Forums » General
My point is that this will happen even without these external regulations. I fund my opinion based on history. In the time 2.8 it was like this. there were occasional jerks yes, but everybody conccured that this wasnt accepted, and you noticed an entire fleet going after the culprit.
At that time the culprit was Icarus, and he got chased multiple times all over the sector by 10 - 15+ people chasing just him. Why you ask, because people were tired of being pirated non stop and pirating wasnt as accepted as it is now. If more people get this anti pirating or anti griefing or anti pking in their veins then this will happen again. But just stating we cant do this because we dont have enough external regulations wont help. Start something, by doing it for YOURSELVE, try to offer a bit of yourselve up for the community in stead of stating, it aint possible, im to lazy to try, it just aint.
I try to act always like the way I stated, but as long as other people also dont do this one by one, then ill be an isolated case and I would be declared mad. And still, history indicates that as long as enough people adapt to the idea of solving it for the mometn with severe internal regulations, then IT will be solved, since the acts of other people wont be accepted and prosecuted, dismembered, mayhemed, whatever.
And these internal regulations will need to be 100times more severe then if there were external regulations in play. But if we dont start now, then it will never change, and maybe those external regulations wont even be set in place because the community will state that it isnt needed, because all is well now.
cheers
At that time the culprit was Icarus, and he got chased multiple times all over the sector by 10 - 15+ people chasing just him. Why you ask, because people were tired of being pirated non stop and pirating wasnt as accepted as it is now. If more people get this anti pirating or anti griefing or anti pking in their veins then this will happen again. But just stating we cant do this because we dont have enough external regulations wont help. Start something, by doing it for YOURSELVE, try to offer a bit of yourselve up for the community in stead of stating, it aint possible, im to lazy to try, it just aint.
I try to act always like the way I stated, but as long as other people also dont do this one by one, then ill be an isolated case and I would be declared mad. And still, history indicates that as long as enough people adapt to the idea of solving it for the mometn with severe internal regulations, then IT will be solved, since the acts of other people wont be accepted and prosecuted, dismembered, mayhemed, whatever.
And these internal regulations will need to be 100times more severe then if there were external regulations in play. But if we dont start now, then it will never change, and maybe those external regulations wont even be set in place because the community will state that it isnt needed, because all is well now.
cheers
There is an economical side to this as well. Theres no economical incentive to hunt down pirates, who in this game, as opposed to "history" pirates aren't reduced in number when killed.
If we take a pirate, they (usually) get an economical bonus from aggressive behaviour. In past, the people setting out against pirates weren't merchants, but the state, powered by economical tax by merchants.
In the current games economical structure there's no reward for hunting a pirate, and as such its an act only of "social good" or "economical downturn" unless you come to bounties.
Alleviating this would actually require a game mechanism (tax collection and official pirate-hunting/escort missions, could be an idea)
Until such a thing is avaiable, this has to fall down to merchants unions, to make people group up and help out. Now, for people who are -in- the game. Your 25k+ player who's been playing for a month, this is a simple thing. You just have to know who to ask to follow you for a few trips.
However, for the newbies who come in, sit around and try to earn money, fight some bots (perhaps even gro profecient enough in fighting bots) there is no such social structure there to help them. They don't know who to ask, or what to do. And players are usually so fed up with it that they just go "have you read the manual?".
So yes, I think that as players we can make this easier on the people who come to the game, we can offer escort, trade-along routes and generally help out in this universe.
We can also ask the pirates (the griefers are a lost cause, their only driving force is the urge to step on somone and gratify their own ego. They can't be helped by a socail structure.) to -please- avoid such groups, if they want any kind of future for the social structures they will.
If we take a pirate, they (usually) get an economical bonus from aggressive behaviour. In past, the people setting out against pirates weren't merchants, but the state, powered by economical tax by merchants.
In the current games economical structure there's no reward for hunting a pirate, and as such its an act only of "social good" or "economical downturn" unless you come to bounties.
