Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Bad vs Wrong

KarlBob
tribuzio
KarlBob
You started out talking about your single character. If someone killed your gatherer, and perhaps some of your friends who were gathering nearby, you wanted to kill that person until you broke his/her armor, to discourage him/her from coming back. Somehow, you've morphed from there to settlement politics. You wanted us to go back and read your earliest posts in this thread. I did. They were about a group of gatherers and an attacker, not settlement politics.

You really think that how we should react to someone killing our characters isn't settlement politics?
What is then?

What do you call "discouraging someone from killing us again"?

As you say I am not speaking of politics but my character, the first row of my first post in this thread:

Let's make a borderline example:
- you like to PvP, to win and want to get something from it. A logic target are gatherers. Bad but absolutely not wrong behavior.
- I am a gatherer and don't want to play pinata for you. So I want to show you that picking on me and my friend is a bad idea. Neither bad or good, nor wrong, only logic, seeing my goals.

What are my available instruments?
a) taking away the towers of your settlement if your settlement care about that, but it will likely escalate into an all out war
or
b) kill you so many times that you chose easier picking.

Maybe I should have used "we want" and so on, but you really think I am deluded enough to think that I can take someone tower alone even against a moderate resistance by a settlement?
"Picking on me and my friend" is not the same as "violating my settlement's territorial integrity."

"Kill you so many times that you choose easier pickings" is not "maintain my settlement's territorial integrity"

Most of the time there's no resistance to taking towers. That's why WoT was a flop.

Sorry, I'm apparently responding to what you wrote, not what you meant. Silly me.

My bottom line: As single character policy or settlement policy, depriving any player of agency by killing their character the moment it appears at a shrine, before the player has control of the character, is WRONG. I don't care who does it or why. If we can see when a character is about to come under the player's control, as we apparently can, then we can set an objective guideline for when it's no longer wrong to attack that character. Let's decide how many seconds that is, and the matter will be settled.
tribuzio
KarlBob
My bottom line: As single character policy or settlement policy, depriving any player of agency by killing their character the moment it appears at a shrine, before the player has control of the character, is WRONG. I don't care who does it or why. If we can see when a character is about to come under the player's control, as we apparently can, then we can set an objective guideline for when it's no longer wrong tho attack that character. Let's decide how many seconds that is, and the matter will be settled.

Why are your returning to this concept of "killing at the shrine" when I have already stated numerous times that I would respect the temporary truce until a guy is capable to act?

You really can't differentiate from "killing you as many time as possible" from "killing you while you are loading the environment"?

KarlBob
tribuzio
KarlBob
As for the question "When should someone who re-spawns be a valid target again?", my vote is for "5 seconds after their character rotates to face north, indicating that the player is about to resume control of the character."
If rotating north is a valid indication. I would prefer a number of seconds set by GW.
And as EU player a fixed delay is a disadvantage for me, as I suffer more from lag than a US player.
You have a valid point about cross-Atlantic lag. I don't know whether GW would be willing to set that number, or if they'd prefer we work it out amongst ourselves. The ideal state would be for the character to appear the instant the player has control, but due to lag, that's not possible.
KarlBob
tribuzio
KarlBob
My bottom line: As single character policy or settlement policy, depriving any player of agency by killing their character the moment it appears at a shrine, before the player has control of the character, is WRONG. I don't care who does it or why. If we can see when a character is about to come under the player's control, as we apparently can, then we can set an objective guideline for when it's no longer wrong tho attack that character. Let's decide how many seconds that is, and the matter will be settled.

Why are your returning to this concept of "killing at the shrine" when I have already stated numerous times that I would respect the temporary truce until a guy is capable to act?

You really can't differentiate from "killing you as many time as possible" from "killing you while you are loading the environment"?
I can differentiate those two things just fine. This thread was started to discuss good behavior, bad behavior, and wrong behavior. As far as I'm concerned, the thread has drifted far from its topic, and is in danger of becoming one more endless finger pointing match between the major powers. I'd like to resolve the original question, regarding the wrong behavior of killing people before they load the environment. Once that's done, people can finger point all they want. I won't be reading any more.
KarlBob
Tribuzio, you started out saying you would do the wrong thing, and justifying it as your only option. Now you say you won't do the wrong thing. I'm glad to hear it.

You spent pages asking people to define exactly when a re-spawning character should become a valid target. Now you say you don't want us to define it; you want GW to do that.

Ok, I guess there's nothing to decide. Great Power One, Great Power Two, have fun accusing each other of things. I'm done here.

Bye, all. See you in other threads.
Dazyk of Phaeros
KarlBob
As for the question "When should someone who re-spawns be a valid target again?", my vote is for "5 seconds after their character rotates to face north, indicating that the player is about to resume control of the character."

