. See, just like that. Someone said something about PVP player's behavior and oh boy you that was too much for you to handle. And instead of sticking to the point ,you decided to go personal. And you wonder why, those so called people you call "whining" and people that espeen in PVP got listened to? Because they made their view point clear and stated their case while people like you did nothing but attack those people instead of making their own case. And my point is that those types are also a danger and may be more so of a danger to the state of PVP than the people they accuse of whining because they got espeen in PVP. Although whether or not they got espeen is irrelevant and a baseless assumption again unless the person specifically said they are saying what they are saying because they got espeened in pvp. And just in case that last part was too long or beyond your reading comprehension level, since you apparently have trouble keeping up with anything that is over a paragraph or two long, You and your attitude you are displaying the problem I was talking about and in trying to dodge around the point you actually proved my case in the type of responses given to people that say anything that perceived as negative about PVP. But again I doubt you even care about the point or the topic of this discussion because you cant see beyond your own rage in the fact that someone made a comment you disagreed with. Either way, that your issue, and probably why you never seen anyone do as I stated in my previous post. You probably was too busy on the defensive and attacking the person instead of looking at the point made. But either way, whether you overlooked it, ignored it, raged one the person or what ever, the point that I made, you cannot say in the future no one ever said it. The reason why, you can assume and assign what ever twisted reason " i.e oh they are saying that just because they are raging and got epeened in PVP and they are butt chaffed" aka using a textbook ad hominem, specifically trying to dismiss the entire point and or ignore the point on the basis of trying to make assumptions about the motives or experience of the author.

Was this long enough for your taste? I can add more if you like? You want shorter answers? Maybe if you stick to the point the answers will be shorter. Maybe you do not want anyone that disagree with you to write longer statements than yours because you seemed to have no problem at all with the much longer statements posted by others in this forum yet the one that made a point you happen to disagree with, oh now all of a sudden length is a problem for you. Well I wont do what you tell me and will write as long as I deemed is needed. And I may repeat myself, as often as I deem needed. And if that throws you in a rage, then too bad. You don't want to stick to the points and want it to be personal, then maybe I'll play ball with you. Each reply you make that isn't about the topic and the point and instead personal assumptions and fallacies, then each of my reply will be greater in length and I will go into greater detail about my point and the new point because it seems you keep missing it so thus I must assume you are either missing it on purpose, or simply not getting it. Thus since I cant say for sure which one it is, since only you know that as a fact just only I know for a fact how I feel and when I'm raging and not raging, I give you benefit of the doubt and assume the point wasn't stated in a simple enough manner and will break it down further and further until you either get it, or stop wit the personal assumptions and get back on the subject, or keep my name and your personal attacks non-directed at me or about me. Because two can play the personal attack game if you like although I haven't delved much into it yet. Because quite frankly, you by your reply and your reaction to a point, opinion, view that is different from yours or one you do not agree with is very telling about yourself and your state of mind. Again, you may have gotten other people to change their view or be quiet about their view by using this tactic in the past, but it doesn't work on me. I will go on and on and on and on and on and state my point again and again and again and wont change it one bit until you either give it up, or bring up something about the topic that is good for consideration like most people here are mature enough to do instead of going "I do not agree with you so I will attack you and make personal assumptions. in your head, maybe I have been espeen in PVP, so what? Your point? Whether or not I was in your head the fact is irrelevant all you think and think you are correct is that I was epeened in vp and thus since you think it you assume it's right and in your head you are right. In reality you couldn't be further fro mthe truth and maybe if you get rid of that midset of anyone that have different view point than you must be whining because they personally had bad experience in PvP, then maybe you find yourself able to constructively add to the discussion when you see opposing view point instead of having to and trying to relying on narrow minded assumptions. Because it would seem that you do not care about the health of PVP. You have the inability to think about other people, sufferer of narcissism, and thus cant stand other people view points. Which in a game or rather on a forum that is made to discuss different view points and how to make things better, you are actually the issue and the stone in the road. Because maybe you think COX PVP players were perfect or had little to do with the state of PVP. That is fine, but state your case and we can discuss it. But simply trying to dismiss another person case because you disagree with it by getting personal and making assumptions about that person, doesn't usually make that person go "hmmm I see your point. You make a good point." It usually end up wit hthe discussion going no where, with no ideas exchanged, and nothing furthered and in the end, both parties still thinking what every they though with no added information to consider simply because one person decided that it best to ignore the topic the point, and go making personal assumptions about the poster they disagree with. And of course this is the result. You thinking what you think, and me thinking you are a plum idiot that really just proved my point with the boarish behavior exhibited by some so called "PVPers' who probably in their heart are really wishing and hoping for the total destruction of PVP so they lash out at anyone that states any way they disagree with or suggestion they disagree with or view point they disagree with on what affected the state of PVP, or how it can be improved, and try and say the person making the differing point of view as being epeened in PVP, or making too long of a post, or raging, or butt chaffed, or mad because they got ganked, or other assumptions. Not because it is in fate how the poster they disagree with is feeling but because in fact it's usually because they have nothing to say and hope the target gives up, and be quiet, and fade to the back ground because they know deep down inside the point being made have some truth to it but they are afraid to face it. Because if it they did have a point of view to counter the point of view they disagreed with, they would have made their point and opinion known instead of simply ignoring the point and hoping the person stops and change their mind due to the personal assumptions they throw out. And usually those types say, "oh I didn't see any issues." which of course they didn't because instead of seeing points and issues, they totally ignore it and attack the poster making the point instead and then later try and deny that anyone ever made that point to begin with. If they simply opened they mind, they will realize that PVP can be bettered by looking and sticking to the points instead of personally attacking the poster of differing views. Maybe the poster of the differing view is absolutely wrong. Maybe be but it wont be proven or cannot be realizes if nothing on the other side by the replier because instead of making points dealing with the subject they go the lazy personal attack route and think that disproves a point when in fact personal assumptions about the poster is totally irrelevant and make no point about the subject at all on their end. Not to mention probably wont get the post of the differing view point to change their stance or even considering changing their stance.