Alleviating this would actually require a game mechanism (tax collection and official pirate-hunting/escort missions, could be an idea)
Until such a thing is avaiable, this has to fall down to merchants unions, to make people group up and help out. Now, for people who are -in- the game. Your 25k+ player who's been playing for a month, this is a simple thing. You just have to know who to ask to follow you for a few trips.
However, for the newbies who come in, sit around and try to earn money, fight some bots (perhaps even gro profecient enough in fighting bots) there is no such social structure there to help them. They don't know who to ask, or what to do. And players are usually so fed up with it that they just go "have you read the manual?".
So yes, I think that as players we can make this easier on the people who come to the game, we can offer escort, trade-along routes and generally help out in this universe.
We can also ask the pirates (the griefers are a lost cause, their only driving force is the urge to step on somone and gratify their own ego. They can't be helped by a socail structure.) to -please- avoid such groups, if they want any kind of future for the social structures they will.
The 'group' function could be used to easily combat the griefing and pirating but it will probably suffer from lack of participation...
Someone start an "AGG" (anti griefer group) or "APG" (anti pirate group). When players log on, if they are truely interested in eliminating griefers or pirates, they join the group(s).
With 8 (or more) players constantly on the hunt for griefers or pirates, the number that choose to play like that would deminish.
Two other ideas that I will put in suggestions are, briefly:
1) make 25% of a pirate's credits available as his/her bounty. When a pirate is killed, those credits are divided by the group or given to the individual that took him/her out. (Pirates that lost to the colonial authorities, lost everything)
2) once a player has been identified as a griefer, make it impossible for him/her to damage a ship belonging to a player with less than 5000 points.
(Renegade ++RIP++) It was not an attack on Itani, it happens with pilots from all nations. My point was that these players were trusted by me as players that do not bother other players unless there is a war/cap or dueling.( For example, Katarn does not have an itchy trigger finger.)
Someone start an "AGG" (anti griefer group) or "APG" (anti pirate group). When players log on, if they are truely interested in eliminating griefers or pirates, they join the group(s).
With 8 (or more) players constantly on the hunt for griefers or pirates, the number that choose to play like that would deminish.
Two other ideas that I will put in suggestions are, briefly:
1) make 25% of a pirate's credits available as his/her bounty. When a pirate is killed, those credits are divided by the group or given to the individual that took him/her out. (Pirates that lost to the colonial authorities, lost everything)
2) once a player has been identified as a griefer, make it impossible for him/her to damage a ship belonging to a player with less than 5000 points.
(Renegade ++RIP++) It was not an attack on Itani, it happens with pilots from all nations. My point was that these players were trusted by me as players that do not bother other players unless there is a war/cap or dueling.( For example, Katarn does not have an itchy trigger finger.)
Rene, if memory serves, there was no cargo to buy in 2.8. It was simple CTF, FFA, and coop. "Griefing" was something 100% of the user-base did. And don't talk **** about how good previous versions were. I was griefed by Furball in 3.0 and not a damn player did a thing for me. "Oh furball's just like that, he does that." It was the good ole boys' old school. They accepted what furball did, were thankful he didn't do it to them, and let the n00bs be griefed. Previous versions were NOT any better than what we have now. The griefers have changed in name, not in number.
A question Rene, and think before you answer: _WHY_ shouldn't a person go around PKing, since that is all the tech-demo allows, beyond CTF and trading (both of which give you money to enable you to PK)? _WHY_ is it wrong to kill those less skilled than you?
By definition, someone less skilled is someone you can kill, and someone more skilled is someone you can't, excepting backstabs and lucky shots. So, it is nearly impossible to go after more skilled pilots.
There is no "vicious circle." You make this sound like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One side blows up a school bus, the other bulldozes some houses in a refugee camp and drops some bombs on a car with a Hamas or Islamic Jihad leader (inevitably killing some unlucky bystander), and on and on. This is a game, not a conflict between two ethnicities that have been fighting since Abraham, for crying out loud.
