Please Remove All The Anti Pvp Rules On The Epic Cluster

[outlander 30]

HAHAHAHAHAHA........PVP on wurm.

 

You all should just stop pretending it is PVP.  You should call it NRHIKPVPWHDOWAG or "never really happens inter-kingdom combat with heavy doses of whining about griefing".

 

(notice no name calling or insulting words am interested in what I get banned for this time)

 

Che:  I would stop telling people to go to eve online, it vastly more interesting, less whiners (that can be seen) and 'this' sort of topic is deleted before it gets three posts let alone 3 pages.

[Touchmee 380]

If the rep system was taken away entirely then they'd have absolutely no reason to attack as an enemy since as the same kingdom they can have a village to spawn at, don't have to worry about the CR nerf, don't have to worry about guard towers, and are a short trip away from their targets at any time. Except for getting affinities there would be no reason not to attack home servers as the same kingdom. Is that really how epic is meant to be played?

 

That must be the most load of crap i have read in ages....

 

And here is the best solution to everything you just said.... group up and form an alliance and run them off the server. Stop being so lazy and refusing to pvp (and yes even against same kingdom its still a player vs a player) Stop relying on Rolfs carebear features so you can smith thousands of nails on a pvp server

[outlander 30]

That must be the most load of crap i have read in ages....

 

And here is the best solution to everything you just said.... group up and form an alliance and run them off the server. Stop being so lazy and refusing to pvp (and yes even against same kingdom its still a player vs a player) Stop relying on Rolfs carebear features so you can smith thousands of nails on a pvp server

OMG that was the best post ever on this topic.

 

I fear you might get banned for 30 days however since you called people lazy, carebears and suggested they refused to do something.   Keep your head down maybe they will not notice you were being logical and ban you for it.

[Suntzu 644]

Its a sanbox you should be able to kill whoever you want on a pvp server. The nature of a sandbox is people play how they want.

You say same kingdom should not kill each other? Disputes are disputes, if someone doesnt like you on a pvp server they can kill you, jeez you WLers...

[outlander 30]

Its a sanbox you should be able to kill whoever you want on a pvp server. The nature of a sandbox is people play how they want.

You say same kingdom should not kill each other? Disputes are disputes, if someone doesnt like you on a pvp server they can kill you, jeez you WLers...

I just chop holes in their fences and lead trolls to their guards.

[LorenaMontana 3,008]

I fear you might get banned for 30 days however since you called people lazy, carebears and suggested they refused to do something

whats this nonsense about askin for bans and stuff...? Askin for a yellow card is recievin one urself newb

[outlander 30]

whats this nonsense about askin for bans and stuff...? Askin for a yellow card is recievin one urself newb

I decided to just remind you that name calling is not how they roll on this forum.  I suggest you remain on the topic and do you best to limit your personal stances to my priv messages.

 

and it is noob....STFU is what I feel and eve is where my money goes.

Edited July 23, 2013 by outlander

[Haydn 102]

This is a hard one to call. Why does everyone assume that the majority is/always will be the "good guys" and anyone who would die would just be bad guys? Sure, i'd love to kill a griefer, then slaughter him 100 times at the spawn. But maybe allowing people to do the same to new players isn't a good idea? Everyone on this thread probably has a group of friends to play with, connections, gear, skill, and think this would be just a wonderful idea (me included).

 

But we don't need to make the new player experience miserable. If you spawn, get killed 10 times, then get a PM saying "don't worry we got him, he wont bug you any more" it doesn't matter to you, you're moving on to the next game.

 

Sure it needs fixing, but come on.

 

That must be the most load of crap i have read in ages....

