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

camp pvp loophole closed

*Tinker* BibleThumpers Anonymous Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 4,546 Joined: Aug 1, 2008 *sam* said: I don't think the fact that the camp changed ownership during these events is important. I beg to differ If it was me and someone attacks my camp with his camp, i want to have a  chance for some payback, and not be cheated out of my due revenge. ......................... vet marshal wv pvp3 zom circuit2 pvp1 cont Posted Feb 12, 2013, 3:38 pm

Necrotech Vendetta Inc. Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Members Posts: 1,872 Joined: Jul 18, 2011 It is my belief that it *IS* relevant and important, as it looks like another attempt to "game" the system, yet again. I rolled the cars towards well within your set rules... I deserve the right to attack anything between me and that patch of dirt I wish to turn into a glass crater, regardless of ultra low rent slumlord resteraunt ownership tactics. (Resteraunt gets cited for Department of Health regulations, gets fined and shut down. The slumlord "sells" the place to a family member, changes the name and reopens....) *sam* said: I don't think the fact that the camp changed ownership during these events is important. ......................... vet wv santa1 deathrceL1 pvp4 gwped raceL1 combatL1 paintladder pvp3 ped2 pvp5 semiprocombat circuit2 pvp1 pvp2 slay2013 gwextrav triangle1 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 3:49 pm Last edited Feb 12, 2013, 3:54 pm by Necrotech

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 Hey guys, remember two years back, when I was accused of abusing my position on the RC by suggesting that camps could be closed to retaliation way to quickly but the vault, and their friends? Suddenly, this is now an issue, who would have thought? ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 3:52 pm

Alec Burke Overlanders Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: Sep 5, 2010 Tinker & Necro, I think you've missed Sam's point: Simple Zed ended the war, not StCrispin, so the ownership change didn't have any impact. Now, if you want to discuss the whole mechanism around how "wars" are ended, and how long that takes, fine. But that is a different discussion than the supposed loophole Tinker initially claimed to have found. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp2 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 3:57 pm

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,780 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 Thanks Alec. Tink: there will always be time to do at least one retaliatory strike against a camp that declared war on and attacked your 'open pvp' camp, before that camp's desire to end the war takes effect. Seems reasonable to me. I understand your point though: Zed himself is who you want to attack, not his ex-camp. We could consider making a change so that camp ownership can't change during a war. edit: there seems to be some confusion, so let me clarify: the ownership change has no effect whatsoever on the 'at war' state, it doesn't change the time it takes to close a war nor the time it takes to switch pvp status for a camp. It doesn't affect any attacks that have been scheduled. Also, a war ending merely means that new attacks cannot be scheduled on the camp or by the camp, it doesn't affect attacks that are already scheduled. ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 4:04 pm Last edited Feb 12, 2013, 4:35 pm by *sam*

Necrotech Vendetta Inc. Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Members Posts: 1,872 Joined: Jul 18, 2011 Suggestion = awesome! *Tinker* said: Groove Champion said: Yep... lame... I think DW has reached the moment when PvP needs to either become completely open, or completely closed. I would love it to be so, but there is still room to maneuver here. The Camp system can be overhauled to be a pvp paradise you belong to a camp, and are a full member? 1.Pvp on 2. A camp member hits another camp member's squad, the camp gains/looses fame based on the outcome without needing to be at war, but the gains/losses are 50% of what it should be. Have camps set another camp's status to; enemy friend or neutral. You can't belong to two camps that are enemies just throwing this out there, trying to find a dynamic system conducive to foster competition If a friendly camp's squad gets whacked by another camp you share some fame loss and vice versa AT War: If an enemy camp wins a town event you are in your camp(s) get a low fame hit and vice versa. the more expensive the event the higher the effect ......................... vet wv santa1 deathrceL1 pvp4 gwped raceL1 combatL1 paintladder pvp3 ped2 pvp5 semiprocombat circuit2 pvp1 pvp2 slay2013 gwextrav triangle1 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 5:00 pm

Necrotech Vendetta Inc. Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Members Posts: 1,872 Joined: Jul 18, 2011 Crispin.. even for all your whining... you yourself have done the Alley grievous injury. Here is the point you are definitely missing..... You mess with one of our full member unjustly, something real, has to be something detailed and documented, then you have messed with all of us. And you certainly on many levels, over many times... easily fit that criteria. Welcome to the $$$hit list... where for once in this game you actually rank higher than Boonwolf in *something*. Congratulations. StCrispin said: And now Necro gets to come shoot me for something someone else did to Joel. The Alley. sounds very Alley-ish to me. It is My neighbor Kicked my dog so im going to burn down the house of someone in the next town over.  who care if it isnt the one responsible. ......................... vet wv santa1 deathrceL1 pvp4 gwped raceL1 combatL1 paintladder pvp3 ped2 pvp5 semiprocombat circuit2 pvp1 pvp2 slay2013 gwextrav triangle1 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 5:14 pm Last edited Feb 12, 2013, 5:15 pm by Necrotech

