Return Shanty to its True Vision (40 Votes)
Yes	67.5% - 27 votes
No	32.5% - 13 votes

Pages: << prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 next >>

Return Shanty to its True Vision

JS Hitmen Trucking Inc -CI- Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 3,238 Joined: Jan 9, 2010 Blackwill said: I never said it was impossible, gents.... Blackwill, copy, you didn't say that, fair enough, but I would contend that it is well within many peoples ability to actively use it. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp3 pvp4 Posted Nov 30, 2012, 5:25 pm

JS Hitmen Trucking Inc -CI- Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 3,238 Joined: Jan 9, 2010 *Tinker* said: JS said: I thought shanty was always PvP open?  Didn't even realize it had changed.  But isn't everything sout of GW now PvP open?  So damn confused... The flags now affect  every towns, including SS, and there are no exceptions to the rule to keep things simple. That's what was voted, and Sam said he would revisit Shanty's role sometimes after a period of cooling down from the last vote. Ahh, copy, missed that bit.  Yeah, make Shanty open all the time. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp3 pvp4 Posted Nov 30, 2012, 5:26 pm

Simple Zed Sand Goblins Pedestrian Slavers Faction Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 24 Joined: Oct 26, 2011 Alec Burke said: Simple Zed said: By the same token, can Somerset be made to be a PvP-closed area?  By that, I merely mean that intercepts (intentional / accidental) are disabled.  Not that there's no Squad Challenges, SCL, PvP events, or anything ludicrous like that. This would effectively reverse the vote we had on PVP just a few months ago. Given the overwhelming tide of that vote, I don't see any need for a compromise of making Somerset PVP closed in order to return Shanty to how it was always intended to be. Shanty not being kept completely PVP Open regardless of the flag was an oversight by Sam in drawing up the PVP vote, and he said as much almost immediately. If the "problem" (and I'm not certain this really is a problem) is the accidental PVP encounters where neither team was trying to PVP, the simpler solution would seem to be to look at the code which creates such accidental PVP encounters. No need to completely close Somerset to PVP. The vote was in favor of simplification.  Now we're adding exceptions.  I'm simply asking that those exceptions be balanced as they were in the past. The net vote results without making SS a sanctuary city and with the proposed change to Shanty is that: * PvP on players can no longer use bounties anywhere outside the triangle. * Same Team Targeting is now available to hit PvP off players during events in all towns. This is pretty much a backslide for folks that don't wish to participate in unbalanced PvP intercept situations.  They're getting kicked onto smaller and smaller reservations. Is it really necessary? ......................... vet wv Posted Nov 30, 2012, 7:45 pm

Alec Burke Overlanders Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: Sep 5, 2010 Simple Zed said: The vote was in favor of simplification.  Now we're adding exceptions.  I'm simply asking that those exceptions be balanced as they were in the past. The net vote results without making SS a sanctuary city and with the proposed change to Shanty is that: * PvP on players can no longer use bounties anywhere outside the triangle. * Same Team Targeting is now available to hit PvP off players during events in all towns. This is pretty much a backslide for folks that don't wish to participate in unbalanced PvP intercept situations.  They're getting kicked onto smaller and smaller reservations. Is it really necessary? Neither of the two things you list is changed at all by making Shanty a PVP only town, so I don't see how they in anyway make a case for restoring Shanty to it's intended role only if SS is returned to being PVP closed for all. Those are the terms the vast majority voted for, and I seriously doubt many would have changed their vote based on the issue of Shanty. Especially since the first post in the vote thread mentioned that the poll had been worded in such a way to impact Shanty when that hadn't been the intention. People who don't want to participate in "unbalanced PVP intercept situations" were benefited by the vote, since now they can change their flag to PVP OFF and travel throughout all of Evan without having to worry about such events. Prior to that, they had to stay in the northern triangle. Sure they could have paid the forced bounty in the south, but that was a failed mechanism which helped no one's enjoyment of the game. You seem to be trying to argue against the previous vote, not about the specific issue of Shanty being restored to the role for which it was created. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp2 Posted Nov 30, 2012, 9:13 pm Last edited Nov 30, 2012, 9:14 pm by Alec Burke