If you use internal regulations, more power to you, you're role-playing and that's commendable. However, for those who do not burden themselves with a bunch of rules, you're having fun too. The only difference between the two is that one views the universe as what everyone "should do" (moral crusader) while the other views the universe in terms of what you "can and can't do" (Jack Sparrow).
Rene, on the subject of a vicious circle, note already the change of attitude with the rudimentary missions system. I coexisted in the same sector killing bots with some previously very hostile people. We even stole kills from each other, but didn't think anything of it. Fighting each other would have delayed us, cost one or both of us money, bred bad blood, and put off accomplishing the missions. External regulations are very real and something nobody can bypass.
A question Rene, and think before you answer: _WHY_ shouldn't a person go around PKing, since that is all the tech-demo allows, beyond CTF and trading (both of which give you money to enable you to PK)? _WHY_ is it wrong to kill those less skilled than you?
By definition, someone less skilled is someone you can kill, and someone more skilled is someone you can't, excepting backstabs and lucky shots. So, it is nearly impossible to go after more skilled pilots.
There is no "vicious circle." You make this sound like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One side blows up a school bus, the other bulldozes some houses in a refugee camp and drops some bombs on a car with a Hamas or Islamic Jihad leader (inevitably killing some unlucky bystander), and on and on. This is a game, not a conflict between two ethnicities that have been fighting since Abraham, for crying out loud.
If you use internal regulations, more power to you, you're role-playing and that's commendable. However, for those who do not burden themselves with a bunch of rules, you're having fun too. The only difference between the two is that one views the universe as what everyone "should do" (moral crusader) while the other views the universe in terms of what you "can and can't do" (Jack Sparrow).
Rene, on the subject of a vicious circle, note already the change of attitude with the rudimentary missions system. I coexisted in the same sector killing bots with some previously very hostile people. We even stole kills from each other, but didn't think anything of it. Fighting each other would have delayed us, cost one or both of us money, bred bad blood, and put off accomplishing the missions. External regulations are very real and something nobody can bypass.
There was cargo in 2.8.
I entered the game at that time, and I was able to trade, I think you are tlaking aboutt he earlier versions. In one I wasnt there yet.
Yes, you xwere griefed in 3.0, but newsflash, you WERENT a noob, you were a vet that lost some of his finesse, thats all. I wouldnt even be surprised if that would have been a leftover from your earlier days, in spacequake mayhem. Furball being pissed at you for killing him constantyl ,and you taking advantage of that, Maybe he just turned the tables.
But I do know that in those days griefing wasnt "generally" accepted. And if it was possible then they got people after their backs. Or someone hopped on a new newbie char and kicked the pirates ass. "Did that to furball once, he was surprised getting beaten by a newbie and logged off right afterwards". But people need to be online to do that, they need to have sufficient credits to do that. Not to mention that without inside support, this wont happen again. If griefing/mass piraitng is accepted by the community, then this wont change. It will only change when people that play the game dont accept that behaviour.
About your tlak about the missions: ever seen a child play with a new toy, well that it is, youll get tired of it in 1 week "if you even come that far" and fall back in prior behaviour. Like stated, Internal regulations are a preliminary solution untill the devs put in a definite hardwired "external" one. But if not everyone believes in internal solution, or at least all the vets believe in it, then it will never succeed.
There is a difference to PK people willing to PK and to PK people unwilling to PK. I dont mind PK-ing, but only if the player wants it, he gets hassled already by bots, he doesnt need humans if he doesnt want to.
Why is it wrong to PK people less skilled then you, I will answer with a counterquestion: why is it bad to mollest children? Why is it bad to abuse the poor? Why is it bad to kill an unarmed oponent?
Answer; because it isnt a challenge, because they cant put up a fight. Because it is just an excuse to show off and boost your ego.
No, skilled pilots = pilots that are difficult to take down, not unbeatable. Unskilled pilots= pushovers.
