If they gave reds access to Trammel

[Yalp]

I haven't attacked a single person, personally here at all and I'm extremely offended at your accusations.

This thread is all about a proposal that does nothing but enhance the game for certain players, without effecting other player-types at all.

It's pretty obvious you've lost the argument when the only thing you can post is false accusations of me attacking you for having a different opinion. I'm attacking you opinion, which I think is wrong, off-base, selfish, ridiculous, outdated, and based on bigotry towards a playerbase that isn't your own.

I don't appreciate you trying to spin this discussion into me attacking you because I'm not and it's down right insulting to think you can even insinuate that kind of crap freely and openly with no repercussions.

I'm all about bettering Ultima Online for all of the players with-in it, even the ones you don't like.

oh dude..It's a waste of intelligence to point out the myraid issues with just this post alone, let alone the dozens you've already thrown out.. so I'll just say this..... wanna debate the point?

Players are not banned from fel.. some toons are.

Wanna make all pvp consensual only? Then we can do away with fel , reds and the whole darn thing.

You've yet to actually address these counter points. I'll wait...

 

[Yalp]

it's down right insulting to think you can even insinuate that kind of crap freely and openly with no repercussions.

Dude.. I'm not insinuating.. I am out and out stating as fact, you've spent more time in your posts attacking people than actually discussing and/or offering counter points.

Many folks are willing to discuss point vs. counter point.. are you able?

 

[Yalp]

Yalp :loser::loser:

dude. really? that's the best you got? maybe that works for the pre-school playground.. but this is the adult world.. offer up some counter points. show some facts.. put some actual thought into your point of view.. are you able?

 

[Draxous]

freely and openly with no repercussions.

lol irony
the repercussions of murdering is that you can't escape player justice
If you want to take away those repercussions for murdering, you have to put something else in it's place.... no insurance for murderers, as an example.

But it's not murdering anymore.

If you go to Felucca, you go there with the clear intentions of having PvP experienced in your game-play. It's just PvP.

Murdering another player assumes that one of the parties was not consenting to the act. There is no reason to have repercussions for something that is completely consensual.

This has already been brought up and addressed tho.

Remove the Trammel ruleset and then we can talk about restrictions/justice/punishment for murder.

 

[Yalp]

But it's not murdering anymore.

If you go to Felucca, you go there with the clear intentions of having PvP experienced in your game-play. It's just PvP.

Murdering another player assumes that one of the parties was not consenting to the act. There is no reason to have repercussions for something that is completely consensual.

This has already been brought up and addressed tho.

Remove the Trammel ruleset and then we can talk about restrictions/justice/punishment for murder.

I know of many instances of peeps going to fel without any intention of pvp in their game play. Peeps know when they enter fel there is always a danger of being ganked. But that is different than going to engage in pvp.

A clear indication of a player not consenting to pvp is when they recall out when someone enters their screen, or when they hug guard zones, or when they make their houses private.

 

[mr.blackmage]

I know of many instances of peeps going to fel without any intention of pvp in their game play. Peeps know when they enter fel there is always a danger of being ganked. But that is different than going to engage in pvp.

A clear indication of a player not consenting to pvp is when they recall out when someone enters their screen, or when they hug guard zones, or when they make their houses private.

When they created trammel, they should have removed the murderer system and just made fel a total pvp server. They didn't do this, and this is 8? years later. Fel is the only place where there is free for all pvp, and out of tens of thousands of blues I killed, maybe 2 were "innocent", which I immediately ressed. The reason why I never got actively involved in any of the pvm in tram, is because I only had 1 character that I LIKED playing, and that was my pure mage. Considering the prohibitive cost of making a duplicated char due to scrolls, I never made a blue. Your arguements are silly, as contrary to popular belief, all of those "murderers" you see are people that went red from killing other murderers blue characters, which were used to obtain more scrolls, and for less risk. That's it. I was staying out of this thread considering how ridiculous some of these comments are, but I just had to say my piece. Colour every red blue, and then (leaving guilds) voila, no more worries about flagging or going grey or anything. Everything is freely attackable, everyone is happy. But guess what, Fel has been ignored since trammel's creation. Little bones thrown here or there have not done a thing to alter the broken pvp system, and it fosters an attitude that our pvping is some sort of contrary behaviour. Try playing wow on a pvp server (or any game), and see how long you go without being attacked.

 

[Ash]

But it's not murdering anymore.

If you go to Felucca, you go there with the clear intentions of having PvP experienced in your game-play. It's just PvP.

