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

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 St. Crispies said: If we "restore" Shanty, we set a precedence of just wasting Sam's time. Don't worry, we dd that  long time ago. And besides its fun!  has anyone got a place I can hide? ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 10:25 pm

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,907 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 absolutely alex ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 10:26 pm

*StCrispin* Beasts of the Lair Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Marshals Posts: 2,657 Joined: Feb 13, 2012 AlecBurke said: 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 If im reading this right, you are saying you want to now prevent those who are PvP OFF from traveling through Shanty unmolested. I was under the impression the vote was about UNIFORMITY of application and CHOICE.  I like having a choice.  I dont like "you have a choice except where I dont want you to have one" because thats too much like America ......................... vet wv gwped paintladder paintball marshal raceL10,1,0 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 11:37 pm Last edited Dec 1, 2012, 11:38 pm by StCrispin

*jimmylogan* MADHAT Darkwind Guru Civs Faction Group: Marshals + Rule Council Posts: 5,587 Joined: Jun 11, 2008 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 still is if your flag is off. For a true PvE player, the ONLY town to 'avoid' is Shantyville (if this proposal goes through). Quote: It's only fair that if Shanty gets restored to its original settings that Somerset also be restored. I don't understand the reason for this. Can you elaborate? Quote: 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. That was the whole purpose in the original SV design though... Sam said it's much shorter, but you have the POSSIBILITY of intercept there. The 'thousands of miles' are the offset - safer, but takes MUCH longer. ......................... vet marshal deathrceL1 wv community combatL1 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 11:38 pm

*jimmylogan* MADHAT Darkwind Guru Civs Faction Group: Marshals + Rule Council Posts: 5,587 Joined: Jun 11, 2008 Alec Burke said: 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. I truly wish everyone would read the text above - whether you're for it or against it - and see that this is the true crux of the matter. It's not an attempt to "take away" part of evan and give it to the pro-Intercept people. It's not a waste of Sam's time. It's an attempt by Longo to "finish" what Sam started with before. By all means vote against the proposal if you want, but vote against it because you don't like it - not because you think someone is trying to take something away... The ONLY reason SV is NOT open PvP right now is because Sam made the error in wording and immediately admitted it. ......................... vet marshal deathrceL1 wv community combatL1 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 11:41 pm

*StCrispin* Beasts of the Lair Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Marshals Posts: 2,657 Joined: Feb 13, 2012 *Tinker* said: 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? Morgan? ......................... vet wv gwped paintladder paintball marshal raceL10,1,0 Posted Dec 1, 2012, 11:45 pm

Serephe Collision Force Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 3,496 Joined: Dec 9, 2007 I've still yet to see a valid reason for making Shantyville PvP open beyond "SAM MADE MISTAKE SO IT SHOULD BE PVP OPEN" though. The PvP system we have right now is the best it has been since the game was open PvP, as far as clarity goes. Anything that would cloud the waters should be done very cautiously. Opening Shantyville would bring a MINISCULE amount of pvp to the game, in the form of the few players that actually scout there intercepting the few PvP off players that travel through. In return, it brings back the problem where PvP off players feel that some parts of the game are not allowed to them, simply because they don't have the time, skill, whatever to deal with fighting other players in the world arena. I do not believe it is a good idea to make a town pvp open for everyone at this time, especially one that is on a trade route. ......................... vet wv paintladder ww0,3,0 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 12:36 am Last edited Dec 2, 2012, 12:38 am by Serephe

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 I kinda agree with that The trade route is meant to be tougher for it, but if it brings up the argument to otherwise change the PvP system again, Im not sure if thats good. Having a PvP safe town back north again for example. SS is having some PvP, I have never heard so much talk about PvP and people actively looking for, and enjoying PvP, since I joined. And that to mind is a great thing for the game. It might bring sars into a play a bit with PvP forced through SV. That could be a bonus. Does sars currently have the toughest maps, best loot available. That might be enough incentive. On the flip side, it might make people stay up north more instead, and that would be bad imo. ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 1:11 am