And for the gazillionth time, im not roleplaying, im just trying to let everybody have some fun, and the only way this can be done is by internal regulations "morals" if there arent any external regulations "laws" yet in play. But to get the same effect with internal regulations, you need to make them 100 times stricter then you would make any law, since internal regulations arent hardwired, arent punishable by the game "justice/court" itself, but are all dependant on people, and people are never 100% perfect.
cheers
I entered the game at that time, and I was able to trade, I think you are tlaking aboutt he earlier versions. In one I wasnt there yet.
Yes, you xwere griefed in 3.0, but newsflash, you WERENT a noob, you were a vet that lost some of his finesse, thats all. I wouldnt even be surprised if that would have been a leftover from your earlier days, in spacequake mayhem. Furball being pissed at you for killing him constantyl ,and you taking advantage of that, Maybe he just turned the tables.
But I do know that in those days griefing wasnt "generally" accepted. And if it was possible then they got people after their backs. Or someone hopped on a new newbie char and kicked the pirates ass. "Did that to furball once, he was surprised getting beaten by a newbie and logged off right afterwards". But people need to be online to do that, they need to have sufficient credits to do that. Not to mention that without inside support, this wont happen again. If griefing/mass piraitng is accepted by the community, then this wont change. It will only change when people that play the game dont accept that behaviour.
About your tlak about the missions: ever seen a child play with a new toy, well that it is, youll get tired of it in 1 week "if you even come that far" and fall back in prior behaviour. Like stated, Internal regulations are a preliminary solution untill the devs put in a definite hardwired "external" one. But if not everyone believes in internal solution, or at least all the vets believe in it, then it will never succeed.
There is a difference to PK people willing to PK and to PK people unwilling to PK. I dont mind PK-ing, but only if the player wants it, he gets hassled already by bots, he doesnt need humans if he doesnt want to.
Why is it wrong to PK people less skilled then you, I will answer with a counterquestion: why is it bad to mollest children? Why is it bad to abuse the poor? Why is it bad to kill an unarmed oponent?
Answer; because it isnt a challenge, because they cant put up a fight. Because it is just an excuse to show off and boost your ego.
No, skilled pilots = pilots that are difficult to take down, not unbeatable. Unskilled pilots= pushovers.
And for the gazillionth time, im not roleplaying, im just trying to let everybody have some fun, and the only way this can be done is by internal regulations "morals" if there arent any external regulations "laws" yet in play. But to get the same effect with internal regulations, you need to make them 100 times stricter then you would make any law, since internal regulations arent hardwired, arent punishable by the game "justice/court" itself, but are all dependant on people, and people are never 100% perfect.
cheers
My solution: Bring back the turret guild. Back when they were around every PKer online would flock to 7 for a shot at getting a free kill before they issued.
--------
Why is it wrong to PK people less skilled then you, I will answer with a counterquestion: why is it bad to mollest children? Why is it bad to abuse the poor? Why is it bad to kill an unarmed oponent?
Answer; because it isnt a challenge, because they cant put up a fight. Because it is just an excuse to show off and boost your ego.
--------
So, Rene, according to your logic, it would be ok to rape a woman, because she could resist, whereas a child could not.... You see how ludicrous that is? You do not not mollest children, abuse the poor, and kill unarmed people (or even armed ones for that matter) because it is not a challenge (wow, triple negative, think about that). You do not not do these things because society has determined that such things are morally wrong.
There is usually some sort of religious or logical reasoning behind this. Murder is wrong (why? Not because it's not a challenge! :P LOL! but because according to the Christian religion, which our Declaration of Independence is based off of, has said so. It all boils down to some sort of authority on the matter. The DoI says that the right to life is an unalienable one. That means you cannot be deprive of it even willingly. If you say "ok, you can kill me," and a guy pulls the trigger, he will be charged with manslaughter (or even homicide) whether or not you let him kill you. If life wasn't unalienable, you would see weird situations like in Tom Cruise's Minority Report, where the guy he was supposed to murder was paid to be killed. Society would descend into chaos if murdering was legalized. To prevent chaos, society has outlawed murdering, and most societies in the world deprive murderers of their lives to prevent any further taking of life.