Murdering another player assumes that one of the parties was not consenting to the act. There is no reason to have repercussions for something that is completely consensual.

This has already been brought up and addressed tho.

Remove the Trammel ruleset and then we can talk about restrictions/justice/punishment for murder.

Seriously that made me laugh.. Your definition of murder, well is twisted and the equivalent of saying they were asking for it cause they entered fel. So a blue mining, sees another player and retreats only to be killed and that isn't murder. You arguing that a blue being killed is a consequence for entering fel as reasoning for removing consequences for being red.. Why should blues have consequences if reds shouldn't?

What we have been saying is if PvP was truly consensual then yes do away with classification of murder, but proximity is not true consent.

Earlier you argued blues don't have to go to Fel to get powerscrolls buy them, well Reds don't have to go to Tram to enter Doom, DH and Travesty just buy the items.

I'm all about bettering Ultima Online for all of the players with-in it, even the ones you don't like.

Then why are you so opposed to bettering the experience and availability to those who choose NOT to PvP? Each statement you make conflicts with other statements you have made. You have made no concession to any playstyle other than reds and claim to be out to better UO for all players. Crock.

 

[Draxous]

Earlier you argued blues don't have to go to Fel to get powerscrolls buy them, well Reds don't have to go to Tram to enter Doom, DH and Travesty just buy the items.

Blues have the option to enter Felucca. Reds don't have the option to enter Trammel.

I completely agree with you!!! Reds shouldn't have to go to Trammel to enter Doom, DH or Travesty... but they should be given the option to!

Thanks!

I'm all about bettering Ultima Online for all of the players with-in it, even the ones you don't like.

Then why are you so opposed to bettering the experience and availability to those who choose NOT to PvP? Each statement you make conflicts with other statements you have made. You have made no concession to any playstyle other than reds and claim to be out to better UO for all players. Crock.

Why do I have to "better the experience to those who choose NOT to PvP?"

Because your ridiculous notion of such would be at the expense of another playerbase. One you don't care for nor make any concessions towards. And you think your in a position to demand a return favor? Please.

You think that the non-PvP playstyle is the only playstyle deserving of any consideration. You jump in a thread demanding that no beneficial things be done to a different playerbase until it is seen to and ensured that your playerbase is also given something.

Thank you for solidifying your selfish attitude.

Check, point, match.

Now get out of my thread since you bring nothing to it, but your own selfish ambitions. You don't give two squats about anyone but yourself and I've heard enough of your BS.

*tips hat*

BlacK RaiN

PS. I'm all for bettering the game for non-PvP type players too, but not like this and not by hijacking and holding a good idea hostage because I'm selfish, like you.

 

[Draxous]

I know of many instances of peeps going to fel without any intention of pvp in their game play. Peeps know when they enter fel there is always a danger of being ganked. But that is different than going to engage in pvp.

Nice try.

Going to Felucca is choosing to have PvP as a part of your game-play.

Whether your the aggressor or defender it doesn't matter. You chose to be there, you consented to it and you knowingly made the decision to forgo the saftey of Trammel in order to experience something else.

It is not murder when you are only allowed to attack players who have made this choice. It is consensual PvP.

Period.

 

[Radun]

If everyone going to fel was consenting to pvp, then WHY did some of those people give you a murder count? (indicating that they didn't consent to you attacking them)

walking into fel does not automatically constitute consenting to fight with anyone and everyone who may be there. If everyone who went to fel was consenting to pvp with anyone who may attack them, there would be no reds.

 

[Draxous]

If everyone going to fel was consenting to pvp, then WHY did some of those people give you a murder count? (indicating that they didn't consent to you attacking them)

walking into fel does not automatically constitute consenting to fight with anyone and everyone who may be there. If everyone who went to fel was consenting to pvp with anyone who may attack them, there would be no reds.

No.

 

[mr.blackmage]

what blues do you think are left in fel? Tons of crafters and miners just going about their own business? BLUES ARE PLAYED IN FEL BY RED CHARACTERS. It isn't because they are minding their own business, it is because they then get to pick and choose their targets!

Like 1 in 100 blues count people, and that's either to get the message out of the way, or because they think the character that killed them may not have meant to go red. It's time for you to stop thinking of it as murdering innocents, and just think of fel as a pvp server, because that's what it is.

 

[Radun]

Going to Felucca is choosing to have PvP as a part of your game-play.

that's not true. there's a difference between allowing yourself to be attacked, and participating in a consentual fight.