With that said, I still think, PVP participant's behavior had an effect on the state of PVP. If Slan cant handle that without the personal attacks that are completely besides the point, tough for him. My view point is not changing based on irrelevant personal assumptions. And if he choose to continue, I will state my view point to him once again, and again, and again. While addressing his posts, and firing back, and speaking on subject presented to me, regardless of length it takes me to do it without so much a hint of rage. And more so of cause and effect. He throw out personal attacks and assumptions (cause) I will reply with a length that I feel is suitable for the situation presented to me (effect). If Slan presents the topic (cause) I will reply with the topic, but still regardless of how long he think my post should be.(effect). I'm just replying and reacting to what ever is presented to me or about me. Why? because I choose to. If they choose to personal attack and make personal assumptions then I choose to reply and reply in a length that deem is needed for what I'm replying to. They choose to forgo those personal assumptions and attacks, then I will forgo replying. Cant reply to what isn't presented. If the topic presented is on the topic at hand, then I will speak on that to. All just the same. Either way, you Slan, will not get me to change my view, stop talking about my view, or give up my view on what I think and how PVP can be improved and the things that effects the state of PVP and the decisions of changes and observation of what went on in the response to the view points presented in the past. I see though, while you said COX is long dead. You type of replies didn't seem to change much since then, even though COX is dead. And tell me, how is attacking poster with a different view point, is making a point that changes they suggested should not be implemented? From past experience it doesnt and thus the reason for the hate between PVEers and PVPers and many PVPers, note I didn't say all or even most, blamed PVE player's whining as the cause that ended up with changes that greatly affect PVP especially in the i13 era. ANd replies like your towards me, is the reason why there want much rebuttal to go by. It's easy to try and simiss another point because you want to take the lazy route and create assumptions out of your imagination that they must be saying something you don't agree with because they been epeened or had bad experience in PVP and must be butt chaffed. Basically closing your mind off before even thinking about the point. But even though you dismiss it, that doesn't make it any less relevant or change what I saw, what I viewed, how I viewed the situation, and my opinion on the situation. Like I said, if you have something constructive to add, think this my third time or fourth time saying this but each time you totally disregard it and say I repeat myself too much but yet continue to ignore the point and continue to not add anything constructive, by all means add it. I would love to see differing view points on the matter because how can I consider a different view point at all if you do not offer any and instead dismiss every view point that is different from your? .

On a side note, you have no idea if my butt is chaffed or not because you never seen it and if you have prove it so I can sue the mess out of you. :p

Pages