I usually completely agree with you, KB, but not on this one.

That 'rule-of-thumb' is waaaaay too easy to exploit.

I honestly believe, in this situation, 'we' have to give the recently deceased the benefit of the doubt and ONLY consider them a target again if they ATTACK again, or buff/heal/help someone else who is actively engaged in combat.

Yes, it opens up the possibility of being used as a ruse by the spawned character, but I think it is the only fair thing to do.
Dazyk Half-Elven, Elder of the Frozen Fingers, the shock- troops of Phaeros. If you are a fighter, cleric, or rogue, and enjoy battle, be it PVP or PVE, we are the company for you! We welcome role-players, casual gamers, and hardcore players alike.

Find your hidden strength, join the Frozen Fingers today!
Dazyk's PFO Resources Folder
tribuzio
KarlBob
Tribuzio, you started out saying you would do the wrong thing, and justifying it as your only option. Now you say you won't do the wrong thing. I'm glad to hear it.

You spent pages asking people to define exactly when a re-spawning character should become a valid target. Now you say you don't want us to define it; you want GW to do that.

Ok, I guess there's nothing to decide. Great Power One, Great Power Two, have fun accusing each other of things. I'm done here.

Bye, all. See you in other threads.

GW implementing a mechanic and the forum goers giving a definition aren't two mutually exclusive things. I don't know why you think they are.

After we have achieved some kind of consensus on what is shrine camping I would prefer GW to implement a mechanical way to enforce that so that there will not be endless accusation of "You are shrine camping" "No you were set to the north and I waited 6 seconds" "I respawned facing north, you know hat. I was still loading the world when I died" and so on.
Edam
tribuzio
KarlBob
Tribuzio, you started out saying you would do the wrong thing, and justifying it as your only option. Now you say you won't do the wrong thing. I'm glad to hear it.

You spent pages asking people to define exactly when a re-spawning character should become a valid target. Now you say you don't want us to define it; you want GW to do that.

Ok, I guess there's nothing to decide. Great Power One, Great Power Two, have fun accusing each other of things. I'm done here.

Bye, all. See you in other threads.

Yes, I would prefer GW to set a mechanical way to enforce that, but so far there is no indication that they would do it, so we still need a definition.
And unless we get a definition that seem acceptable to everyone I doubt GW will implement a decision made by its developers.

With regard to game mechanics:

Ideal for me, assuming you have no control over when or where you spawn, would be where you can see the game around your spawn point for a fraction of a second before your character appears to get oriented but cannot queue up attacks or target until after you spawn but you can act the instant you spawn.

The current system where you can be targeted and attacked while your screen still shows "loading terrain" is asking for problems.
tribuzio
KarlBob
Tribuzio, you started out saying you would do the wrong thing, and justifying it as your only option. Now you say you won't do the wrong thing. I'm glad to hear it.

You spent pages asking people to define exactly when a re-spawning character should become a valid target. Now you say you don't want us to define it; you want GW to do that.

Ok, I guess there's nothing to decide. Great Power One, Great Power Two, have fun accusing each other of things. I'm done here.

Bye, all. See you in other threads.

BTW, I love how you are completely disregarding half of that post:

So the second time this happen we don't stop after killing you once, we hunt you and kill you again and again. Probably after the first couple of deaths we are so near the nearest shrine that there is no actual difference from spawn camping you. Hopefully after a couple of death you would log off and log in with an alternate character and, after a time, we will go away to do what we were doing.

We were doing something that you have defined as wrong, but that was the only way to stop you from doing bad things to us.
So it is "wrong" or it is "the only available solution with the current mechanics"?

GW could ameliorate a bit that situation giving our characters a small window of invulnerability or untargettability after logging in and respawning, so that you would have a chance to run away.
In the above scenario my goal isn't to kill a defenseless character, it is to kill a bandit and degrade his gear. I would be perfectly happy if the bandit had the capability to defend himself.
Possibly if forced in the above scenario I would wait a few seconds before attacking after a enemy has respawned, but I wouldn't allow him to go away scott free unless he start running like mad.

Oh, look, from post 1 I said I would wait for a few seconds after you have respawned, and asked GW to put a window of "invulnerability or untargettability after logging in and respawning".

I am amazed. You argue for a 5 seconds delay after turning north and miss me proposing something very similar (I had no idea about that thing about turning north) in my first post in this thread.
Nihimon
Dazyk of Phaeros
I honestly believe, in this situation, 'we' have to give the recently deceased the benefit of the doubt and ONLY consider them a target again if they ATTACK again, or buff/heal/help someone else who is actively engaged in combat.

Yes, it opens up the possibility of being used as a ruse by the spawned character, but I think it is the only fair thing to do.

I 100% agree, until that Character is known to consistently return to the attack after being given that benefit of the doubt.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post