"Oh, he _chose_ to walk through the bad neighborhood on his way to school... so he was _consenting_ to being robbed and shot."

 

[Ash]

what blues do you think are left in fel? Tons of crafters and miners just going about their own business? BLUES ARE PLAYED IN FEL BY RED CHARACTERS. It isn't because they are minding their own business, it is because they then get to pick and choose their targets!

Like 1 in 100 blues count people, and that's either to get the message out of the way, or because they think the character that killed them may not have meant to go red. It's time for you to stop thinking of it as murdering innocents, and just think of fel as a pvp server, because that's what it is.

Do you forget the Blues that go there just to try for Power Scrolls? If it were not for that incentive to lure PvMers into Fel then I would agree, that Fel would be true PvP. But when the only place to get the scrolls, there are still blues that go to Fel purely for the champ spawn and have no desire to PvP at all.

 

[Draxous]

Going to Felucca is choosing to have PvP as a part of your game-play.

that's not true. there's a difference between allowing yourself to be attacked, and participating in a consentual fight."

Yes, it is true.

 

[Radun]

If everyone going to fel was consenting to pvp, then WHY did some of those people give you a murder count? (indicating that they didn't consent to you attacking them)

walking into fel does not automatically constitute consenting to fight with anyone and everyone who may be there. If everyone who went to fel was consenting to pvp with anyone who may attack them, there would be no reds.

No.

"No." as in "Hmm, I have no comeback, good point. I hadn't thought of that."

 

[Radun]

Yes, it is true.

okay, it's choosing to be where pvp is possible.. but it's not consenting to fight with anyone who may attack you

 

[Ash]

Thanks for the personal attack. It was appreciated, but then again it's what's expected when you have no argument to make.

lol this from the guy that has repeatedly called me selfish and accused me of spouting BS, not to mention mocking blues that were intimidated or incapable of obtaining power scrolls.

rofl, you haven't read any of the posts in this thread... have you?

Sadly I have, and have yet to see you make a valid point anywhere just ramblings and other nonsense. But enlighten us how the ideas presented as a comprise effects the PvPers in a negative way? You can't because all they will do is make PvP truly consensual and reds would loose the easy targets.

 

[Radun]

They chose to go to an area knowing that PvP would be a part of the experience.

SO STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD WITH YOUR RIDICULOUS NONSENSE! THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD!!!!!!!

going to an area where it's possible to be attacked, is not the same as consenting to actually being attacked. If everyone who ever went to fel was truly consenting to being attacked by anyone and everyone who was there at the time, not one single person would have given a count to indicate that they had been killed unconsentually.

 

[Draxous]

They chose to go to an area knowing that PvP would be a part of the experience.

SO STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD WITH YOUR RIDICULOUS NONSENSE! THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD!!!!!!!

going to an area where it's possible to be attacked, is not the same as consenting to actually being attacked.

Yes it is.

So wait, really? You're actually trying to tell me that going to an area that it's possible to be attacked... is not knowingly choosing to go to an area where you can actually be attacked... if you're attacked?

derrrrrrrrrrr..............

 

[Radun]

Yes it is.

ummmm sorry no. it is not.

If everyone in fel was truly consenting to all-out free for all pvp, there would be no reds, because nobody would have issued any MURDER counts.

 

[Radun]

Yes it is.

So wait, really? You're actually trying to tell me that going to an area that it's possible to be attacked... is not knowingly choosing to go to an area where you can actually be attacked... if you're attacked?

derrrrrrrrrrr..............

No. Going to a place where it's possible to be attacked, is not the same as consenting to a fight.

 

[Draxous]

But enlighten us how the ideas presented as a comprise effects the PvPers in a negative way? You can't because all they will do is make PvP truly consensual and reds would loose the easy targets.

Sure I can, but I'm not going to because it doesn't belong in this thread. Start a new one on the subject and I'll be happy to debate the issue with you.

You have no argument against the proposal of allowing reds into trammel and the only thing you've done is called me an idiot for not letting you skirt the issue into a selfish ambition of yours.

This has nothing to do with allowing or not allowing reds into Trammel.



FYI - The vast vast vast majority of fights at Champion spawns happen between PvP guilds, not your so called "easy targets." and it is this resource that the guilds fight over. But what in the hell do you know about anything, you don't know squat about PvP or the playerbase you try to ostracize. You're post is so insanely ludicrous, I can now stop taking you seriously. Way to make a fool of yourself and have a nice night.

