reply to Pkftw:

"Also didn't expect you to cry your way into getting me banned again i thought you were a man. Guess not"

"I mean i'm sure i could stand here and make stuff up too and probably get unbanned but i'm atleast being legit about this. I just like how you turn into a whiney little kid when your crew leaves you and everyone that is active dislikes you."

both insults and te last one is an opinion youd be surprised how manof your "team mates" are my friends. they dont take this war or my pk's personally like you do.

_________________________________________

Now your making this topic about your pk's somehow haha, get back on track buddy reread what i've been saying. Your focusing on the minor things i'm saying and avoiding the points.

_________________________________________

reply to Pkftw:

ok ace im done all you do is insult people and make baseless claims which make no sense and are obvious lies. You say i made this about pk's i was simply saying people dont hate me like you think they do.

this ban was more than warranted on ace, as for shatter I don't know he was with ace but its true he didnt do any of the killing. maybe next time he should choose a pk partner who knows and follows the rules?

_________________________________________

Once again reread what i'm saying. You fell back on the "all i do is insult you etc" This is what i said "Now your making this topic about your pk's somehow haha, get back on track buddy reread what i've been saying. Your focusing on the minor things i'm saying and avoiding the points." nowhere in there is an insult to you, but you take it like that somehow. I don't know how you do it tyrael.

_________________________________________

Haze wrote:

Okay, I'm going to try again since your caveman-like intelligence can't comprehend that I'm not trying to bend what YOU are saying, but rather question the rule itself.

Player A kills Player B 3 times. Player A then attacks Player B a 4th time, whether by accident or on purpose. Player B then can retaliate, without repercussion, because it is then self defense and is not considered aggression towards Player A. Thus creates a problem in that this person can use the "self defense" card and not be attacked back. I have tried explaining this multiple times and you cannot grasp it so hopefully this time it is laid out and simple for you.

Oh. Okay, now I see what you meant. My bad.

I do not see why that itself is an issue, though. Such a gambit can only occur when Player A attacks a 4th time, which turns out to be a stupid risk associated to killing someone 3 times in a row. If Player A is so incompetent that they can not avoid hitting Player B that fourth time, then they should not be killing someone so many times. It's as simple as that.

_________________________________________

Shane wrote:

Haze wrote:

Okay, I'm going to try again since your caveman-like intelligence can't comprehend that I'm not trying to bend what YOU are saying, but rather question the rule itself.

Player A kills Player B 3 times. Player A then attacks Player B a 4th time, whether by accident or on purpose. Player B then can retaliate, without repercussion, because it is then self defense and is not considered aggression towards Player A. Thus creates a problem in that this person can use the "self defense" card and not be attacked back. I have tried explaining this multiple times and you cannot grasp it so hopefully this time it is laid out and simple for you.

Oh. Okay, now I see what you meant. My bad.

I do not see why that itself is an issue, though. Such a gambit can only occur when Player A attacks a 4th time, which turns out to be a stupid risk associated to killing someone 3 times in a row. If Player A is so incompetent that they can not avoid hitting Player B that fourth time, then they should not be killing someone so many times. It's as simple as that.

Turf fires, splash damage from a spell casted on another player (aggressive or passive doesn't matter), or just from being hit by that player in a swarm. It just opens the door for easy griefing. This is why it's better to code in mechanics to either prevent spam killing or automatically punish those who push the limit. Though it's too late for FFO, it really would've been nice and would be interesting to see just how different all these wars/spam killings would have went had we had an in-game mechanic to enforce this.

_________________________________________

reply to Haze:

Those would probably be a lot more effective (or more abusable), but I think the main issue here is that everyone is so at each other's throats that the rule is less a reminder not to be a douchebag griefer and more a challenge that people have to overcome in their griefing.

_________________________________________

Yeah, coding in a punishment would be better, All i'm saying is tyrael tends to twist things in his favor every time, and then avoid a real discussion. At least I was pking people who can fight back not nub scrubs that just cc'd.

_________________________________________

we wouldn't need a mechanic for it if you could just kill someone and then leave them be. I don't get it honestly, I'm all for pking someone, but to push the issue is just stupid and wont do anything but increase the amount of butthurt in my opinion.

Also to code in a mechanic to prevent this kind of thing seems kind of iffy, especially in the case of domain warfare where a citizen may respawn many time in order to defend their domain, and get killed everytime. In which case it wouldn't really be spam killing as trying to take over a domain.

_________________________________________

Yeah I would have left him be, If he didn't decide to come running out of town at me...

_________________________________________

I am just saying, we would probably have infinitely less topics about this sort of thing if people were not so intent on pushing the rules, and I am referring to both sides.

_________________________________________

Or if we didn't have the care bear rules to begin with. I mean he could have done a dozen other things other then run south of argo, but he's a pvper and when one runs at me that's what I expect to occur. It's okay for him to pk the hell out of fresh players learning on an hourly basis but if i kill him one extra time with/without reason all hell breaks lose.

_________________________________________

reply to Pkftw:

i wasnt avoiding a discussion ace, im just tired of you making stabs at me every post. i explained what happened, provided SS's, and tried to talk it out but you wont listen and wont stop your actions so i see no point in discussing in anything further.

_________________________________________

"tried to talk it out but you wont listen" You were the one not listening guy.

_________________________________________

To be honest, I think the rules are to lenient, but heh, what are ya gunna do.

_________________________________________

Shane wrote:

reply to Haze:

Those would probably be a lot more effective (or more abusable), but I think the main issue here is that everyone is so at each other's throats that the rule is less a reminder not to be a douchebag griefer and more a challenge that people have to overcome in their griefing.

Shane wrote:

I am just saying, we would probably have infinitely less topics about this sort of thing if people were not so intent on pushing the rules, and I am referring to both sides.

This, so much. The purpose of rules like "don't PK someone more than three times in a row" is really to tell players not to act like ****s when they PVP. The attitude some people seem to have of "I only killed him three times 20 minutes ago so I can jump him again in T-minus 40 minutes" is really stupid and they really need to grow up.

Just because PVP exists in the game doesn't mean players shouldn't have the common sense to try to show some sort of restraint when doing it. Especially since that war is over, there doesn't seem to be a huge number of people online at once and the last thing the game needs is players getting frustrated and quitting for a while, when there doesn't seem to be much new blood coming in.

_________________________________________

Sarm the Wise your logic is both too advanced and too mature for the simple FFO player to grasp.

_________________________________________

That's what she said.


_________________________________________

could we at the least remove shatter's ban, i mean really

he didnt kill anyone 4 times, ace got the 4th kill on tippy, it doesnt make sense to have shatter banned as well, when no other rules were broken and he didnt get the kill, nor did he kill tyr a fourth time

_________________________________________

Yeah at the very least shatter's ban should be removed, just because he was in my party and pvping before the incident means hes guilty as well? So with that logic if someone away'd in my party after pvping and I continue to slaughter people they are at fault too. They didn't attack but f it lets ban them too right? I hope we're all seeing the flaws in the rules. Revamp please and thank you.

_________________________________________