Alec Burke Overlanders Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: Sep 5, 2010 Necrotech said: Suggestion = awesome! Given that approximately 90% of the camps are PVP closed, the suggestion that all camps and all members of camps be forced PVP open makes no sense to me.  Unless Tinker is just saying that if a camp is PVP open, you must be PVP open to be a member of that camp. That makes some sense to me. Of course members would need to be given some notice that a camp was changing it's status so they could leave the camp if they desired. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp2 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 5:29 pm

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 Tinker suggestion will not fix anything. Motivation & Reward among other things, not to mention ability to actually "Defeat" your enemy? How does tinker suggestion address any of these points? You wont magically "Fix" camp pvp by simply making the pool of targets broader. If my time in EvE online proved anything to me, it's that while "NoN Aggressive" groups are not willing to go into PvP without good reason, threaten their territory/group and they will more than likely band together and fight you for all they have rather than give anything up. ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 5:39 pm

*Snipe* Renshai Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Marshals + Rule Council Posts: 581 Joined: Aug 31, 2009 Serephe said: Globally open PvP won't happen. If PvP was closed completely, I would have absolutely no reason to play. Wait a minute...... You mean, you actually play? ......................... vet wv gateautumn sssc santa1 raceL1 deathrceL1 marshal pvp2 zom combatL1 pvp52,6,2 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 5:43 pm

Necrotech Vendetta Inc. Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Members Posts: 1,872 Joined: Jul 18, 2011 *snickering* *Snipe* said: Serephe said: Globally open PvP won't happen. If PvP was closed completely, I would have absolutely no reason to play. Wait a minute...... You mean, you actually play? ......................... vet wv santa1 deathrceL1 pvp4 gwped raceL1 combatL1 paintladder pvp3 ped2 pvp5 semiprocombat circuit2 pvp1 pvp2 slay2013 gwextrav triangle1 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 5:46 pm

*Tinker* BibleThumpers Anonymous Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 4,546 Joined: Aug 1, 2008 FireFly said: Hey guys, remember two years back, when I was accused of abusing my position on the RC by suggesting that camps could be closed to retaliation way to quickly but the vault, and their friends? Suddenly, this is now an issue, who would have thought? Hey man this is the 2nd camp war since two years lol, i didn't know this came up before either ......................... vet marshal wv pvp3 zom circuit2 pvp1 cont Posted Feb 12, 2013, 6:35 pm

Jose Bagg Taco Killers Autodueller Mutants Faction Group: Members Posts: 477 Joined: Sep 16, 2010 I really like the idea of having camps open for PVP. I would like to see camps become more rare, and more special. Let the weak camps die and the strong camps grow. I really like the idea of having camps form alliances and enemies. The easiest way to do this is have them align with an existing faction. In this way, a mutant gang like mine will never be allowed in a civ camp. What this would evolve into is a world with powerful camps that produce powerful goods for their members. The cities become this sort of tense neutral territory where retribution is dealt out in events. The drawback is that we run the risk of having one faction dominate the camp scene. I feel like that can be handled by SAMtervention. (yeah, I made up a word, figure it out.) ......................... vet wv deathrce1 pvp5 paintball gateautumn deathrceL1 pvp4 pvp30,4,0 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 6:36 pm

*Tinker* BibleThumpers Anonymous Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 4,546 Joined: Aug 1, 2008 Alec Burke said: Necrotech said: Suggestion = awesome! Given that approximately 90% of the camps are PVP closed, the suggestion that all camps and all members of camps be forced PVP open makes no sense to me.  makes perfect sense to me The whole camp thing is a convenient place to insert the PvP paradise, camps can be were the big boys play with the big fishes The current system in a monolithic disaster, There are more camps then active players, and given an option they are all pvp closed, for a good reason, because the system is broken. The only active open pvp camp is the Alley, and for what? it takes two to tango. They are only there to be punched around like a rag doll. ......................... vet marshal wv pvp3 zom circuit2 pvp1 cont Posted Feb 12, 2013, 6:47 pm

*Tinker* BibleThumpers Anonymous Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 4,546 Joined: Aug 1, 2008 FireFly said: Tinker suggestion will not fix anything. Motivation & Reward among other things, not to mention ability to actually "Defeat" your enemy? How does tinker suggestion address any of these points? You wont magically "Fix" camp pvp by simply making the pool of targets broader. If my time in EvE online proved anything to me, it's that while "NoN Aggressive" groups are not willing to go into PvP without good reason, threaten their territory/group and they will more than likely band together and fight you for all they have rather than give anything up. I'm not saying my suggestion is the end all to the matter. I'm calling out for an overhaul to the system, it's still a crude idea. Yes camps should disappear, for instance Cry Havock has been empty for quite while now, food is gone and the labor force is flooding out like rats from a sinking ship, you'd think Sabertooth would have set up camp there... ......................... vet marshal wv pvp3 zom circuit2 pvp1 cont Posted Feb 12, 2013, 7:07 pm