 

[Radun]

If everyone going to fel was consenting to pvp, then WHY did some of those people give you a murder count? (indicating that they didn't consent to you attacking them)

walking into fel does not automatically constitute consenting to fight with anyone and everyone who may be there. If everyone who went to fel was consenting to pvp with anyone who may attack them, there would be no reds.

No.

I just realized that you saying "No" to what was said here, makes absolutely no sense, and is not a response to a very good point. Just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Draxous]

Yes it is.

So wait, really? You're actually trying to tell me that going to an area that it's possible to be attacked... is not knowingly choosing to go to an area where you can actually be attacked... if you're attacked?

derrrrrrrrrrr..............

No. Going to a place where it's possible to be attacked, is not the same as consenting to a fight.

lol?

 

[Draxous]

If everyone going to fel was consenting to pvp, then WHY did some of those people give you a murder count? (indicating that they didn't consent to you attacking them)

walking into fel does not automatically constitute consenting to fight with anyone and everyone who may be there. If everyone who went to fel was consenting to pvp with anyone who may attack them, there would be no reds.

No.

I just realized that you saying "No" to what was said here, makes absolutely no sense, and is not a response to a very good point. Just thought I'd point that out.

I didn't want to be the one to break it to you... but you're points are not "very good."

I'm really sorry and I'm trying to be respectful, but I cannot fathom how you make sense of the stuff you're saying.... honestly.

 

[Radun]

You have no argument against the proposal of allowing reds into trammel

The best one I know is... MURDERERS not being able to escape player JUSTICE, by leaving fel, is the PUNISHMENT for MURDERING non-consenting pvpers.

 

[Maplestone]

Sure I can, but I'm not going to because it doesn't belong in this thread.

So you feel discussion topics should stay to their own relevant threads and not cross over into other threads?

 

[Radun]

I didn't want to be the one to break it to you... but you're points are not "very good."

I'm really sorry and I'm trying to be respectful, but I cannot fathom how you make sense of the stuff you're saying.... honestly.

Then I guess I'll have to dumb it down for you.

Why are some characters red? People gave them murder counts, to flag them as murderers.
Why do the people give them murder counts? To indicate that they were attacked unconsentually.

 

[Draxous]

Sure I can, but I'm not going to because it doesn't belong in this thread.

So you feel discussion topics should stay to their own relevant threads and not cross over into other threads?

So you feel that you can capture the entire context of a persons post by only addressing a sentence out of the whole thing?

 

[Radun]

Yes it is.

So wait, really? You're actually trying to tell me that going to an area that it's possible to be attacked... is not knowingly choosing to go to an area where you can actually be attacked... if you're attacked?

derrrrrrrrrrr..............

No. Going to a place where it's possible to be attacked, is not the same as consenting to a fight.

lol?

Being in a bad neighborhood after dark, is not the same as consenting to being mugged.

 

[Draxous]

I didn't want to be the one to break it to you... but you're points are not "very good."

I'm really sorry and I'm trying to be respectful, but I cannot fathom how you make sense of the stuff you're saying.... honestly.

Then I guess I'll have to dumb it down for you.

Why are some characters red? People gave them murder counts, to flag them as murderers.
Why do the people give them murder counts? To indicate that they were attacked unconsentually.

Dumb it down for me? No no... I understood what you said fine, I just don't understand how you could actually believe what you're saying as it makes no sense.


Do you really think you can stereotype why people give murder counts? I consent to PvP (it's the main reason why I play UO) and I don't give murder counts for that reason.

I'm sure there are more people out there just like you, who are nuts enough to think that you didn't consent to PvP by going to an area that you knew PvP could possibly happen to you... rather than not going there and saving yourself the trouble.

People often give murder counts to grief other players (to exploit the consequences placed upon red characters) - KEY POINT PEOPLE

For example... say you're a PvP guild and you PvP at champion spawns and your enemy knows you're a guild of blue knights. So your enemy makes a bunch of blue characters and waits for you to finish the spawn and summon the champion, where they come and attack the champion you and your guild worked really hard to summon and beat. Is that fair? Is that right, that they can take advantage of you're hard work? So you fight them and reclaim your well-deserved and well-earned reward (powerscrolls.)

Being your enemy, they will report you for murder to make you red and FREELY attackable by their blues. So you should be punished for fighting the good fight and defending your hard work/team-mates?