 

And here is the best solution to everything you just said.... group up and form an alliance and run them off the server. Stop being so lazy and refusing to pvp (and yes even against same kingdom its still a player vs a player) Stop relying on Rolfs carebear features so you can smith thousands of nails on a pvp server

 

Rolf's carebear features is the only thing stopping us from doing that now. But nice try.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Haydn

[Fireflyb 920]

+1

 

Think of it this way...    the reputation system theoretically provides a way for people to combat those who would attack their own kingdom...  so when the "griefers" (I know, that term is abused to death, but applicable here) act in their "griefing ways", the "good folk" or w/e of the home servers try to fight them, but the reputation system just creates this giant mess that you have to wade through every single time you want to fight people..   and then when those "griefers" ally themselves with an enemy kingdom, the whole situation is ridiculously overwhelming...    on elevation, you attack someone, you fight, and die or they die...    on a home server, you have to constantly try to keep your mind wrapped around the situation at hand in order to determine if whoever it is you're trying to attack is KOS'd, or on deed, or simply "Enemy" (lol a whole new term apparently; Nos said targeting people who are KOS'd on your deed will make them "Enemies" so you can attack w/o losing rep...)..  as well as loopholes and/or bugs...  

 

PvP on a home server is like trying to solve an equation like "2+2" using quantum physics...  

 

IMO complete removal of reputation system on home servers wouldn't be smart, but it needs a serious re-doing or something..   honestly don't know at this point, lol.

[Fireflyb 920]

Guess how much abuse there was?  Zero.  Why?  Because if someone even so much as attempted to start griefing, we banded together and stopped it, and it was over.

 

Most important part of this thread, IMO.. 

[DefImp 19]

Here are my two cents.

 

I'm on Serenity, and have dealt with Nos and his Coast Guardians before. Frankly, he is right. I think too few of JKH is willing to do crap, and part of that is the carebear mentality, the other part of that is the Reputation system. No matter what side on the issue you stand, please read my whole post, because I am both for and against the reputation system.

 

Firstly, I am for it, because ultimately it is a means to draw players into the game. As much as you may hate carebears/freedomers, the statistics are pretty clear, they are the ones paying for the entirety of development and hosting. If we don't have enough depositors on Epic Cluster, then Rolf will look at his spreadsheet and see that its costing him X per month; and over the course of a weekend it would be gone. While Rolf is motivated by more than just business (this is his artform), I think we can agree that a specific single server, if causing him too much trouble wouldn't be much for him to scrap and go to the drawing board with.

 

You might think this is hyperbole, but really think about it. If elevation had no home servers potentially, I wonder how much subscribership they would get. All you have to do is look at Affliction or Elevation subscriber numbers to get an estimate. Okay, so we have covered that something akin to a 'safe-zone' or 'empire-space' is needed. Not only does it bring more depositors to the cluster, but it potentially creates more opportunity for PVP. These new players can and will support measures to keep their homes defended once they are here, but they will be less inclined to join if its an affliction-style FFA.

 

However, the Reputation system has created a lot of inconsistencies. Here is a specific example I was reading about today. A person goes onto deed, and kills the Templars, then begins catapulting. If there are no Templars, there is no rep loss for the catapult action. Surprisingly, killing Templars does not result in any rep loss (according to what I read). Therefore, if I were on that deed, I would literally have to go hunted before my attacker did, in order to stop him. On top of that, if I am in another village, and wanted to contribute, same situation. Known outlaw stealthing around and marking weaknesses and potential catapult points? Same situation. Random guy taunts newbs into attacking him, making the server less habitable? Same situation. In all those cases, with a little tenacity, the raider will make the defender hunted, then can loot him willy-nilly.

 

So, I think the best thing is a hybrid system. Firstly, there still is reputation. It works largely the same, minus kingdom-switching, and specific PVP interactions. So in those above cases, you will still go 'hunted' (though hopefully that Templar situation can be remedied). However, reputation only affects three things. Firstly, it is a visual indicator to all players that you have potentially done something wrong. Secondly, it allows players to attack you without a similar reputation hit. Lastly, it still continues to add up and make kingdom towers go hostile. There was a recent post about how reputation should not be regained automatically, but earned, that should also be considered.

 

So, in the above situation, how would things change? Rules concerning loot. You should be able to loot any dead body, anywhere, anytime. Im literally dissuaded heavily from responding to JK-T (JK Trolls) due to the fact that if I don't play the system right, I will be the one on the defensive and Ill get looted. Well, ######, hell with that. Just let everyone loot everyone. At least then we might start rolling the snowball to push these guys off server.

