Open World PvP

[VelKallor]

Piller clipping in WoW, double stance discharge in TOR, baiting people to come and defend a position due to camping an NPC barring people from gaining access to certain things to force a WPvP encounter all of these things could be seem as a means to an end.

Ever hear of the fable of the dog in the manger?

You just proved my point.

[Delis]

This is what OP wanted.



Non consensual no opt out open pvp

A gankfest.

A flat NO.

How is that a non consensual no opt out open pvp? Again this would happen on a pvp server where people know what they are getting into by playing on the server. No where in the op's post do they say they want to force a non consensual no opt out model for world pvp on everyone. Again on a pvp server you would be heading out in numbers for better odds of survival, on a pvp serer you can settle disputes between players with pvp. I don't see how any of this automatically means they want a no opt out pvp. People just jump to conclusions and assume things.

[VelKallor]

Thats not what OP said.

[Delis]

Okay show me where in the op's post that states they want a no opt out wpvp.

[Caurcas]

Thats not what OP said.

Hello, OP here. I really hadn't thought of opt in or out when I posted. Like I said I wanted discussion on the topic, and not to necessarily attempt to lay out a system.

[SannaR]

Okay show me where in the op's post that states they want a no opt out wpvp.

They also didn't state that they wanted PVP servers just that they wanted open world pvp so they could kill those they disagreed with or didn't like. Which sure, doesn't out right say that they want a non opt in world pvp, but heavily implies that it does to many in this thread.

[SannaR]

I am a little surprised that this thread hasn't gotten any of the same responses the "Can I make a linkshell to report those I have a problem with?" thread. I guess because it's asking for an option to be put in. As if one were to go solely on what's stated in the OP has the same kind of feel. Of Hey, is it possible for this to happen so I can be a complete jerk to people I don't like.? Just an observation.

[Krotoan]

I get what you are saying but what I am getting at is everything you have stated could be categorized as use of tactics or strategy. It is a matter of perspective thus the bullying stance is flawed outside those cases where someone clearly states that is their intent.

Camping outside a starter area that High leveled players have no reason to be around (other than to slaughter lowbies), is a tactical choice?... well yes... but given context like say in a MOBA, spawn camping is OK because that is part of the objective of the game. Keep the enemy away from your stuff and keep their levels low. But if we're talking an MMO where people in lowbie areas are generally inexperienced and undergeared, there is no purpose but to bully. You are killing people who have no chance to fight back and who probably would not want you to keep doing this since being absolutely stomped is not fun.

Saying that "well it COULD be a strategy" isn't being part of the discussion we're having, you're just trying to justify bullying with the fact that in some OTHER circumstance we aren't talking about, that behavior is fine.

Piller clipping in WoW, double stance discharge in TOR, baiting people to come and defend a position due to camping an NPC barring people from gaining access to certain things to force a WPvP encounter all of these things could be seem as a means to an end.



Which is why I feel the bullying aspect is disingenuous. I get some do not like PvP or having their experience interrupted by others but to say such actions are bullying because they operate on the premise that they are taking advantage of systems within PvP. We have to remember that enjoyment is a key aspect of a game and generally I personally believe unless the action outright is against the thns and actively enforced then ones enjoyment should not be called objectively bullying unless it can absolutely be proven to be the case.

I'm well aware of your particular views on your own enjoyment being priority. In fact I would call your particular stance on "abusing" majority in a party and general apathy to kick people out of parties that aren't doing what you want bullying. I'm not surprised you don't understand why this is bullying and undesirable since your personal philosophy of ends justify the means (it benefits you and who cares about others) is something you share with bullies in general.

Just because something isn't definitively against the rules of the game, doesn't mean that it isn't bullying, it just means the people who write the rules don't know how to eliminate it within the system without ruining the desired effect. The spirit of PVP is that there will be contests of skill and battles between factions. The reality of the world is that people will exploit and abuse these systems to be jerks to those who are powerless because it makes them feel better about themselves. Bullying is not a made up concept or limited to the real world.

Please understand I do not overall agree with certain tactics and this is also why I often be one of the people that protected lowbie areas but even so I would not say their actions were bullying, I would call them a crowd but not a bully.

Though I get my stance is very different from many because I have lived and breathed on PvP servers.

Often. such actions as lowbie camping were products of dying populations or unskilled players.

WoW in its heyday was no stranger to lowbie campers and gankers. What was the excuse there? Sure it was fun for those who were "winning" but I'm reasonably sure even if the people they were slaughtering understood it was part of the game, they weren't actually having fun corpsewalking themselves over and over , trying to get their newest dead body close to a town where the gankers couldn't go.

Why was that fun? Once you consider what you're doing to another human being on the other side of the screen (something I understand you probably don't care about), you have to admit you are being a detriment to their experience. If you can continue to do this while considering this AND you think it makes it FUN? .. you're a bully. You could do this WITHOUT considering and not caring, that just makes you a jerk or a sociopath.

[Awha]

What I am trying to say is that the burden of proof is on the accuser and objectively it would be hard to prove their intent was to personal grief or bully another individual. Do not get me wrong it does happen and I am guilty of it myself I have camped someone in classic WoW for five days straight each time they logged on. Yes I was bullying this person and I cleared stated that was my intent. What irks me is when people make an assumption based around their own interruption of the situation to come up with a conclusion as to why they are doing X. Often times I think our own personal bias makes such calls generally hard to make. Granted I am also not a fan of the court of public opinion.

