No.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
- Status
R
Radun
Guest
If they give you a murder count, it's unconsentual.
No.
A
Ash
Guest
Soon as you agree to make Power Scrolls accessible to those that don't want to PvP.
Oh but forget how selfish you are and will undoubtedly say no..
But hey, if you feeling low, go kill some miners that will make you feel superior to kill someone that isn't prepared to defend themselves.
No need for name calling, it only make your self look like 12 years.
Noone asked for reds to be allowed to go PKing in Trammel zone.
Felucca is like a consent zone, PvP is allowed there.
Only reason I can see that a red should not be allowed to use the other facets could be, it would make him hide for justice so the one he killed can't pay back.
Now it do not stop the player from going to trammel at all.
The red char did not break any rules in Trammel so there is no reason he should not be able to go there and hang out with his friends, do shopping, do PvM.
R
Radun
Guest
You don't know what consent is?
R
Radun
Guest
That is exactly the reason why Reds have never been allowed to leave felucca.
Just because unconsentual pvp is possible there, doesn't make all pvp that happens there consentual.
Easy to fix, make an on/off options for attacking red and crim, so if off, your EV will ignore the reds just like it do with blues.Yea and then you get killed by a red on tram because you vortex attacked him? I would like to be the PK
That's why I say they should be attackable in Trammel zone
It sure does, you consent the moment you go to Felucca
R
Radun
Guest
Then why are you allowed to give a murder count?
There would be no Reds if all pvp was consentual.
Red is the color of someone who kills others without their consent.
Orange is the color of consentual pvp.
If going to fel was automatically giving consent to pvp with every other person in fel, everyone would be orange to everyone else in fel, and there would be no need for a justice system.
and fel would be one big free-for-all... and even more empty than it already is.
being somewhere you can be murdered, isn't automatic consent. They are two seperate things.
A
Ash
Guest
So once again your argument is it isn't murder cause they were asking for it? :loser:
A
Ash
Guest
Since that is going to be never they have plenty of time to save up.Great news! I will tell all my red friends to feel free to do so as soon as they are allowed access to shop in Trammel!
Thanks again, for the support!
I now return you to your regular scheduled session of delusional ramblings (Black Rain that your cue to say something else stupid)
You are consent to the risk for getting killed by the hand of a player
No the Blue vs Red is a Felucca thing to allow players to make some justice there, you could choose to only make the red flaging show in Felucca but I think it's better that the color shows in Trammel too so you not make a hunting party in Trammel and find out half of the team is PK's when you hit Felucca.
Sure there would still be need for some kind of punisment of reds in Felucca. Best way would be to limit item insurance for reds.
That would make Felucca to a big arena, and not a place where we try to keep the red vs blue system and the old UO spirit
You still consent to go there, that's what I mean. All punishment for being bad in Felucca should be given in Felucca, it have nothing to do with going to Trammel or not, where you consent to a total different ruleset.
I've lost track of what the implications are if the word "consensual" or "non-consensual" wins this debate over definition. Could someone refresh my memory?
R
Radun
Guest
good point freja. I agree with you, and that's also what I was saying.
By entering the felucca facet, I am consenting to play in a ruleset that allows me to be attacked by other players. This is seperate from whether or not I consent to any fight with any of the specific individuals I see there.
In other words, by going to fel, I consent to the possibility of being attacked/killed non-consensually.
What I meant about the 'there would be no reds' thing:
If someone is attacked non-consensually, they will give a murder count.
If someone was consenting to fighting with everyone/anyone who attacks them, they won't give a count.
If everyone in fel truly was giving consent to everyone/anyone in fel to attack/kill them, there would be no murder counts issued... there would be no murder.
If there was no murder, there would be no murderers, and thus no reds.
What I meant about the orange thing:
If EA intended that when you enter fel, you're automatically giving consent to everyone to attack you... then they would have changed the rules to reflect that, making it so there was no red or blue in fel.. instead everyone would be orange to everyone else.
By entering the felucca facet, I am consenting to play in a ruleset that allows me to be attacked by other players. This is seperate from whether or not I consent to any fight with any of the specific individuals I see there.
