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

pvp question?

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,009 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 if i pvp someone in multiple camp and if i won that fight what camp looses fame or do all the camps that player belong to loose fame? ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,1 Posted May 11, 2009, 7:09 pm

simonmaxhill Drive Backwards BFFs Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Storytellers Posts: 1,503 Joined: Mar 10, 2008 I've been wondering similar things like that myself, specifically, if I'm in two camps that are at war with one another, do I have to decide or can I be like a one man show of romeo and juliet? Please do not use your imagination to picture me on stage performing said show. It'll only hurt your soul. ......................... vet wv Posted May 11, 2009, 7:12 pm

*Grograt* Grograts Gonads Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Marshals Posts: 8,377 Joined: Oct 5, 2008 Soul irrevocably injured, wouldn't it be down to the camp owners to kick the player in question if war is announced by the other camp, and the owner of the attacked camp doesnt trust the member there, some members will belong to camps at war, but that doesn't mean they will participate in that war, a 'Switzerland' situation should be allowed for, as some members will no doubt want to stay with the camps they are in, just because the owner or members have persuaded an owner to war / pvp shouldn't effect there status in camp, all pretty confusing though ......................... vet marshal wv community Posted May 11, 2009, 7:38 pm

ISHOULDCOCO COCO and the BURPERS Darkwind Guru Civs Faction Group: Storytellers Posts: 1,440 Joined: Jul 5, 2007 At the start of any big war various embassies get given their marching orders or kept in house for spying reasons COCO ......................... vet wv Posted May 11, 2009, 9:44 pm

Mad Mike the mad mad crushers Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 2,900 Joined: Aug 1, 2007 enemies of a camp will attack whomever rolls in and out regardless of their purpose to be at that camp. there does need to be a fix for this. players shouldnt get caught in the middle ......................... vet wv Posted May 12, 2009, 12:31 am Last edited May 12, 2009, 12:32 am by Mad Mike

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,009 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 if they dont want pvp in yer open pvp camp perhaps they should resign camp membership if they are worried and dont want pvp. ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,1 Posted May 12, 2009, 12:38 am Last edited May 12, 2009, 12:39 am by darthspanky

Jety Cuddle Fiesta Darkwind Guru Badlands Truckstop Faction Group: Members Posts: 910 Joined: May 9, 2008 I think the whole point of the system is for players to get caught in the middle. But that's just my take on it. I think players are supposed to consider carefully the costs and benefits of joining with different camps. Again, this is just my take based on all of Sam's comments on the topic. ......................... vet wv Posted May 12, 2009, 1:26 am

Fealty Lost Slaughterhouse: Bloody Remains Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Subscribers Posts: 1,258 Joined: Jan 6, 2009 Getting caught in the middle of a war...well, s'gonna happen no matter what. As posted many times, only way to avoid it is to give up membership in all camps. Bummer because you can't (normally) use services of said camps unless you're a member. The only real problem I have with PvP is, the encounters usually happen as a return...putting the returnee at a great disadvantage if he's a non-veteran and not rolling in Buzzers. You get caught with reduced crew (if you're hauling loot) and the only people attacking PvP are the vets' with the big boats and guns...so you're pretty much a victim. Anyway, that's my take on PvP based on what I've heard. I've yet to be jumped...and don't think I want to be. But, I'm participating in camps who may be at war, so it's a risk. ......................... vet wv Posted May 12, 2009, 12:11 pm

*Ninesticks* The Wombles Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Marshals + Rule Council Posts: 3,371 Joined: Apr 11, 2008 There are plenty of camps that are not at war, look at some of the veteran players' camp pages and you will build up a picture of where they are, and of course can then request membership see if they are open for PvP etc. Or in the alternative contact a camp owner and find out if they are willing to offer a repair and transport service. ......................... vet wv marshal pvp4 community pvp20,1,0 Posted May 12, 2009, 12:19 pm Last edited May 12, 2009, 3:40 pm by *Ninesticks*

Jety Cuddle Fiesta Darkwind Guru Badlands Truckstop Faction Group: Members Posts: 910 Joined: May 9, 2008 Good point Nine. Everyone seems to be overlooking the obvious. Camps don't HAVE to PvP. The camps getting mixed up in this are the greedy ones who said I want that MR bonus, I don't care about the consequences. Of course now that there's consequences there is some whining, which is unfortunate. ......................... vet wv Posted May 12, 2009, 3:20 pm

Mad Mike the mad mad crushers Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 2,900 Joined: Aug 1, 2007 not whining at all, just calling out how the rules are being exploited. Its all new so will be fixed as time goes on. the reason for declaring war against a camp is to fight the camp, not just open the door for PvP. and when a camp declares war that camp should be able to be attacked. its an exploit to have no hours and declare war. ......................... vet wv Posted May 12, 2009, 8:14 pm

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,780 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 Quote: its an exploit to have no hours and declare war. Explain? if you have no hours, you can't attack. ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted May 12, 2009, 8:17 pm