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 For PvP to be worth it, and this is still only a big "if" since our community is so small, we'd need numerous things... But the two big factors are that camp resources are "Infinite", and there can be no competition between players for infinite resource, as there is no point in fighting over it. Thus, the only, and I mean ONLY way to encourage proper camp warfare and participation on both the pro and anti PvP crowds is to make resources finite. Around two years ago, with my time on the RC I proposed a "Territory Warfare" system for camp warfare, and I would like to bring the idea back up here as to make you guys understand why I did so, it goes beyond the shallow idea of capturing points for fun, no, it would turn the idea of camps on the head. I will make a new thread for this by the way, give me half an hour. ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 7:39 pm

Alec Burke Overlanders Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 480 Joined: Sep 5, 2010 *Tinker* said: The only active open pvp camp is the Alley, and for what? it takes two to tango. They are only there to be punched around like a rag doll. As I am not part of any of the camp wars the Alley has been involved in, I had no knowledge that you guys were getting beat-up so much. I must admit that I am surprised to hear that you guys are doing so poorly. I also don't know that much about how camp wars function, but Sam has said that there is always 24 or 48 hours for you to retaliate after you've been attacked. But given the time it takes to move vehicles around Evan, perhaps that should be looked into some more. I still don't see this as an argument for making all camps and camp members to be PVP open. To me this appears to be another attempt to try to "force" people into being PVP open. Since being involved in camps is so much more far reaching than just camp PVP, requiring all camps and camp members to be PVP open would give that small group of people who are interested in a completely PVP open DW a massive advantage in almost every part of DW. Essentially creating an even smaller and more insular group of "elite" players than this game already has. I don't see that as a positive for anyone, including that group of players. It does take two to tango, but they both should be willing dancers. Forcing people into PVP is unlikely to ever be a successful approach. People play games for enjoyment - forcing them to do something they don't want to do is unlikely to be enjoyable. You can argue that these people shouldn't play DW then, but that's Sam's decision to make - not yours or mine or anyone else's. The current DW supports many play styles, which I find to be one of its strengths. There are more than enough members in the Alley to support two camps. If what your membership is truly interested in is being involved in camp wars and wilderness PVP, I'd suggest that it would be easier to split into two groups and engage in such activity rather than trying to force others to be your targets. If others are attacking you and you are being prevented from retaliating because of how the rules work, that, of course, is also something that should be discussed. ......................... vet wv pvp5 pvp2 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 7:55 pm Last edited Feb 12, 2013, 7:56 pm by Alec Burke

23Baker27 The Flying Circus Racer Deathrace Mafia Faction Group: Members Posts: 225 Joined: Jan 12, 2012 Jose Bagg said: I really like the idea of having camps open for PVP. I would like to see camps become more rare, and more special.  Let the weak camps die and the strong camps grow.  I really like the idea of having camps form alliances and enemies.  The easiest way to do this is have them align with an existing faction.  In this way, a mutant gang like mine will never be allowed in a civ camp.  What this would evolve into is a world with powerful camps that produce powerful goods for their members.  The cities become this sort of tense neutral territory where retribution is dealt out in events.  The drawback is that we run the risk of having one faction dominate the camp scene.  I feel like that can be handled by SAMtervention.  (yeah, I made up a word, figure it out.) This+Tinker's Suggestions=Gold! ......................... vet wv Posted Feb 12, 2013, 8:09 pm

Ragnak Ragnaks Reavers Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 315 Joined: Jul 7, 2010 I must be a very simple person so I guess I fail to see the big challenges here... I would think if a camp declares war on another, a simple check could be done on the members of the camps to ensure that their PVP flag was turned on. If a member of a camp has their flag turned off, they must either turn it on or remove themselves from the war by giving up their membership to the camp. If you want, treat as a flag reset so players must wait two weeks before switching it off or something. ......................... vet wv Posted Feb 12, 2013, 8:11 pm

Necrotech Vendetta Inc. Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Members Posts: 1,872 Joined: Jul 18, 2011 Give them a 24 hour period of which to either remove themselves from the camp's roster or if PVP flag was not on initially, turn it on for the remainder of the "war" period. Ragnak said: I must be a very simple person so I guess I fail to see the big challenges here... I would think if a camp declares war on another, a simple check could be done on the members of the camps to ensure that their PVP flag was turned on. If a member of a camp has their flag turned off, they must either turn it on or remove themselves from the war by giving up their membership to the camp. If you want, treat as a flag reset so players must wait two weeks before switching it off or something. ......................... vet wv santa1 deathrceL1 pvp4 gwped raceL1 combatL1 paintladder pvp3 ped2 pvp5 semiprocombat circuit2 pvp1 pvp2 slay2013 gwextrav triangle1 Posted Feb 12, 2013, 8:17 pm Last edited Feb 12, 2013, 8:20 pm by Necrotech

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

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

0.1373 seconds - 30 queries - 0.23 load