Alec Burke Overlanders Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: Sep 5, 2010 StCrispin said: AlecBurke said: 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 If im reading this right, you are saying you want to now prevent those who are PvP OFF from traveling through Shanty unmolested. I was under the impression the vote was about UNIFORMITY of application and CHOICE.  I like having a choice.  I dont like "you have a choice except where I dont want you to have one" because thats too much like America I'm saying Sam said when the previous vote was taken that there would be another vote about Shanty, since including Shanty in the vote was a mistake he made in writing up the poll. Unless you were one of the first ten to vote in the previous PVP poll (and I'm doubtful you were), then you clearly should have been aware that including Shanty in the vote was a mistake made by Sam and that another vote would be forthcoming. If you weren't aware of that, you obviously didn't read the thread where you were voting. There are arguments that can be made for keeping Shanty the same as the rest of Evan (see Serephe's posts - he said pretty much the same thing in the original PVP vote thread) but any argument that involves saying this is an attempt to change the previous PVP vote, or goes against what was voted on, is purely specious. As a PVP off player (and I fully expect to always be) I am not bothered by having one town that is PVP open as a means of attempting to encourage PVP action. Especially when there is absolutely no reason any player ever has to go to that town except for wanting to go to that town. You can get to Texan without going through Shanty, so it isn't actually on a trade route, like Gateway or Badlands. And even if you do chose to travel through it as a PVP off player, you can only be intercepted when you are exiting Shantyville. That's an extremely small chance that anyone who is just traveling through will actually have to deal with intercept PVP. Finally, everyone should realize that is thread is not an official vote. It is a suggestion by Longo to try to get Sam to hold the vote he said he would be holding. Even if the majority in this poll say they want Shanty to be returned to its previous status of being a PVP open town, an official vote should still be held. One which is advertised in the lobby just like the previous PVP poll was. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp2 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 1:16 am

Simple Zed Sand Goblins Pedestrian Slavers Faction Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 24 Joined: Oct 26, 2011 *jimmylogan* said: Simple Zed said: ... making Somerset the sanctuary city it once was. It still is if your flag is off. For a true PvE player, the ONLY town to 'avoid' is Shantyville (if this proposal goes through). ... No Somerset isn't.  Including a single PvP-on player in a group scout makes that entire squad PvP-on.  There have been many accidental and intentional intercepts of squads containing PvP-off players from SS.  This would not happen if SS were the sanctuary city that it was before the vote. Quote: Simple Zed said: It's only fair that if Shanty gets restored to its original settings that Somerset also be restored. I don't understand the reason for this. Can you elaborate? Sure.  The vote changed Shanty from PvP-on ( the city setting overriding a player's individual preference ) to merely reflect the player's individual preference.  At the exact same time the vote changed Somerset from PvP-off ( the city setting overriding a player's individual preference ) to merely reflect the player's individual preference. Now we're discussing changing Shanty back to where the individual's preference is ignored, making it PvP-on.  If we're correcting mistakes, let's fix Somerset as well.  Let's ignore individual preferences in a balanced way and set it to be PvP-off.  Just like Somerset was before the vote simplified everything. And while we're busy re-complicating things, how about restoring the bounty option for Shanty?  If we want to revert it to its pre-vote status, well, we were able to pay bounties in Shanty before the vote. ......................... vet wv Posted Dec 2, 2012, 1:52 am

*jimmylogan* MADHAT Darkwind Guru Civs Faction Group: Marshals + Rule Council Posts: 5,587 Joined: Jun 11, 2008 Serephe - good points all around - you've made me back up and rethink this... Zed - also good points. If changing SV *BACK* would also change SS back, then I'm against it. I personally don't think people having to be careful who they scout with is bad for the game... ......................... vet marshal deathrceL1 wv community combatL1 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 3:50 am