In Vendetta, the logic flows as such: If you grief newbies, they will be unable to progress in the game and constantly waste hours rebuilding their small fortunes. If they are unable to proceed beyond this small fortune, they may be unable to find pleasure in rebuilding it, and probably leave the game in frustration. To fix this problem, there have been many explanations available. They range from disabling weapon damage to ships below a certain score, not letting newbies out of home sectors, starting newbies out with a certain amount of cash, to giving newbies more free ships.
Because of these reasons, the community has decided it is _bad_ to grief newbies. However, the community refuses to address the issue by punishing transgressors. Bonds to teammates are more powerful than bonds to newbies, which I think is a good thing. I hate to see people constantly switching nations to avenge so-and-so's death. That makes it impossible to trust your allies, as they could be gunning for you should you kill the wrong person.
-------
OK, my memory is a bit hazy, but I could have sworn we didn't have a 9-sector universe until 3.0. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Rene, Furball wasn't in the game when I left it in 2.9. When I came back in 3.0, he was the top dawg, so to speak, and any pleas for help resulted in players regarding me as something of a leper: "Get to close and the disease might get us." I had done nothing to prompt the griefing, it was just the way it was, and no one cared. It's like Phoenix and Icarus today (or, before Phoenix went to red). They could be in the same sector and they wouldn't attack each other. That's how many vets in 3.0 acted.
------
m just trying to let everybody have some fun, and the only way this can be done is by internal regulations "morals" if there arent any external regulations "laws" yet in play.
------
Then not "everyone" will have fun. That's taken for granted. Two players can't win a dogfight--one wins, one loses. This is not a game, it's a tech demo. You don't play it to have fun, but to bugtest. If having fun precedes bugtesting, you're already harming the community.
Why is it wrong to PK people less skilled then you, I will answer with a counterquestion: why is it bad to mollest children? Why is it bad to abuse the poor? Why is it bad to kill an unarmed oponent?
Answer; because it isnt a challenge, because they cant put up a fight. Because it is just an excuse to show off and boost your ego.
--------
So, Rene, according to your logic, it would be ok to rape a woman, because she could resist, whereas a child could not.... You see how ludicrous that is? You do not not mollest children, abuse the poor, and kill unarmed people (or even armed ones for that matter) because it is not a challenge (wow, triple negative, think about that). You do not not do these things because society has determined that such things are morally wrong.
There is usually some sort of religious or logical reasoning behind this. Murder is wrong (why? Not because it's not a challenge! :P LOL! but because according to the Christian religion, which our Declaration of Independence is based off of, has said so. It all boils down to some sort of authority on the matter. The DoI says that the right to life is an unalienable one. That means you cannot be deprive of it even willingly. If you say "ok, you can kill me," and a guy pulls the trigger, he will be charged with manslaughter (or even homicide) whether or not you let him kill you. If life wasn't unalienable, you would see weird situations like in Tom Cruise's Minority Report, where the guy he was supposed to murder was paid to be killed. Society would descend into chaos if murdering was legalized. To prevent chaos, society has outlawed murdering, and most societies in the world deprive murderers of their lives to prevent any further taking of life.
In Vendetta, the logic flows as such: If you grief newbies, they will be unable to progress in the game and constantly waste hours rebuilding their small fortunes. If they are unable to proceed beyond this small fortune, they may be unable to find pleasure in rebuilding it, and probably leave the game in frustration. To fix this problem, there have been many explanations available. They range from disabling weapon damage to ships below a certain score, not letting newbies out of home sectors, starting newbies out with a certain amount of cash, to giving newbies more free ships.
Because of these reasons, the community has decided it is _bad_ to grief newbies. However, the community refuses to address the issue by punishing transgressors. Bonds to teammates are more powerful than bonds to newbies, which I think is a good thing. I hate to see people constantly switching nations to avenge so-and-so's death. That makes it impossible to trust your allies, as they could be gunning for you should you kill the wrong person.