 

If it weren't for the monetary side of thing, I'd say screw the whole system and go at it. But I think I'm an accurate judge of the business side of this, given what I can infer from casual observation.

 

-Imp

[DefImp 19]

TLDR; Keep reputation because we need it to keep the game afloat. Allow universal looting so one of the major concerns of the 'hunted' system is no longer a concern.

[Maxthx 642]

First off : "the ones paying for the entirety of development and hosting" should never factor into this in the least. Not only does it not matter, it doesn't have any bearing at all on the situation. Never EVER concern yourself with the monetary side of the game. Its not your business and it should not have any bearing on how the game is managed. If it did, I could pay Rolf $20,000 and have him ban everyone I didn't like.

 

Second : Reformating the current system would not fix anything. The problem is that people are intelligently manipulating the system to their advantage and corrupting its functions to destroy its purpose. Changes will just force them to adapt, but not stop. The Reputation system has already been revamped... twice? three times?... and nothing has changed. In fact it has gotten worse.

 

We need to remove this system and let players govern themselves. Its as simple as that.

[MrGARY 12,421]

My question is simple. Why do people want to waste their efforts on attacking their allies when their talents would be better suited in dealing with their enemies? Wurm Online does allow for PvP and yes, that's an important aspect of the game but by no means does it mean you can allowed to be a jerk, attack who you want, even your own team, and be able to get away with it with no repercussions. If you want to do that, you'd be better off playing EVE Online.

 

Did you even read the thread?  This is about being able to defend yourself and take care of griefers and self-police without dumb rules punishing you for doing what is right.  Not about 'gunaa attack dis guy and take his stufflolol'

[outlander 30]

 

We need to remove this system and let players govern themselves. Its as simple as that.

I agree 100% problem is too many people have kept dudes like me locked out, labeled as bad and have given themselves the title of: Good people.

 

Too much mental shock would be had by those types if they were forced to accept people like me as a player with the rights to decide things for themselves or worse as an equal.  They would quit the game rather than address the issues, they were able to quote rules for before, via in-game ways.  Words are not going to stop me, your belief I am wrong will not stop me the truth is only the actions I bring to you will stop me.  Eye for an Eye otherwise you are the only one walking around without an eye as this is PVP.  Never the less they would whine, cry and beg to not have the actions point at them even when they took no steps to prevent it (like switching servers).  They would not understand why people would do the things they were able to keep at bay they would just know now players like me were unleashed on them.  They would lose their ivory tower outlooks in which they act like they are the majority and be forced to become what they really are just a scared minority.  A minority that would need to relook and rejudge their place within wurm....and I bet building non-guard non-deed houses with just little fences is not going to be the way to go.

 

Self player rule and justice is just a dream.  While they still have power they will never let it slip because the second they do a different Wurm will take the place of their wurm.  They know there are people like me just waiting for the chance to prove that some PVP people belong on a PVE server and not a PVP server.  You call types like me Griefers and never think for a second that I see you as a carebear who thinks they PVP.   It is not about rep/hunted it is about how does wurm define PVP.  (note that is not a question it is a statement)

[Radni 1,089]

I don't know if this has been said yet, but in my mind, the main deal with this thread is so that the members of kingdoms can deal with their own trollers and griefers who abuse the current system. 

 

Perhaps we shouldn't be looking at removing all the rules, perhaps we should just be looking at how to prevent people from griefing the rules, and how to give players the power to deal with such griefers themselves, yet still having some small protection rules.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Radni

[MrGARY 12,421]

Perhaps we shouldn't be looking at removing all the rules, perhaps we should just be looking at how to prevent people from griefing the rules, and how to give players the power to deal with such griefers themselves, yet still having some small protection rules.

 

http://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Freedom

[Radni 1,089]

http://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Freedom

 

Good one gary. I almost snirked.

 

If you want no rules at all, go to Elevation.

 

The rep system needs a major rework, but it works for the most part.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Radni

[SmeJack 5,805]

Rolf's carebear features is the only thing stopping us from doing that now. But nice try.