Alec Burke Overlanders Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: Sep 5, 2010 Simple Zed said: Now we're discussing changing Shanty back to where the individual's preference is ignored, making it PvP-on.  If we're correcting mistakes, let's fix Somerset as well.  Let's ignore individual preferences in a balanced way and set it to be PvP-off.  Just like Somerset was before the vote simplified everything. You keeping ignoring the facts of the last vote to try to claim that there is some relationship between Shanty's status and Somerset's. It was a known (to all but 10 people when they voted) mistake that Shanty's status was included in the previous vote. It was clear that changing Somerset's status was intended in the last vote. Quit trying to claim that if one was a mistake, so was the other. I also find the notion that changing the status of one of the least populated towns is "balanced" by changing the status of the by far most populous town hilarious. If you were actually interested in balance you'd be looking for a town that is at least similar to Shanty to be your "PVP off sanctuary". As for Somerset not being safe for PVE players, it is for any who take a little bit of interest in paying attention to what they are doing. PVP-off players can only be involved-in wilderness intercepts if they join squads with PVP-on players. If they do that, they really shouldn't have any problem if the squad ends up engaged in a wilderness PVP encounter - intentional intercept or accidental encounter. Sure it requires a little bit of work in terms of paying attention to who is in a squad you are joining, but if intercept PVP is something that a person is that concerned about avoiding, I don't see why they wouldn't be taking that care. Serephe has raised some good points regarding why, if a vote is held on Shanty, Shanty should remain the same as everywhere else. Earlier in the thread others have mentioned how Shanty is currently one of the best places for loot while only having moderate AI difficulty and that adding PVP adds to the danger associated with going after that relatively easier high-end loot. I find these to be the relevant types of discussion points around Shanty's PVP-on status, not these false claims that a vote on Shanty some how fundamentally attacks the heart of the previous PVP vote. An additional vote on Shanty's status was something that was known (at least if they read the first 3 posts in the poll thread) and promised to almost all of the people who voted in that poll. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp2 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 3:05 pm

Simple Zed Sand Goblins Pedestrian Slavers Faction Group: Awaiting Activation Posts: 24 Joined: Oct 26, 2011 Alec Burke said: You keeping ignoring the facts of the last vote to try to claim that there is some relationship between Shanty's status and Somerset's. It was a known (to all but 10 people when they voted) mistake that Shanty's status was included in the previous vote. It was clear that changing Somerset's status was intended in the last vote. Quit trying to claim that if one was a mistake, so was the other. I'm seeing this as you taking it upon yourself to determine "voter intent".  Makes me think of happy times with hanging chads and seniors casting votes for the wrong candidate when they find the ballots confusing.  We've seen the vote.  We've seen the results.  The decision was overwhelming which was kind of a first for the community. Now it is being proposed that we fine-tune the results, that we revert an aspect of the vote back to its pre-existing settings.  Well, most of them.  The part where you used to be able to bounty out of PvP intercepts in Shanty is nowhere on the list of pre-vote settings to be reverted. Quote: I also find the notion that changing the status of one of the least populated towns is "balanced" by changing the status of the by far most populous town hilarious... Has it occured to you that one of the reasons SS is such a populous town is because it has historically been free of threat of unbalanced pvp intercepts?  I am suggesting that reverting town pre-vote status be balanced, town for town, to protect this.  Otherwise, flipping towns to pvp-on, one by one, is just a pattern of encroachment.  Some would say that Evan-wide PvP-on status was the "initial intent" or "grand vision" or whatever.  This is a step. Quote: As for Somerset not being safe for PVE players, it is for any who take a little bit of interest in paying attention to what they are doing... Blame the victim and then there's no need to establish a meaningful solution to the problem.  Sure, that's one approach. Quote: Serephe has raised some good points regarding why, if a vote is held on Shanty, Shanty should remain the same as everywhere else. Earlier in the thread others have mentioned how Shanty is currently one of the best places for loot while only having moderate AI difficulty and that adding PVP adds to the danger associated with going after that relatively easier high-end loot... Every time I hear the catch phrases "True Vision", "Original Vision", etc., I realize that someone is trying to sell something unpalatable which is to be accepted without undue consideration because it must somehow be good for us.  Some of us, maybe.  It would be especially good for those that have established gangs and wish to establish a stranglehold over the flow of high-value and highly sought after equipment. This is really the crux of the issue.  Those who currently have all the exclusive high-end equipment want to use PvP as a tool to ensure they maintain their advantages over those who don't.  In Shantyville, for now. Their established gangs have elite personnel whose decisive advantages in skills and specializations determine the outcome of PvP intercepts before the first shot gets fired.  This proposal serves to ensure that those elite crews are firing high-end weaponry out of high-end chassis at targets that will continue to suffer equipment disadvantages. ......................... vet wv Posted Dec 2, 2012, 6:08 pm