Its a completely flawed system. People are in Felucca to PvP... they are NOT in felucca to deal with the old remnants of an out-dated, broken system.

Your examples are so ridiculous... I'm going to end our discussion right here.

 

[Draxous]

Yes it is.

So wait, really? You're actually trying to tell me that going to an area that it's possible to be attacked... is not knowingly choosing to go to an area where you can actually be attacked... if you're attacked?

derrrrrrrrrrr..............

No. Going to a place where it's possible to be attacked, is not the same as consenting to a fight.

lol?

Being in a bad neighborhood after dark, is not the same as consenting to being mugged.

Dying in real life, is not the same as dying in a video game.

 

[Draxous]

You have no argument against the proposal of allowing reds into trammel and the only thing you've done is called me an idiot for not letting you skirt the issue into a selfish ambition of yours.

Proposing a win-win solution for both sides is selfish how exactly?

When you actually propose a win-win solution, I might reconsider how selfish you are.

You haven't and you won't. You're only in this to get something out of it for you and your player-type. You don't consider the other player-type at all... I actually do and I'm sorry but;

A spades... a spade and you're one selfish dude.

 

[Maplestone]

the entire context

Sometimes less is more.

 

[Radun]

Do you really think you can stereotype why people give murder counts? I consent to PvP (it's the main reason why I play UO) and I don't give murder counts for that reason.

and someone who doesn't consent to a fight, will give a murder count to the person who attacked them...

I'm sure there are more people out there just like you, who are nuts enough to think that you didn't consent to PvP by going to an area that you knew PvP could possibly happen to you... rather than not going there and saving yourself the trouble.

going to the place is seperate from consent.

People give murder counts to grief other players (to exploit the consequences placed upon red characters

BUT they wouldn't be able to give them a count, if they hadn't attacked without consent.

For example... say you're a PvP guild and you PvP at champion spawns and your enemy knows you're a guild of blue knights. So your enemy makes a bunch of blue characters and comes and attacks and tries to take the champion you and your guild worked really hard to summon and beat. So you fight them and reclaim your well-deserved and well-earned reward (powerscrolls.)

Being your enemy, they will report you for murder to make you red and FREELY attackable by their blues.

do you have a point? they murdered, they got counts...

Its a completely flawed system. People are in Felucca to PvP... they are NOT in felucca to deal with the old remnants of an out-dated, broken system.

Yes, people go to fel to pvp. When I go to fel to pvp, I may consent to fighting one person, and then somebody comes along and jumps in and ganks me. Being in fel doesn't automatically give consent to every player that it is okay to attack.
consent is seperate from that...

just because something is possible, doesn't mean it is consentual.

Your examples are so ridiculous... I'm going to end our discussion right here.

 

[Radun]

Yes it is.

So wait, really? You're actually trying to tell me that going to an area that it's possible to be attacked... is not knowingly choosing to go to an area where you can actually be attacked... if you're attacked?

derrrrrrrrrrr..............

No. Going to a place where it's possible to be attacked, is not the same as consenting to a fight.

lol?

Being in a bad neighborhood after dark, is not the same as consenting to being mugged.

Dying in real life, is not the same as dying in a video game.

I agree... how does that change my point? Being somewhere that something is likely to happen, is a completely different and seperate thing from consenting to that thing happening to you.

 

[Draxous]

It changes your point because this is not real life.

You cannot go anywhere in real life where there is a guarantee that you cannot have conflict, that is the whole point.

When they created Trammel, they made PvP in this game consensual because you have the choice to remove yourself from it.


Stop comparing a videogame to real life... learn to dissociate, please.

 

[Draxous]

is

not

 

[Radun]

It changes your point because this is not real life.

You cannot go anywhere in real life where there is a guarantee that you cannot have conflict, that is the whole point.

When they created Trammel, they made PvP in this game consensual because you have the choice to remove yourself from it.


Stop comparing a videogame to real life... learn to dissociate, please.

Simply being in fel still does not give consent to pvping... it does open you to the possibility of being involved in UNconsentual pvp.

 

[Draxous]

Ok, so 2 blue guilds are attacking the same champion.. Okay, so everyone wins, why would the 'guild of blue knights' attack blues if they didn't have to?

So you think it's ok that people can exploit the hard work of others? They made the ML dungeons instanced, didn't they? Why did they do that? Because there are a lot of people, even in the "PvM only" crowd that think it's not right that other people can just show up and reap benefits from all of your hard work.

You just don't get it, do you?