*Longo* Longos Merry Men Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals Posts: 6,659 Joined: Dec 15, 2007 Simple Zed said: Alec Burke said: Simple Zed said: By the same token, can Somerset be made to be a PvP-closed area?  By that, I merely mean that intercepts (intentional / accidental) are disabled.  Not that there's no Squad Challenges, SCL, PvP events, or anything ludicrous like that. This would effectively reverse the vote we had on PVP just a few months ago. Given the overwhelming tide of that vote, I don't see any need for a compromise of making Somerset PVP closed in order to return Shanty to how it was always intended to be. Shanty not being kept completely PVP Open regardless of the flag was an oversight by Sam in drawing up the PVP vote, and he said as much almost immediately. If the "problem" (and I'm not certain this really is a problem) is the accidental PVP encounters where neither team was trying to PVP, the simpler solution would seem to be to look at the code which creates such accidental PVP encounters. No need to completely close Somerset to PVP. The vote was in favor of simplification.  Now we're adding exceptions.  I'm simply asking that those exceptions be balanced as they were in the past. The net vote results without making SS a sanctuary city and with the proposed change to Shanty is that: * PvP on players can no longer use bounties anywhere outside the triangle. * Same Team Targeting is now available to hit PvP off players during events in all towns. This is pretty much a backslide for folks that don't wish to participate in unbalanced PvP intercept situations.  They're getting kicked onto smaller and smaller reservations. Is it really necessary? It was an oversight by Sam, and the vote was supposed to include Shanty open Pvp for everyone. I commented on this and he declared it was an oversight, and said we would address it after things settled. If you look in the original Evan map, there was no Shanty. It was added simply to have a more hardcore area that was Open Pvp for everyone. ......................... vet combatL1 ped1 paintladder semiprocombat ped2 wv pvp4 pvp1 gwped paintball pvp3 pvp5 slay2013 marshal circuit2 combat1 e2g raceL1 gwextrav gateautumn pvp2 triangle1 Posted Nov 30, 2012, 9:59 pm

*Brunwulf* Wulf Guard Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Marshals Posts: 1,299 Joined: May 17, 2012 For what it's worth- I agree with Longo. But I would go further and say: Put a mech vendor in Shanty, and spawn real good stuff there- then players can try to 'run the gauntlet' of PVP, because it's worth the risk to get the rares back up north? I would do exactly the same with Morgan- but that's another matter.... ......................... vet ww wv e2g gwextrav sssc northernsummer gateautumn deathrce1 marshal race1 raceL1 combat1 pvp5 pvp4 pvp3 pvp20,1,0 Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:06 pm

Simple Zed Sand Goblins Pedestrian Slavers Faction Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 24 Joined: Oct 26, 2011 Alec Burke said: Neither of the two things you list is changed at all by making Shanty a PVP only town, so I don't see how they in anyway make a case for restoring Shanty to it's intended role only if SS is returned to being PVP closed for all. I list those two things as examples of a trend towards making a smaller world for folks who would prefer exclusively PvE entertainment.  However, I'd overlooked the issue that your comment below highlights... that there were gains made for the PvE crowd as well. Quote: People who don't want to participate in "unbalanced PVP intercept situations" were benefited by the vote, since now they can change their flag to PVP OFF and travel throughout all of Evan without having to worry about such events. Prior to that, they had to stay in the northern triangle. Sure they could have paid the forced bounty in the south, but that was a failed mechanism which helped no one's enjoyment of the game. Right.  I overlooked this.  My mistake. Quote: You seem to be trying to argue against the previous vote, not about the specific issue of Shanty being restored to the role for which it was created. No, I am not arguing against the previous vote.  This vote, as you pointed out, restored players' ability to safely explore BL, TX, Sars, Shanty, FL and Morgan without threat of an unwanted intercept.  Now it is being proposed to take one of these cities back without a corresponding gain for the PvE folks, such as making Somerset the sanctuary city it once was. It's only fair that if Shanty gets restored to its original settings that Somerset also be restored.  I'm not the one proposing we "adjust" or "fix" oversights in the vote.  However, since the idea is now floating around, I'm suggesting we compromise so that everyone wins. This might not be as much of an issue if it weren't for the fact that you can't circumvent Shanty and travel from BL to TX without tacking thousands(?) of miles to your journey. ......................... vet wv Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:09 pm

*Tinker* BibleThumpers Anonymous Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 4,546 Joined: Aug 1, 2008 Simple Zed said: * PvP on players can no longer use bounties anywhere outside the triangle. * Same Team Targeting is now available to hit PvP off players during events in all towns. Stop right there, same team targeting was never designed to hit players with their flags off, it is to make things more realistic, and remove an artificial exemption which was hastily added after one bad event were it was possibly abused, Sam admitted as much. ......................... vet marshal wv pvp3 zom circuit2 pvp1 cont Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:17 pm

*Tinker* BibleThumpers Anonymous Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 4,546 Joined: Aug 1, 2008 Simple Zed said: It's only fair that if Shanty gets restored to its original settings that Somerset also be restored.  I'm not the one proposing we "adjust" or "fix" oversights in the vote.  However, since the idea is now floating around, I'm suggesting we compromise so that everyone wins. It's only fair? ... That the town with 90% of the active player base should be "balanced" vs the most barren outpost with the most limited town services? ......................... vet marshal wv pvp3 zom circuit2 pvp1 cont Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:25 pm