In other words, by going to fel, I consent to the possibility of being attacked/killed non-consensually.
What I meant about the 'there would be no reds' thing:
If someone is attacked non-consensually, they will give a murder count.
If someone was consenting to fighting with everyone/anyone who attacks them, they won't give a count.
If everyone in fel truly was giving consent to everyone/anyone in fel to attack/kill them, there would be no murder counts issued... there would be no murder.
If there was no murder, there would be no murderers, and thus no reds.
What I meant about the orange thing:
If EA intended that when you enter fel, you're automatically giving consent to everyone to attack you... then they would have changed the rules to reflect that, making it so there was no red or blue in fel.. instead everyone would be orange to everyone else.
R
Radun
Guest
Could you say that again, in another way?
R
Radun
Guest
No, it still wouldn't indicate consent.
Why are you all arguing about the definition of consent?
R
Radun
Guest
I was saying that reds shouldn't have access to the security of the trammel ruleset, because not being able to escape player justice is fair retribution for killing other players non-consensually.
Then he was saying that the players consent to fighting him when they go to his facet. (typical pk mentality)
Then I'm saying that just because I consent to playing where it's possible to be attacked/killed by other players doesn't excuse them from justice.
He wants to destroy the hardcoreness of being a badass pk by allowing them to go to trammel where it's safe and they don't have to endure the retribution of player justice.
Then he was saying that the players consent to fighting him when they go to his facet. (typical pk mentality)
Then I'm saying that just because I consent to playing where it's possible to be attacked/killed by other players doesn't excuse them from justice.
He wants to destroy the hardcoreness of being a badass pk by allowing them to go to trammel where it's safe and they don't have to endure the retribution of player justice.
So it sounds to me like the key point that you want to debate is not the meaning of consent, but rather whether "going red" should remain a choice with consequences or is it an artifact of a previous era of the game? Is being red really any different than having bad karma?
Y
Yalp
Guest
Tangling with Rain is like trying to have a conversation with a rock.. you can never actually prove your point to him, when you do, he resorts to verbal bashing.
Not everyone who goes to Fel goes there to engage in pvp. There are reasons out the ying yang why peeps go to fel.. from special events, to crafting, to champ spawning, to completing quests.
Even some peeps who do engage in pvp might not consent to engaging 1v1 only to have their lame@$$ guild show up and gank him in a 1v5.
There are pvp guilds out there, who are neutral.. a concept someone like Rain clearly cannot understand... people of honor and fairness, who will not attack unless attacked.
Just because someone has a red character does not mean they consent to pvping on all their characters.
Players are not banned from tram, characters are.
Reds who claim that consent is given by going through a moongate are the equivalent to human beings who **** women just because she went out on a date with them.
A win-win situation would be to make all pvp in fel consensual then reds can go where ever they like whenever they like. This would certainly impact their ability to gank, but it would also remove the punishment for their actions.
Not everyone who goes to Fel goes there to engage in pvp. There are reasons out the ying yang why peeps go to fel.. from special events, to crafting, to champ spawning, to completing quests.
Even some peeps who do engage in pvp might not consent to engaging 1v1 only to have their lame@$$ guild show up and gank him in a 1v5.
There are pvp guilds out there, who are neutral.. a concept someone like Rain clearly cannot understand... people of honor and fairness, who will not attack unless attacked.
Just because someone has a red character does not mean they consent to pvping on all their characters.
Players are not banned from tram, characters are.
Reds who claim that consent is given by going through a moongate are the equivalent to human beings who **** women just because she went out on a date with them.
A win-win situation would be to make all pvp in fel consensual then reds can go where ever they like whenever they like. This would certainly impact their ability to gank, but it would also remove the punishment for their actions.
I think what everyone misses is that for Reds or Pkers it's not just about killing people randomly.
Most of us have played this game for years and years and have done everrything the game has to offer.
Killing monsters is fun in a way, but after a while it's just boring. The monsters are very predictable in their actions and can be defended against fairly easily, with exception of the very high end mnsters tht can one hit kill anyone.
But fighting other characters is much more exciting and their actions are not predictable. Once you have faught other players, going back to fight monsters is even more boring.