And how in the hell do you figure that everyone wins. The guild of blue knights could of spent an hour working on a champion spawn, then the blue enemy guild just shows up and attacks the champion... gets a +20 powerscroll while the guild that did all the hard work gets nothing but +10's and not even all of the rewards that were available for all of their hard work.

and you think they won because the enemy guild exploited the situation to their advantage?

Oh please.

Your assertions are way off and dead wrong.

 

[Draxous]

It changes your point because this is not real life.

You cannot go anywhere in real life where there is a guarantee that you cannot have conflict, that is the whole point.

When they created Trammel, they made PvP in this game consensual because you have the choice to remove yourself from it.


Stop comparing a videogame to real life... learn to dissociate, please.

Simply being in fel still does not give consent to pvping... it does open you to the possibility of being involved in UNconsentual pvp.

Did you choose to go to Felucca?

Yes or No.

Hint: the only answer is Yes.

 

[Maplestone]

not

 

[Radun]

Did you choose to go to Felucca?

Yes or No.

Hint: the only answer is Yes.

that doesn't change the fact that fel is the only place in the game where unconsentual pvp is possible.

Just because the person knows unconsentual pvp is possible there, doesn't mean that all the pvp there is consentual.

 

[Draxous]

Did you choose to go to Felucca?

Yes or No.

Hint: the only answer is Yes.

that doesn't change the fact that fel is the only place in the game where unconsentual pvp is possible.

That is not a fact.

 

[Radun]

Did you choose to go to Felucca?

Yes or No.

Hint: the only answer is Yes.

that doesn't change the fact that fel is the only place in the game where unconsentual pvp is possible.

That is not a fact.

Then where else in the game is unconsentual (PKing and raiding) pvp possible?
If they give you a murder count, it's unconsentual.

 

[Draxous]

Did you choose to go to Felucca?

Yes or No.

Hint: the only answer is Yes.

that doesn't change the fact that fel is the only place in the game where unconsentual pvp is possible.

That is not a fact.

Then where else in the game is unconsentual (PKing and raiding) pvp possible?

Really, there is no non-consensual PvP in this game. This game offers you the choice to either not have or have PvP in your game-play.

The closest thing to non-consensual PvP is Siege Perilous, where there is no Trammel at all. Even then, every player on that shard chooses to have PvP as a part of their Ultima Online gaming experience.

 

[Ash]

So you think it's ok that people can exploit the hard work of others? They made the ML dungeons instanced, didn't they? Why did they do that? Because there are a lot of people, even in the "PvM only" crowd that think it's not right that other people can just show up and reap benefits from all of your hard work.

You just don't get it, do you?

And how in the hell do you figure that everyone wins. The guild of knights could of spent an hour working on a champion spawn, then the blue enemy guild just shows up and attacks the champion... gets a +20 powerscroll while the guild that did all the hard work gets nothing but +10's and not even all of the rewards that were available for all of their hard work.

and you think they won because the enemy guild exploited the situation to their advantage?

Oh please.

Your assertions are way off and dead wrong.

Hmm, did they make it out with scrolls, yes, they win. the enemy blue guild could have just as easily came in and raided and killed them and they got nothing, then they loose. See the difference?

Just because the other team got something out of it too, doesn't mean the blue knights lost anything.

Who is selfish? Can't be happy got your scroll out without being raided, you have to be miserable and vindictive and kill the other team cause they got something?

I would be thrilled if the raiding guild was all blues and battled the champ instead of me and my guild mates, and as long as no one attacked would walk away with the scrolls we got and think nothing of it.

But your philosophy is the blue knights lost something cause someone else won something too? That is ludicrous. Learn to share already!

As for the peerless, can't say why they are instanced and don't care. I have taken strangers waiting in with my groups before and I have given keys to people. I don't loose anything if they are there, and if they strangers I break party once in so they have to pull their own weight to get looting rights. I loose nothing, I get nothing, but the others benefit. Oh wait, I am the selfish one, no that doesn't make any sense.

Face it, in your scenario the blue knights made a choice not to defend themselves but to prevent others from getting scrolls, so they deserve any murder counts they got because they attacked someone that posed them no threat.

 

[Radun]

Sure there's unconsentual pvp in this game. If they give you a murder count, it's unconsentual.
Why do they have double resources in fel? hmm

 

[Draxous]

That is ludicrous. Learn to share already!

Exactly.

I'm glad you support allowing reds into Trammel.

Have a nice night.