-------
OK, my memory is a bit hazy, but I could have sworn we didn't have a 9-sector universe until 3.0. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Rene, Furball wasn't in the game when I left it in 2.9. When I came back in 3.0, he was the top dawg, so to speak, and any pleas for help resulted in players regarding me as something of a leper: "Get to close and the disease might get us." I had done nothing to prompt the griefing, it was just the way it was, and no one cared. It's like Phoenix and Icarus today (or, before Phoenix went to red). They could be in the same sector and they wouldn't attack each other. That's how many vets in 3.0 acted.
------
m just trying to let everybody have some fun, and the only way this can be done is by internal regulations "morals" if there arent any external regulations "laws" yet in play.
------
Then not "everyone" will have fun. That's taken for granted. Two players can't win a dogfight--one wins, one loses. This is not a game, it's a tech demo. You don't play it to have fun, but to bugtest. If having fun precedes bugtesting, you're already harming the community.
Camps.. I was killed by you more times than I can count when I first started playing. I once commented on how I had hit 500k and gone back down to 0 so many times I lost count, and you laughingly asked if it was because of you. My memory of my early days seems oddly familiar with your description of furball, except that instead of just one person killing me over and over again for no apparent reason it was many.
[not directed at camps to avoid confusion]
Changing the gameplay to help newbs ends up making the game boring for non-newbs. And everyone who sticks around eventually becomes a non-newb; most people only can really be called a newbie for the first three or so weeks of their tenure in the vendetta universe. If you really want to help new players out, make a police/charity guild that attacks griefers on sight and trains new pilots in the ways of vendetta. Even if you get your ass handed to you by the griefers you will have distracted them briefly, and thus made life easier for newbs for a time.
[not directed at camps to avoid confusion]
Changing the gameplay to help newbs ends up making the game boring for non-newbs. And everyone who sticks around eventually becomes a non-newb; most people only can really be called a newbie for the first three or so weeks of their tenure in the vendetta universe. If you really want to help new players out, make a police/charity guild that attacks griefers on sight and trains new pilots in the ways of vendetta. Even if you get your ass handed to you by the griefers you will have distracted them briefly, and thus made life easier for newbs for a time.
Hmm.. I've essentially ignored this thread... umm... I do take issue with my reputation being dragged through the mud as it appears to be ... (While I can't recall with any specificity repeatedly killing SirCamps in 3.0/3.1, I do recall doing killing many busses/new players at that time.) I will point out though, just because one is "griefed" does not mean that one should become a griefer when one is better.
But, why not become a griefer after being griefed, furball? I have a few players in mind that have and still do come after me every chance they get (why, I don't know...I'm so loveable). As my skills progress, I've felt the urge to go after others that have done me wrong and in the process, have had the urge to do away with this easy target because they are of the same nation or that easy target because they talk to much in chat or tell people to stop swearing.
My point is, it is so easy to succumb to this 'dark side' when your skills allow. Some feel that every transgressor needs to be punished and they take it uppon themselves to be the punisher. Others want the attention from everyone being mad at them. Who knows why else?
There is no doubt that this type of player will suffer when the game is released but, in the mean-time, what do we do to them after they blow someone up that is taking screenshots of a bug?
My point is, it is so easy to succumb to this 'dark side' when your skills allow. Some feel that every transgressor needs to be punished and they take it uppon themselves to be the punisher. Others want the attention from everyone being mad at them. Who knows why else?
There is no doubt that this type of player will suffer when the game is released but, in the mean-time, what do we do to them after they blow someone up that is taking screenshots of a bug?
The "good players" are judge, jury, and executioner (hardly "good") and the bad players are perceived "lawbreakers (but only offending others' internal regulations, hardly "laws").
I'm not going to change, for one. I will continue to attack targets I deem worthy of my attention. I usually do not target buses, but sometimes I will if a player switches to one or is being foulmouthed.
I'm not going to change, for one. I will continue to attack targets I deem worthy of my attention. I usually do not target buses, but sometimes I will if a player switches to one or is being foulmouthed.