Alec Burke Overlanders Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: Sep 5, 2010 Simple Zed said: No, I am not arguing against the previous vote.  This vote, as you pointed out, restored players' ability to safely explore BL, TX, Sars, Shanty, FL and Morgan without threat of an unwanted intercept.  Now it is being proposed to take one of these cities back without a corresponding gain for the PvE folks, such as making Somerset the sanctuary city it once was. It's only fair that if Shanty gets restored to its original settings that Somerset also be restored.  I'm not the one proposing we "adjust" or "fix" oversights in the vote.  However, since the idea is now floating around, I'm suggesting we compromise so that everyone wins. I really have a difficult time believing a single vote would have changed if Sam had correctly phrased the poll as was intended so that Shanty would have remained as a PVP Open town. Shanty was specifically added to the game to provide a PVP focused city. If it is not to be such, I'd argue there really isn't much reason for it to exist and it should be removed completely. And I'd be careful with the argument that if Shanty gets restored to it's original settings that Somerset also be restored. The original settings for Somerset are well before my time, but I fully realize that SS's originally settings were PVP open, as was all of Evan.  The current "openness" of Somerset (and all of Evan) appears to be working out fairly well. Those who want wilderness intercept PVP action are now able to get it more frequently because there are more of them scouting in a place where it is possible. Those, like myself, who aren't as interested, don't have to worry about it because we can keep our flag off. I don't think having one PVP town will impact the PVE players much, if at all. And while I don't agree with your fairness argument, I would say that if a PVE town is needed to balance Shanty, it shouldn't be Somerset. It should either Elmsfield or a new north town located East or North of Somerset. I just don't feel that one is needed. By the way, the previous vote did not "restore players' ability to safely explore Shanty", as that had never existed. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp2 Posted Nov 30, 2012, 11:13 pm Last edited Dec 1, 2012, 12:04 am by Alec Burke

Blackwill Shankill Butchers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 650 Joined: Jul 27, 2012 The new PvP rules do change the dynamic in Somerset, certainly. You now have to be a little more vigilant, and keep an eye on who you will or will not scout with. I don't think it has unbalanced anything, and flying my PvP flag in Somerset has actually added a bit of excitement to my otherwise rigid travel squads...I never know when someone will decide to try to put their foot in my rear for my forum posts I like the idea of PvP everywhere, but I also understand that others play the game for different reasons. I think the new rules strike a decent balance. ......................... vet wv deathrceL1 Posted Nov 30, 2012, 11:26 pm

*Brunwulf* Wulf Guard Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Marshals Posts: 1,299 Joined: May 17, 2012 Blackwill said: The new PvP rules do change the dynamic in Somerset, certainly.  You now have to be a little more vigilant, and keep an eye on who you will or will not scout with.  I don't think it has unbalanced anything, and flying my PvP flag in Somerset has actually added a bit of excitement to my otherwise rigid travel squads...I never know when someone will decide to try to put their foot in my rear for my forum posts I like the idea of PvP everywhere, but I also understand that others play the game for different reasons.  I think the new rules strike a decent balance. Having recently turned my flag ON- I totally agree with Blackwill's comments. Every mundane travel and solo scout just has that little bit more 'what if' edge to it now. I totally think that the Northern triangle should remain as PVP: CHOICE, so that new players can cut their teeth in this harsh world, but I do think that SHANTY should go back to being the pirate, open, no-holds-barred, enter at your own risk place that it was originally meant to be. Cheers. ......................... vet ww wv e2g gwextrav sssc northernsummer gateautumn deathrce1 marshal race1 raceL1 combat1 pvp5 pvp4 pvp3 pvp20,1,0 Posted Nov 30, 2012, 11:59 pm

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,907 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 Brunwulf said: Having recently turned my flag ON- I totally agree with Blackwill's comments. Every mundane travel and solo scout just has that little bit more 'what if' edge to it now. I bet it does... now ninesticks is after you  ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 12:15 am

*Brunwulf* Wulf Guard Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Marshals Posts: 1,299 Joined: May 17, 2012 Is he? Good- at least someone is! I am so desperate now for a PVP interception, I'm going to start announcing my travels in the lobby! On a serious note- is there a PVP interception guide anywhere? I have tried to intercept a few players, but I keep kind of 'missing'?! I'm obviously doing something wrong, but I have read as much as I can find on the wiki, and can't figure out why I can't intercept players, even though they are listed as 'attackable' when I am monitoring the town gates? Cheers. ......................... vet ww wv e2g gwextrav sssc northernsummer gateautumn deathrce1 marshal race1 raceL1 combat1 pvp5 pvp4 pvp3 pvp20,1,0 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 12:40 am