Most of us don't want to randomly kill people, but with the changes to the game and the introduction of Tram it left most of us with very few people to PvP against. So naturaly most Reds started to kill anyone they could just to be able to play and enjoy the game, albiet at the expense of the person they attacked.
Before Tram, there was large red guilds who wold PK people, but let me tell you, there was also large Blue guilds who would hunt Reds. It was probably the highlight of UO.
Before Tram there was much more of a community, and there were times when a Red might kill some Blue but the Blue also had many Red friends who would get revenge for him. In fact there Blues outnumbered the Reds by 10 to 1 easy if not more.
Also you know the times in Tram when you are somewhere killing monsters and some dipstick Blue comes around messing with you and your fun, and there is nothing you can do about it. Well in Fell you can take action on that person, which in its own right is very satisfying.
From most of the posts that I have read, it seems that many of you werent even here when there was no Tram and you just have this misguided opinion of what Fel is and what the game used to be.
Y
Yalp
Guest
o2bavr6, good post. No one wants to minimize the past glory days of UO and/or your experiences. those were indeed the day.
unfortunatly, those times are few and far between now. we've all seen, or been the victim of the playstyle of some peeps who have, well lets just say, their own selfish motives in mind. it makes the game less than fun to alot of people, who left fel, in droves. they took the party down the block so to speak and left the kids to play with themselves.
The consequences of the behavior (becoming red) are something peeps have to deal with. If they don't want to have to deal with the consequence, they have to stop the behavior... if they can't or won't change, then there are 3 options.. 1) accept the consequences, or 2) petition the game to eliminate the temptation to behave the way they do.. ie.. make all pvp consensual. 3) petition the game to make their behavior acceptable... ie remove consequences for being red.
This thread is effort to do #3 and is going over like a lead balloon. They might want to try option numbers 1 or 2.
unfortunatly, those times are few and far between now. we've all seen, or been the victim of the playstyle of some peeps who have, well lets just say, their own selfish motives in mind. it makes the game less than fun to alot of people, who left fel, in droves. they took the party down the block so to speak and left the kids to play with themselves.
The consequences of the behavior (becoming red) are something peeps have to deal with. If they don't want to have to deal with the consequence, they have to stop the behavior... if they can't or won't change, then there are 3 options.. 1) accept the consequences, or 2) petition the game to eliminate the temptation to behave the way they do.. ie.. make all pvp consensual. 3) petition the game to make their behavior acceptable... ie remove consequences for being red.
This thread is effort to do #3 and is going over like a lead balloon. They might want to try option numbers 1 or 2.
As I've said on posts earlier that today being red in Fel is more of a fashion statement than anything else.
An example being: For along time in my Red guild I played a blue, and in fact was one of the very few. I was able to basically save my murders for spwans and when we would get raided I would only take a count when needed.
The funny thing is my guild couldnt figure out how i stayed blue all the time considering how many blues I would kill. (there were times the blue didnt give me a count)
I would leave my char logged on basically 24/7 minus server down times. I have two computers so I could play my other account while burning counts off on my Blue.
So my question is, how was my blue any less of a PKer than all my reds?
He wasn't, yet he was blue and was allowed in Tram.
So again I say to you that the way they have the game set up today in regards to Fell, being red is just a fashion statement and we have just as many if not more blue pkers here than Red ones.
Now unless you are saying that it's ok to PK a little bit but just not a lot, then I have no rebuttle for that.
Y
Yalp
Guest
sounds like you engage more in consensual pvp on your blue? or maybe being logged on 24/7 gave you the time you needed to burn your counts. maybe your opponent didn't give you a murder counts because you pvp'd with some decency. which is all cool. those are valid points to discuss about what may or may not need to be changed re: pvp.
Guess my point is more .. if you're red.. there are consequences. Either being banned from access to certain parts of the game.. with that character only... or having to perform some sort of action to remove your red status.. ie not doing add'l murders and/or working off the counts.
And don't get my wrong.. I'm not saying being red is the only status that should have consequences.. being blue has it's own share of consequences.. they are just different.
