u dont want to fight buy tixs. this is arrows way controling the game using there multi accounts

Xorphitus said:

My few words on this issue:

PvP ettiquette sounds nice but never works. Sorry, this is my experience. So you have to organize retribution yourself. And hit back hard and painfully.

And my PvP approach is simple. You attack me, you get attacked back. You attack my clan mates, you get attacked. You destroy a golem of mine, expect to lose one or two as well. You use game balance screwing items and features to get an upper hand in PvP fights against me, expect me to hit back with other game mechanics (i.e. WoA). So ASTRO just uses another weapon against ARROW since those ranged weapons and winter slayblades are hard to battle against; perfectly in order for me, though I would personally only pick up the Senate weapon when really pissed off.

Draw your own conclusions,

Xorphitus

Cyrric said:

And perhaps you forget that the "Senate Weapon" is available to us as well...

Frivolous Writs will get you No Confidence votes which will really cause you problems in the future.

Kenneth said:



I didn't mean you, but I'm not going to point any fingers to the culprit because I happen to believe that snitches are "'lower than those kids who wet themselves in their jammies every night'"

And yes, I did just quote a book without citing it. My language arts teachers would be so proud...not.

Shan said:



I feel I should point out that it was exactly this suggestion which caused the last breakdown of negotiations between ARROW and TOMU.

And the question of enforcement really is difficult. If it's enforced through the might of other players, then a PvP player who breaks the guidelines still wins. Fighting is what they're looking for, and fighting would be what they get. But if force isn't used against those who violate the guidelines, there really aren't many other options. We can't exactly "ignore them until they go away," fine them, or imprison them.

It might take new game mechanics to ensure harmony between PvP and non-PvP players. Maybe something in a similar line as the Dmitrian guard - the ability to go on missions in exchange for short periods of NoPvP time. The cost would have to be fairly high in in-game resources, both to prevent abuse and to not compete with Ticket sales. Or some sort of impartial legal body, which would punish offenders, maybe with fines or "jail time."

We could even try setting up this enforcing body through inter-clan cooperation. Start a new clan, say "The Muelsfell Police Force" for now, which would be given the authority to freely investigate and enact retribution upon any who are accused of violating PvP guidelines. A sort of social contract, where everyone agrees to submit themselves to the rulings of some governing body, in order to ensure increased liberty and protections for everyone.
Of course, oversight to prevent corruption would be the tricky part.

masterslug said:

I fully agree that there could be common rules/guidelines amongst those clans that wish to PVP. Players that do not want to PVP will need to either opt out or to accept attacks as part of the course or join a NON-PVP clan.

With a NON-PVP clan there are no chances of mistakes. Non of us wish to PVP other than by prior arrangement. Clan members who break this rule can and have been exiled.

But from a NON PVP clan perspective I do see a huge down side to these guidelines. For rules/guidelines to work there must be enforcement or at least political pressure to conform from the community at large. This is very open to abuse. I foresee that both players and clans that do not like the idea off NON-PVP clans, will use this to their advantage and attack NON-PVP clans like us freely, then claiming they are just following the guidelines. We will have little we can do to discourage them without breaking the guidelines and turning ourselves into the bad guys in the eyes of the community. All the old hands here know what happened to the last lot of bad guys, (fun times :) ).

This idea should not be used to force NON-PVP clans into PVP.

Arkham said:

Muelsfell was and is designed with the expectation that players will engage in PvP at least occasionally.

::Edit: Oh, and I don't think there is actually a war going on Yami. Every thing seems to have died down. from what I have seen there has been the normal back and forth individual skirmishes for points and fun but no clan level war.

OTAKU is NOT a "No-PvP" clan - there is no such thing. You merely bully all the other players in the game by saying "don't attack our guys, or our enforcers will pound you." This not only contravenes the spirit of the game, but also the letter (as Cyrric pointed out in the initial post):

Xorphitus said:

PS: Common sense should resolve this situation altogether. If you attack someone and this person does not like PvP respect that as long as they do not cross you. There are enough PvP players around, and I know quite some NPvP players who just try to ignore the random PvP attacks and just do not retaliate.

Guyver said:

proposed rule
Golems with the name NOPVP****** cannot be attacked, anyone putting up such a golem within 48Hrs of an outgoing attack or attacking such a golem should be given a 24 hr window to receive attacks from anyone who wants to without consequence, repeated offenders should be kicked from clan.

Xorphitus said:

and I know quite some NPvP players who just try to ignore the random PvP attacks and just do not retaliate.

Cyrric said:

I'm thinking you missed his point, MS. Mustafa was pointing out that when we have attacked members of OTAKU in the past (even random light hits) we've gotten nasty messages threatening us with extreme force. We've also received assertions that OTAKU is a No PVP clan and that we're initiating a clan war by engaging in PVP. This is by definition, bullying.