"The "good players" are judge, jury, and executioner (hardly "good")"
-What makes this not good? It's a concentration of power. Power in itself is never bad, only how it is used. If a good player uses his power as judge, jury. . . in a good way, he's a good player. No contradiction here.
-What makes this not good? It's a concentration of power. Power in itself is never bad, only how it is used. If a good player uses his power as judge, jury. . . in a good way, he's a good player. No contradiction here.
Then not "everyone" will have fun. That's taken for granted. Two players can't win a dogfight--one wins, one loses. This is not a game, it's a tech demo. You don't play it to have fun, but to bugtest. If having fun precedes bugtesting, you're already harming the community.
Everyon will have fun, if people have a chance of winning a fight "so putting up a real challenge"; then these people will have fun. If it is a fight between 2 people with one superior skills then the other, and the other person didnt ask for the fight, then a fight is only stressing for the other guy and then yes he isnt having fun, and my point a little bit higher has been proven that it is more fun if it is a challenging fight. I dont deam raping women challenging, because per se they dont have a chance of winning one way or another, if they survive they get traumatized by gettiung assaulted, if they dont survive then they got raped, its always a lose-lose for them. Only if the women accepted to get raped then it would be challenging and I would see no harm, but in reallity no woman will accept a raping just like that. "I wont go into the exceptions, because their are children reading this board, and they need to know that raping aint acceptable, and wouldnt get the wrong idea by me summing up exceptions that due to previous statement therefore arent ever possible"
Your point about bugtesting, if Im playing, then I am bugtesting. The devs have noted and tried to make the game/techdemo fun for us, with as prime reason to retent our attention towards the game and try out the different possibilities what encourages more people using them AND therefore bugtests even to a higher level of effectiveness in bugtesting. If a bugtest wouldnt be fun, then a lot of us bugtesters wouldnt be coaxed that easilly in playing and we wouldnt invest so much time in bugtesting. So as you see, having fun does benefit a techdemo, and a good community is the cornerstone of a game, and without one it aint possible to have some fun unless you are the egotripper kind.
And no we had a 9 sector universe at 2.8.
Once more the fun isnt necessarilly in winning or losing, it adds to the fun yes, but the challenge makes it fun to. Imagine if you duel eldrad and you can win at a tachduel, at that moment im mighty proud of myself, or if I could get him to 10% while before I couldnt even hit him for jack. At that time I would be even proud.
About it being strange to see armed fighters not attacking each other, do you find it strange as when 2 people from the army meet, they dont kill each other although they both are armed. You could draw this on when a green berret and a SaS member meet outside of duty/enemyship that they dont kill each other.
If people used to tell that they werent hostile, then that meant that we wouldnt attack the guy. If people broke this repeatedly then it was accepted that that person was open game for anyone, and nobody would jump in to help. And yes, in my opinion teambonds arent justifiable enough to aide a traspasser "somebody who goes beyond the accepted line" that is getting hunted down. They brought it on themselves and should face the heat for themselves, dont act if you cant take it. It will be the same when there are external regulations in place, will you help your teammate if he has been sent to prison for breaking a rule or something. I wouldnt, he shouldnt have broken the rules, no matter if they are only internal or external.
cheers
PS: if these internal regulations are accepted by a majority, then this is in fact considered to be A law, and if people break this law accepted by majority of the community, then it is good to keep you to it and bad to break it, if you break it then to bad for you but expect a chastising. Naturally the majority of the vets. But with people as you that constantly think about their own selfish needs this internal regulation can be destroyed very easilly since its only an agreed one. BUT if everybody backs it up, or the majority of the vets, then untill external regulations are put in place, this will be more then sufficient to solve the problem. But yes, it needs a bit of goodwill from the entire community, and if that aint possible, then by golly I will be very embarrassed for everyone of us.