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,907 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 that is probably the stupidest post i have ever seen on here... and i know one when i see one having posted a few myself ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 6:42 pm

Alec Burke Overlanders Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: Sep 5, 2010 Simple Zed said: Now it is being proposed that we fine-tune the results, that we revert an aspect of the vote back to its pre-existing settings.  Well, most of them.  The part where you used to be able to bounty out of PvP intercepts in Shanty is nowhere on the list of pre-vote settings to be reverted. Not now - in the third post in the thread of the original vote. Which means that the vast majority of those voting in the previous poll knew a vote specifically about Shanty would be in the future. Or they simple didn't read the thread. You can talk about others determining the intent of the voters, but your claim that most of the voters weren't expecting a forthcoming vote on Shanty and that it didn't influence how they voted in the previous poll does that more than any one else has done. And very little would revert back if a new vote was held and the option to make Shanty PVP-open won. In fact, only the status of Shanty. That's one town out of 9 (technically it isn't even one of Evan's town - check the map) and doesn't include other parts of the previous vote. And whether or Shanty being PVP-open would include the return of the bounty system in Shanty is clearly an issue that would need to be included in such a vote. Which again, this is not a poll that will determine the status of Shanty - it is a poll to see if people are in favor of Sam doing what he said he would do in the third post in the PVP voting thread, which is hold a separate vote concerning Shanty after that vote was concluded. The rest of your post shows very little understanding of the actual history of this game, so I'm not bothering to comment on it. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp2 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 7:05 pm

*JeeTeeOh* Loose Cannons Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Marshals Posts: 1,796 Joined: Oct 18, 2010 This is hilarious. It's like you guys are trying to argue something with Dustin Hoffman in 'Rain Man'. On the upside, the discussion of Shanty's characteristics -- all of which comes as news to me -- has convinced me to ship a crew down there. See ya in the cool-loot wastes, amigos! ......................... vet wv e2g marshal cont deathrceL1 sssc Posted Dec 2, 2012, 8:38 pm

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 I wish that point hadn't been brought up. Im glad you want to scout there, but I have never liked the idea of loot farming. ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 9:07 pm Last edited Dec 2, 2012, 9:08 pm by *Bastille*

Joel Autobaun Joels Bastards Darkwind Guru Deathrace Mafia Faction Group: Sinbinned Posts: 4,598 Joined: Nov 10, 2008 I just find these arguments funny now... thx for the laughs. THIS TEXT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY MARSHAL JD_Basher DUE TO ITS LANGUAGE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO FORUM RULES AND DAMAGING TO THE ENJOYMENT OF OTHER PLAYER(S). ......................... vet northernsummer deathrce1 raceL1 deathrceL1 ww ped1 sssc paintball semiprocombat ped2 e2g gwextrav gwped combat1 paintladder elmsautumn gateautumn wv race1 combatL1 pvp1 pvp5 pvp4 zom pvp3 circuit1 pvp2 circuit2 circuit3 ss2fl67 slay2013 storm2013 geek triangle198,96,31 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 10:02 pm Last edited Dec 2, 2012, 10:50 pm by *JD_Basher*

Groove Champion The Groove Champions Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 4,813 Joined: Sep 16, 2008 So there seems to be a problem (or problems) with Shanty... We don't all agree on the nature of the issues, but we all seem to think it could be made better. I say Sam and the RC should run with this and just block out this entire thread's content beyond the agreement that there is a problem. Some of the posters here seriously need to be ignored... in a very serious way. ......................... vet combatL1 wv cont0,5,0 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 10:33 pm

*Brunwulf* Wulf Guard Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Marshals Posts: 1,299 Joined: May 17, 2012 Groove Champion said: Some of the posters here seriously need to be ignored... in a very serious way. Yes. especially the guy who posted right above you! He seems to never have anything useful to say, and says his un-useful comments in an almost unitelligable language! ......................... vet ww wv e2g gwextrav sssc northernsummer gateautumn deathrce1 marshal race1 raceL1 combat1 pvp5 pvp4 pvp3 pvp20,1,0 Posted Dec 2, 2012, 10:40 pm

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

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

0.1612 seconds - 33 queries - 0.94 load