Serephe Collision Force Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 3,496 Joined: Dec 9, 2007 I really don't see a reason to open the town to PvP. Not only does it confuse the PvP issue making exceptions to the rule this way or that, but the way Shanty is set up, making it open PvP basically only provides a place for the most developed of gangs (those that can regularly perform the logistics of moving large quantities of ammunition, replacement hardware, etc) to pick on non-pvp people traveling to Texan who don't want to spend the next week of their life traveling the roundabout route. Shantyville was basically the precursor to Scavenger, anyway. ......................... vet wv paintladder ww0,3,0 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 12:56 am

*StCrispin* Beasts of the Lair Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Marshals Posts: 2,657 Joined: Feb 13, 2012 If we "restore" Shanty, we set a precidence of just wasting Sam's time. We moaned, btchd, griped, bleated and fought over changing it, ending with what we have now. Now we want him to change it back to the way it was? I tried moving people there once but the place was a ghost town for group scouts. Everyone there who scouts seems to solo. Certainly some change needs made to promote diversity and player exploration/expansion before "hardening" zones like SV. For the time being anyway... ......................... vet wv gwped paintladder paintball marshal raceL10,1,0 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 1:02 am Last edited Dec 1, 2012, 1:26 am by StCrispin

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 was the idea when first introduced, to make the short route between BL and Texan more dangerous with the open PvP for shanty? I know for the first little while I was still going the long way around to avoid the added dangers. Countless runs through the Maze with traders, soon changed my approach. ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 1:04 am

*Longo* Longos Merry Men Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals Posts: 6,659 Joined: Dec 15, 2007 Yes Bast, it was. ......................... vet combatL1 ped1 paintladder semiprocombat ped2 wv pvp4 pvp1 gwped paintball pvp3 pvp5 slay2013 marshal circuit2 combat1 e2g raceL1 gwextrav gateautumn pvp2 triangle1 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 8:13 pm

*Tinker* BibleThumpers Anonymous Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 4,546 Joined: Aug 1, 2008 Serephe said: I really don't see a reason to open the town to PvP. Not only does it confuse the PvP issue making exceptions to the rule this way or that, but the way Shanty is set up, making it open PvP basically only provides a place for the most developed of gangs (those that can regularly perform the logistics of moving large quantities of ammunition, replacement hardware, etc) to pick on non-pvp people traveling to Texan who don't want to spend the next week of their life traveling the roundabout route. Shantyville was basically the precursor to Scavenger, anyway. Funny Sere, all the reasons you point out are the good reasons why Shanty should be changed back to what it was originally. What game are you playing again? sure doesn't sound like the dark wind I remember and signed up for. ......................... vet marshal wv pvp3 zom circuit2 pvp1 cont Posted Dec 1, 2012, 9:41 pm

Alec Burke Overlanders Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: Sep 5, 2010 StCrispin said: If we "restore" Shanty, we set a precidence of just wasting Sam's time.  We moaned, btchd, griped, bleated and fought over changing it, ending with what we have now.  Now we want him to change it back to the way it was? This is a fabrication. No one "moaned, btchd, griped, bleated and fought" over changing Shanty as being part of the broad change to PVP. It largely wasn't even part of the discussion since the first two replies in the voting thread were Longo pointing out that the way Sam worded the poll meant that Shanty was included in the vote and Sam saying he made a mistake and that he'd do another vote about Shanty afterwards. And then next few posts after that are all agreeing that Shanty should remain as a PVP open town. There was minor discussion about it after, but much of that involved people who didn't know that you can get to Texan without going through Shanty. Sam made a mistake in how he worded the PVP vote. He admitted that almost immediately (only 10 votes had been cast at the time). He said there would be a vote on Shanty after the PVP vote was completed. Since that vote hasn't happened yet, Longo raised this issue here as a suggestion. Nothing about this wastes any of Sam's time. If you don't want Shanty to be PVP open, feel free to vote that way. But let's not distort what actually happened in the previous vote to try to claim that holding a vote on Shanty as PVP open somehow fundamentally impacts that vote. Unless you were one of those initial 10 voters, you had to know another vote about Shanty was forthcoming if you had read anything at all when casting your vote. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp2 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 10:00 pm

Pages: << prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 next >>

Powered by MercuryBoard [v1.1.4]
© 2001-2005 The Mercury Development Team

0.1424 seconds - 33 queries - 0.47 load