X behavior does not always lead to Y conclusion.

Yes even in WoW ganking lower levels was a means to get higher levels out to farm honor. Trying to force Wpvp was sometimes the only way to get the alliance out of their main cities so even that had a purpose. I get a person is playing the character but if someone rolls on a pvp server or logs into a pvp match they should be well aware of what that means. End of story.

Yes I am a jerk and yes I do have ASPD. In the end the only objective thing we can follow are the rules set by the devs and rules we all agree upon when we log in. The rest is based around irrelevant moral calculus. It is moot cause it was not a Agreed upon standard. People who roll on a pvp server or take part in pvp should expect pvp to happen.

In the end I do think intent should be taken into consideration. I guess overall my stance is I rather people not make assumptions based around my actions especially because I am fairly transparent with my actions. Nor do I think it is fair to attribute my actions or view them under a moral framework I did not agree to under a general social contract. I get you have opinion and views by sadly they are moot if one is operating under the agreed upon rules set by the devs.

Ever hear of the fable of the dog in the manger?

You just proved my point.

Do not follow cause I do gain something enjoyment. I have use for enjoyment. Enjoyment does have value not like it has a cap like other forms of wealth. So putting others ahead of ones own enjoyment sure may be selfish but I also do not agree being g selfish is inherently wrong or enmoral either.

In the end your stance requires me to care about the wellbeing of another.

[Krotoan]

What I am trying to say is that the burden of proof is on the accuser and objectively it would be hard to prove their intent was to personal grief or bully another individual. Do not get me wrong it does happen and I am guilty of it myself I have camped someone in classic WoW for five days straight each time they logged on. Yes I was bullying this person and I cleared stated that was my intent. What irks me is when people make an assumption based around their own interruption of the situation to come up with a conclusion as to why they are doing X. Often times I think our own personal bias makes such calls generally hard to make. Granted I am also not a fan of the court of public opinion.

"Cop didn't see it, I didn't do it". ... not particularly a morality I like to foster. I'm not going to pretend I didn't participate in bullying either when the opportunities presented themselves. I was a young and insecure person like some others for sure. But I have no illusions now that it WASN'T bullying and ascribing that same standard to others who participate in blatant abuse of power differences and exploiting systems to hinder the progress of others in playing the game, isn't unfair. Sure I'm biased in that I judge people on how I know I'd feel in the gankee's position and I'm assuming that the person who's doing it also knows what they're doing. But it's not a stretch at all to say that there are a lot of anonymous people on the internet who would revel in bullying others and will do so if given the framework.

X behavior does not always lead to Y conclusion.

Very true, but in the situation where someone says "I want to be able to kill people who are doing things I disagree with " or "I like killing noobs" , what are we supposed to get from that? Assume higher tactical purpose and reasoning? Or go with Occam's razor and say, welp.. seems like these people just want to carryout vigilante deathsquads and kill people who are lower level then them because they can't fight back.

Yes even in WoW ganking lower levels was a means to get higher levels out to farm honor. Trying to force Wpvp was sometimes the only way to get the alliance out of their main cities so even that had a purpose. I get a person is playing the character but if someone rolls on a pvp server or logs into a pvp match they should be well aware of what that means. End of story.

Which was decried as a bully tactic. The players who were getting ganked wanted to do other things. They wanted to play the game and do other stuff, not be martyrs (strong word but.. it's basically true) so that they could either login to their top alt or call on guildies or faction mates to come and defend them. This much being obviously inferrable in that they were not seeking out PVP in the first place. The fact you even use the word "force" means you understand this was NOT what they wanted. Making other people do things they don't want at the time is not "fun". Having a purpose does not excuse method. If the PVP is so imbalanced or one sided that the other side has to be forced to participate, maybe it's not a great system.

To that point of "well you rolled on a PVP server", well yes, you did. And you agreed to participate in those rules of engagement. But what if I did it because my friends were there? What if I started when it was an equal thing and now it's crazy one sided and no fun to engage in anymore? What if when i did the "front" of battle was wayyyy farther off than the starting cities and lowbie progression wasn't this stressful mess of being constantly alert? Nobody signs up for something assuming it's going to suck for them all the time. People agree there are risks and disadvantages to everything but you're not obligated to be OK and happy with the worst case scenario.

Yes I am a jerk and yes I do have ASPD.

I wasn't accusing. Your self admittedly different value system is the only reason I feel comfortable saying things like that. I appreciate that you are at least morally and value consistent and don't take it personally when discussing it.

EDIT:

In the end I do think intent should be taken into consideration. I guess overall my stance is I rather people not make assumptions based around my actions especially because I am fairly transparent with my actions. Nor do I think it is fair to attribute my actions or view them under a moral framework I did not agree to under a general social contract. I get you have opinion and views by sadly they are moot if one is operating under the agreed upon rules set by the devs.

They are only moot to you. Devs are not infallible and sometimes limited in what they can restrict by technical limits, gameplay intent, or legal restrictions. I understand you don't agree to the "social contract" but as part of the population you will be judged by it.