Mad Mike the mad mad crushers Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 2,900 Joined: Aug 1, 2007 another thread you made changes for an empty camp not able to fight another camp because the MR and MAX CR of that camp affects their squad sizes. the camp members can do non camp attacks. that is kinda contradicting. I got the impression we didnt want a camp with little to no MR and little to no max CR able to be used as a way to enable non camp attacks against another camp's members. clearly I see cry havoc using this as an exploit because darth wants to non camp attack members of rorkes. he is not interested in attacking our camp. the reason they declared war on rorkes wasnt to fight a war against the camp, to fight the members of rorkes in pvp squads. as it stands cry havoc cannot attack rorkes but the non camp attacks by pvp squad are open. any member of cry havoc including the owner can pvp any member of rorkes and we have no way to attack their base of operations because they have no open hours. my concern is that war was even declared. according to the new rules war should not have been able to have been declared in the first place. if cry havoc builds up and opens then the concern is completely gone unless they open for one hour per day. what Im asking to be done is a camp must have a minimum MR and max CR to declare war and if they fall below that the war is over. a camp has a minimum amount of hours to be open and if closes below that minimum the war is over. without being able to attack cry havoc we have no way to end the war. we could wipe out cry havocs members gangs but they can be replenished endlessly. ......................... vet wv Posted May 13, 2009, 5:45 pm

*jimmylogan* MADHAT Darkwind Guru Civs Faction Group: Marshals + Rule Council Posts: 5,587 Joined: Jun 11, 2008 Mike, I disagree with them not being able to declare at all. The camp is "open PvP." By definition that means "will accept war with anyone else." By the letters of the phrase, it mean "open to PvP with a warring camp's members." I don't see where this is an issue... If the issue is that you don't want camp members attacked in PvP, then go non open PvP. Simple as that. You wont' get the bonuses but you won't have a reason to anymore. IOW, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I understand your concern with them attacking without retaliation, but remember they're getting NO bonus at all at camp since they're not open. JL ......................... vet marshal deathrceL1 wv community combatL1 Posted May 13, 2009, 6:39 pm

Six Gun Jack Jacks Gunfighters Racer Renegade Group: Members Posts: 219 Joined: Jun 10, 2006 I am just waiting for the so called pirates to actually do something ! I think they are all just sitting down in Firelight getting drunk. Heck CID even joined one of my scouts yesterday. Talk about wishy washy pirates, which brings up the thought that I should have been able to shoot at him, but the no teammate shooting applied still.. ahh well. ......................... vet wv elmsautumn pvp1 Posted May 13, 2009, 7:54 pm Last edited May 13, 2009, 7:57 pm by Six Gun Jack

Marrkos 88 MPH Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 3,711 Joined: Mar 28, 2006 Six Gun Jack said: which brings up the thought that I should have been able to shoot at him, but the no teammate shooting applied still.. ahh well. Yeah, I can see both sides of that one. I'm tempted to suggest the 'no teammate targeting' should be turned off if the squad contains players from warring camps. :so conflicted: ......................... vet wv community Posted May 13, 2009, 8:17 pm

Jety Cuddle Fiesta Darkwind Guru Badlands Truckstop Faction Group: Members Posts: 910 Joined: May 9, 2008 For the record, Cry Havoc declared war on every available open PvP camp, not just Mike's. We're from Firelight for gods sake, what do you expect us to do? Interestingly, one of the three open PvP camps has since changed to non-open. Which simply illustrates that if you want the bonus, you have to take the risk. If you don't want the risk, then do without the bonus. I think this perfectly in line with how sam envisioned the system. ......................... vet wv Posted May 13, 2009, 9:01 pm

Jaguar Smoke Jaguars Autodueller Renegade Group: Members Posts: 424 Joined: May 6, 2009 Marrkos said: Six Gun Jack said: which brings up the thought that I should have been able to shoot at him, but the no teammate shooting applied still.. ahh well. Yeah, I can see both sides of that one. I'm tempted to suggest the 'no teammate targeting' should be turned off if the squad contains players from warring camps. :so conflicted: Perhaps specifically targetting a teammate produces an accuracy or damage penalty. Indirect splash damage remains the same. If a player -really- wants to shoot their teammate while in the middle of something else, they can do so but do so less effectively and at the cost of something. ......................... vet Posted May 13, 2009, 9:04 pm

Whiskey Whiskey Runners Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 691 Joined: Sep 19, 2008 Jaguar said: Perhaps specifically targetting a teammate produces an accuracy or damage penalty. Indirect splash damage remains the same. If a player -really- wants to shoot their teammate while in the middle of something else, they can do so but do so less effectively and at the cost of something. Nah.  Let anyone target anyone.  Players who consistently show themselves untrustworthy may find themselves playing a lot of solo games in the future. ......................... vet wv Posted May 13, 2009, 9:22 pm

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,009 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 well it took a double dog dare but i got damon to pvp me hehe we shot him a few times and made his car pink muhahahaha. take that you at war people next time ill even throw out some bannana peels and make him skid out muhahahaha. mighta been the first battle of the war hehe event s108938 ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,1 Posted May 13, 2009, 9:36 pm Last edited May 13, 2009, 9:37 pm by darthspanky

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

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

0.1541 seconds - 30 queries - 0.38 load