 

That is what he is saying mate, remove the stupid game mechanics that are getting in the way of people defending themselves. Perhaps if once they are removed and people still cant defend they could maybe think about the Freedom being more suited to them but as it stands now all the people that are being punished for standing up for themselves is the most redic thing in what is supposed to be a pvp game.

 

People talk about play styles and that's all fine but if you cant protect/defend yourself on a pvp server without half baked game mechanics then don't play it.

 

Remove them, and then deal with your problems as a kingdom free from penalty, if you can not learn to help one another then the fall of your home server will be your own doing.

[DefImp 19]

First off : "the ones paying for the entirety of development and hosting" should never factor into this in the least. Not only does it not matter, it doesn't have any bearing at all on the situation. Never EVER concern yourself with the monetary side of the game. Its not your business and it should not have any bearing on how the game is managed. If it did, I could pay Rolf $20,000 and have him ban everyone I didn't like.

 

Second : Reformating the current system would not fix anything. The problem is that people are intelligently manipulating the system to their advantage and corrupting its functions to destroy its purpose. Changes will just force them to adapt, but not stop. The Reputation system has already been revamped... twice? three times?... and nothing has changed. In fact it has gotten worse.

 

We need to remove this system and let players govern themselves. Its as simple as that.

 

I am a subscriber. It is my business. When the local metro raises or lowers pays, or adds more trains, it's subscribers take notice. And you are free to offer Rolf your 20,000 and see if it gets you a private server, it just might. 

 

The point is, that you essentially said, "Your logic is wrong because you shouldn't worry about that."

 

It still doesn't point out the actuality, which is my logic is right. The fewer subscribers a server has, the less profitable it is for Code Club AB. If a server is less profitable, or even unprofitable, it runs an high chance to get shut down. I like the server. I like that it should stay up. Therefore, it is in my interest that the business model is sufficient to sustain it.

 

The idea that the economics of the server don't play a role in this is wrong. Less safe place means less subscribers, less subscribers means a less profitable server. 

[Klaa 4,872]

Personally one thing that would help in such issues is allowing select kingdom offices to set reputations of kingdom members, at least as far as Outlaw status. -200 and auto-BL may be too far. Course atm there's two main problems with such. First, office abilities do not work well across servers. Something that hinders relations between the intra-kingdom wild and home factions.

 

Secondly, there is somewhat valid concern of someone abusing it, especially given the semi-randomness of the king selection. However, the later isn't really a concern due to the already existing mechanics for removing said kings. Well if enough of the kingdom feel he/she is a problem anyways.

[SmeJack 5,805]

lol sorry it just made me giggle because imo the Freedom subscribers are the ones 'covering' epic

[Fireflyb 920]

TLDR; Keep reputation because we need it to keep the game afloat. Allow universal looting so one of the major concerns of the 'hunted' system is no longer a concern.

 

+1

[Klaa 4,872]

Heh aye in terms of "money talks", the Freedom crowd inspired the creation of a server cluster separate from PvP (for the most part).

 

Such wasn't even part of the original scheme afaik; however, when a certain majority of the players want something... ultimately Wurm is something Rolf wants people to enjoy.

[BrQQQ 2,854]

I think the nice thing about Wurm is that it doesn't really tell you what to do. Of course, there are some rules and standards that make sure the game stays fun, but those things are often very basic and mostly common sense.

The reputation system doesn't really fit in there. The reasoning is simple, it forces things on players on a pvp server. The idea behind it is good (discourage same-kingdom griefing), but it just can't work well, because it will always end up with griefers trying to abuse the system while normal players can't easily deal with griefers.

Instead of relying on game mechanics to deal with griefers, people on pvp servers should deal with them themselves. It's not even funny how nobody cares enough about stopping a group of 4 people from raiding deeds. And of course it doesn't help that game mechanics is the thing that contributes to the whole 'can't attack the griefers' thing.

I don't see any reason to keep the reputation system. If the reputation system worked, then people wouldn't be here dealing with same kingdom griefers.