E
Eslake
Guest
No, going to Felucca is accepting that PvP may be imposed on you whether you want it or not. Very big difference. You are trying to intentionally confuse Intent with Acceptance.
If it were really as simple as you claim, they could eliminate a good chunk of the developers' workload by making the entire game Trammel Ruleset and just giving characters a PvP toggle.
My mage lives in Felucca to PvP.
My miner mines in Felucca for the double ore, PvP is not his choice it is simply something he Accepts as a risk.
EA has already shown you their opinion of murderer status.
They doubled resources to lure easier victims to Felucca for them.
Would you care to share with me the consequences that blues have?
Education Time.
YOU said earlier you were "Offended" by Yalp saying that you just engaged in "personal attacks", because you didn't do that sort of thing.
Calling another "person" (identified by the use of the word "You"...meaning "The Person") selfish, or stupid, or ignorant...or anything...means you believe the Person (First part of "Person"al) IS that way.
That IS, in and of itself, a "Person"al attack.
YOUR posts are Drivel, and your posts are as skewed and stupid as any attempt at logic that any post on Stratics, or anywhere else, for that matter, has ever been.
But you...you seem bright, intelligent, witty, and nice.
Get the distinction?
No...of course you don't.
It's OK...you must just be so nice that it is blinding you to the obvious.
Carry on with your intelligent, and cogent debate. You know...the one where only YOUR posts make sense, and every counterpoiint is ridiculous, unless it agrees with your own view.
That one. Have fun.
Y
Yalp
Guest
sure... one is access to the entire game.
consequences can be good or bad. The value is assigned by those who have the power.... parents, governments, game producers, legal system... etc. The thing to remember is every single action has a consequence....whether in real life or in the pixel world of UO.
.. and what I should have said is that being red isn't the ONLY status that has consequences... my bad.
Good point, I didn't think of it in a possitive manner.
But from researching the defenition
it is in most cases used in a "direct effect of an event, incident or accident" in a negative manner
D
Dicimiie
Guest
Let's look at this from another perspective.
Those of you saying that not being allowed in Trammel is punishment for them being murderers. But really... where's the punishment?
As it stands right now, reds not having access to Trammel or the other factes is little more than an inconvenience. Not really a punishment, since all the person has to do is logout, login on a blue and go do whatever it is they wanted to do. So in essence, you're punishing the toon and not punishing the player.
Since real life situations have been mentioned, I'll try my own version, since I think of it as more true to what's currently happening.
You go into a gang territory (Fel), knowing full well that it's theirs. The gang leader (player) sends one of his thugs (red) to go take care of this issue with brute force, beating the "innocent" into unconsciusness (character death doesn't really happen in UO, since you can get rezzed) and looting whatever they can. Law enforcement (game mechanics) label the thug as guilty, and the punishment is house arrest (being stuck in Fel). The gang leader (player again) simply sends another person with a clean record (blue) to go take care of everyday, mundane things (buying/selling/trading/hunting, etc.) and is in essence free to do as he will. So the real perpetrater isn't really punished at all.
And no, I'm not proposing that any player that has a red should be banned to Fel with all of their characters either. That would be way over the line and quite ridiculous. I'm saying that the so called "punishment" currently in game is really quite dumb and unnecessary.
Those of you saying that not being allowed in Trammel is punishment for them being murderers. But really... where's the punishment?
As it stands right now, reds not having access to Trammel or the other factes is little more than an inconvenience. Not really a punishment, since all the person has to do is logout, login on a blue and go do whatever it is they wanted to do. So in essence, you're punishing the toon and not punishing the player.
Since real life situations have been mentioned, I'll try my own version, since I think of it as more true to what's currently happening.
You go into a gang territory (Fel), knowing full well that it's theirs. The gang leader (player) sends one of his thugs (red) to go take care of this issue with brute force, beating the "innocent" into unconsciusness (character death doesn't really happen in UO, since you can get rezzed) and looting whatever they can. Law enforcement (game mechanics) label the thug as guilty, and the punishment is house arrest (being stuck in Fel). The gang leader (player again) simply sends another person with a clean record (blue) to go take care of everyday, mundane things (buying/selling/trading/hunting, etc.) and is in essence free to do as he will. So the real perpetrater isn't really punished at all.