Everyon will have fun, if people have a chance of winning a fight "so putting up a real challenge"; then these people will have fun. If it is a fight between 2 people with one superior skills then the other, and the other person didnt ask for the fight, then a fight is only stressing for the other guy and then yes he isnt having fun, and my point a little bit higher has been proven that it is more fun if it is a challenging fight. I dont deam raping women challenging, because per se they dont have a chance of winning one way or another, if they survive they get traumatized by gettiung assaulted, if they dont survive then they got raped, its always a lose-lose for them. Only if the women accepted to get raped then it would be challenging and I would see no harm, but in reallity no woman will accept a raping just like that. "I wont go into the exceptions, because their are children reading this board, and they need to know that raping aint acceptable, and wouldnt get the wrong idea by me summing up exceptions that due to previous statement therefore arent ever possible"
Your point about bugtesting, if Im playing, then I am bugtesting. The devs have noted and tried to make the game/techdemo fun for us, with as prime reason to retent our attention towards the game and try out the different possibilities what encourages more people using them AND therefore bugtests even to a higher level of effectiveness in bugtesting. If a bugtest wouldnt be fun, then a lot of us bugtesters wouldnt be coaxed that easilly in playing and we wouldnt invest so much time in bugtesting. So as you see, having fun does benefit a techdemo, and a good community is the cornerstone of a game, and without one it aint possible to have some fun unless you are the egotripper kind.
And no we had a 9 sector universe at 2.8.
Once more the fun isnt necessarilly in winning or losing, it adds to the fun yes, but the challenge makes it fun to. Imagine if you duel eldrad and you can win at a tachduel, at that moment im mighty proud of myself, or if I could get him to 10% while before I couldnt even hit him for jack. At that time I would be even proud.
About it being strange to see armed fighters not attacking each other, do you find it strange as when 2 people from the army meet, they dont kill each other although they both are armed. You could draw this on when a green berret and a SaS member meet outside of duty/enemyship that they dont kill each other.
If people used to tell that they werent hostile, then that meant that we wouldnt attack the guy. If people broke this repeatedly then it was accepted that that person was open game for anyone, and nobody would jump in to help. And yes, in my opinion teambonds arent justifiable enough to aide a traspasser "somebody who goes beyond the accepted line" that is getting hunted down. They brought it on themselves and should face the heat for themselves, dont act if you cant take it. It will be the same when there are external regulations in place, will you help your teammate if he has been sent to prison for breaking a rule or something. I wouldnt, he shouldnt have broken the rules, no matter if they are only internal or external.
cheers
PS: if these internal regulations are accepted by a majority, then this is in fact considered to be A law, and if people break this law accepted by majority of the community, then it is good to keep you to it and bad to break it, if you break it then to bad for you but expect a chastising. Naturally the majority of the vets. But with people as you that constantly think about their own selfish needs this internal regulation can be destroyed very easilly since its only an agreed one. BUT if everybody backs it up, or the majority of the vets, then untill external regulations are put in place, this will be more then sufficient to solve the problem. But yes, it needs a bit of goodwill from the entire community, and if that aint possible, then by golly I will be very embarrassed for everyone of us.
And no, we had a 3 sector universe in 2.8 and a 9 sector universe in 3.0. I think. :P
Im pretty sure that we had 9 sectors in 2.8, or at least I thought I entered the game at that time. It could be 2.9 though to :D
But Im pretty sure that we had 9 sectors before the 3.0 release.
cheers
But Im pretty sure that we had 9 sectors before the 3.0 release.
cheers
3.0 was the 9-sector universe release.
You may be thinking of the combination of the 3.0-era sector 6 and the current (kinda) sector 7, which was 2.9.
You may be thinking of the combination of the 3.0-era sector 6 and the current (kinda) sector 7, which was 2.9.
You know, because how many sectors there were during release XX really has an effect on the community and current gameplay.
;)
;)
The 3.0 sector 7 was totally different than our current one... It got revamped entirely when the new backgrounds came out...
Starfisher: YES IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Starfisher: YES IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The prosecution will stipulate that the universe is bigger now than it was 5 minutes ago and will also stipulate that the increased size does effect game-play.
The universe is bigger, but so are all the objects in it, and so are we. Thus, the change is imperceptible, no?