And no, I'm not proposing that any player that has a red should be banned to Fel with all of their characters either. That would be way over the line and quite ridiculous. I'm saying that the so called "punishment" currently in game is really quite dumb and unnecessary.
F
Floyd the Barber
Guest
Wow, this thread gave me a headache, not sure how I made it through the whole thing...Because they have no argument against why reds should be allowed into Trammel.
You're right RaiN. But, you aren't going to win with these guys because they're trammys. They are simply afraid of allowing reds into trammel (even though it was stated the blues would have to attack first in order to be attacked, which for the life of me I can't figure out why they would even care then).
So, they clearly fear pvp, reds, or just don't like it which of course makes them "trammys" and no matter what argument you bring up they will disagree. Sad really....
Here is my argument , I dont want any red wannabie trammies in tram.Because they have no argument against why reds should be allowed into Trammel.
(use your blue) its that simple and no code needs changed.
This is the whole reason why they made Trammel in the first place... for those that DON'T LIKE that playstyle.
D
Dicimiie
Guest
But why don't you want it? There needs to be some basis for your not wanting it. Just saying "because" has never been an acceptable reason (except in my house when I say it to my kids... hehe). Tell us why so we can better understand where the refusal lies.Here is my argument , I dont want any red wannabie trammies in tram.
And again, I'll say I'm considered a Trammie. But being a Trammie doesn't mean I have to live with blinders on, nor does it mean I can't agree with the PvPers when they say something isn't right or fair.
See my above post for my reason why I like teh idea. Heck... dispute my reason if you want. Don't just say "Nah... don't want it." It doesn't hold any real weight.
The problem is in the the implementation.(bugs) Before long you have new loop holes to grief players.. or the greedy nature of people to want even less restriction in "tram".
But really you can use a blue to access tram already...why would I waste good programming time on something in place already?
But really you can use a blue to access tram already...why would I waste good programming time on something in place already?
R
Radun
Guest
The hassle of having to train and equip a seperate character for tram is the punishment.
F
Floyd the Barber
Guest
You obviously haven't followed this thread have you? The horrible evil reds wouldn't just come in and pilfer the towns and "crafters" silly, only if they flag (that means attack for you trammies out there) on the reds first. In other words, a blue would have to attack a red before any fighting could take place, no crafter rez killing, etc... That's what guards are for.
Please read through all of the posts before making anymore comments....
D
Dicimiie
Guest
Thank you for this. This dispute I can accept, and even to a certain extent, I agree. Given the history of how things are implemented in UO, let's just say there is a margin for error. I'll give you that one.
As far as the greed factor, if reds were allowed to be in Tram, Ilsh, Malas and Tokuno, what else could they ask for that they haven't already?
Programming time being utilized is in the eye of the beholder. What you think unworthy could be a very worthwhile thing to someone else. The OP's original idea actually gives those that don't like the PvP aspect of the game to have access to something they currently couldn't get themselves without having to deal with PvP... powerscrolls. I would that that one factor would make some Trammelites sit up and take notice. This could be deemed worthwhile to them, even though you don't think so.
While my post count doesn't reflect it, I have been a member of these forums for many years. And in those years, I've seen the PvPers ask for things that I thought were fair. The ideas were typically shot down quickly for no other reason than the idea came from a PvPer. It's really a shame.
W
wrekognize
Guest
Why do reds not have stat loss for a period of time? Reds should have the stat loss, factions should not. We're being penalized for joining a faction, when a red character can do all the PVP they want.
I vote that reds can go to trammel. Spice up PVP some for trammies to see.
...
I vote that reds can go to trammel. Spice up PVP some for trammies to see.
...
D
Dicimiie
Guest
This would be valid if the vast majority didn't already have blue characters. I'm not saying they do, but it's really not that difficult to create a character... even without Advanced Character Tokens.
WHERE THE HELL IN THIS POST DOES IT SAY A BLUE AS TO ATTACK A RED FIRST BEFORE FIGHTING CAN/WILL COMMENCE???????????????????????
D
Dicimiie
Guest
WHERE?!?! RIGHT HERE!!
- Status