actually.. you can take action to prevent being pk'd in a guard zone. It is possible to attempt pvp with someone in the guard zone, *the outcome is immaterial to the discussion* .. however if you do not consent to the pvp you can PREVENT it but using the mechanism built into the Fel facet ruleset.. that is an exception to * walking through a moongate is consenting to pvp* point of view.
#2 http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=10480
#3 http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=288
#4 http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=221
#5 http://guide.uo.com/start_12.html
And:
So, 3 direct quotes stating Fel is non-consensual PvP and 2 inferred quotes.
Your points of view are clear and I understand them. I do not, however, agree with them due to my previous points, the exemptions built into the fel ruleset. I understand you would like to be able to convince everyone that your position is correct. However EA's own guide contradicts itself in this matter.
That is true. But they are not banned. They are tolerated. There may also be cheaters in Trammel, but they are not able to harm my character. (They can harm the economy, but that's a different issue.)
You are still trying to make a point that no one is disputing. You consent to open pvp by entering fel. If you die to the pk isn't the issue. You consented to being able to be attacked by a pk. In a guard zone or not, you can still be attacked anytime you enter fel.
my point is one is acknowledgment the other is consent; and are different
Well, I don't think a person can be stereo-typed in such a way. I have met some really cool reds, including one that took the time to teach me a thing or two about PvP, and one that gave me some cool gear to help my suit, and loads that are honest enough to give back stuff they looted that they know the person meant to have insured. On the other hand, i have met more blues than I can care to count that were rude, broke just as many ToS (luring and offensive language), stingy (cursing people out for going to 'their' hunting grounds, unbelievably rude (got cursed out for rez'ing someone and told to go die).
Like I have said several times, by consenting to the open pvp ruleset you give a pk consent to attack you without him having to get individual consent to do so. My point from the start is that you consent to the ruleset not the individual pk.
To enter Fel you are concenting to the fact that you may be attacked at anytime, anywhere.
Not exactly what EA's own guide states about Fel/PVP/Consent issue.
I have said, I see your and D's points.. however I don't agree that the simple act of entering a red moongate is giving your consent to pvp.. there are exceptions to the rule... and therefore it can not be the ONLY act which a player must do to give their consent. You guys have acknowledged that there are exceptions.. yet continue to insist on something that can not possibly be absolute. Something can not be ABSOLUTE yet still have exemptions.... it is a complete impossibility.
Yet, here we are still reading it!
Well I think then that you are disagreeing with EA/Mythic not us, they made the rules.
What are these exceptions?
I sure didn't I don't even know what they would be.
come on, you as much as any of us enjoy a good debate.
So were up to 4 direct quotes stating non-consensual and 2 others where implied.
Oh dude.. let's really not go down the road of ignoring previous posts and claiming we don't know the points either side has put out there and demand a rehash/re-argument of exceptions.. just scroll up the page please..
So do you agree with uo in the guide example where it says that guild war pvp in trammel can be non consensual? Or are you one of those that pick and choose what they say based on if it supports their opinion? As many have shown, uo contradicts themselves a lot on this matter. Another example of that is calling pk'ing murder but only labeling a character a muderer if they pk 5 times in a certain period of time.
Well, you've gotta admit it's funny to see how many people can come up with different ways to say they agree to being attacked but don't agree to get killed. That's one of those things that doesn't get old soon ya know.Yet, here we are still reading it!
this would be an interesting thread for discussing how to fix it...
Well it seems to me that the guidelines are contrdictory in your opinion of how you want it to be interpreted.
that is equvalent to asking you if you've stopped beating your wife....
Putting a blurb giving a warning before somebody travels into Felucca guarantees that the person is making an informed decision to accept the risk of being attacked.
Claiming I am interpreting EA's guidelines is being intellectually dishonest.
The other day a guildmate and I were on our reds dismounted and dueling outside way north of Yew gate. 4 Blues ran in and ganked us.
It's not an exploit, if you dont call guards or if there are no npc's around to call guards, you can be killed in guard zone. This has been part of the game mechanics since day one.
They sort of did with the flagging system. But I an tell you that on chessy the only people who hide in the house are blues usually or reds that are terrible at PvP. So in the case that you run accross reds house fighting, you should take the time to kill them if you can, because they aren't good enough to kill you.
They have the reverse gump of that which states that you are about to make a criminal act. If anything they should have what i said before; have a gump in the red moongates that warns you about Fel and getting pked.
To enter Fel you are concenting to the fact that you may be attacked at anytime, anywhere.
I am only trying to come up with a comprimise for the people who keep talking in circles about concent vs non-concent.
Yike a double negative... I never said they should stop non-consensual PvP.
Well it is pretty much copy and paste from EA's guidelines, so you don't agree with them
well.. you also ignore post #252 and #270 where Ash copied and pasted those pesky EA guidelines which contradict the ones you site.. something I've said needs to be addressed by EA.. and until they do, will result in threads like this one where there is significant disagreement over the terms. Neither you nor I can control that.. and trying to throw it down the opposing sides throats doesn't actually accomplish anything.Well it is pretty much copy and paste from EA's guidelines, so you don't agree with them
edit::
Remember I asked why cant reds go to Tram, you said we maid our bed and that, it was EA's rules.
How is this different?
The funny thing about these rules:
Well it is pretty much copy and paste from EA's guidelines, so you don't agree with them
The point many are trying to make on this thread is that you give the same type of consent to engage in hostilities with other characters when you choose to enter Fel. Not sure why we can't get an overall agreement on that point since its pretty clear based on the actual rules (not the words written in the contradictory guide) of the facet and the fact that those rules must be followed anytime you enter the facet.
Towards that discussion, I personally feel that murder counts, red status and the murderer title should be removed altogether from the game. Since Trammel is available, no one is forced to go to Fel unless they accept the fact that people can attack them freely there. As such, making people 'red' for doing it a certain number of times isn't neccessary. Now, some will argue that that will just create more reds which will drive more people from Fel. I don't agree. I think that the people that want to kill people are going to kill people regardless of the risk of turning red or the risk of getting a murder count from it. So that system isn't really a deterent at all. In fact, as many reds have already stated, murder counts are a source of pride for them. So the fact that there even is a murder count system actually increases the amount of pk'ing. Which goes against the purpose of the system to begin with.
On that I can agree. Which is why I haven't used the guide to back up my views, but the dictionary instead. If someone disagrees with the actual definition of a word, there is not much anyone can say to change their mind. Anyone at this point in the 10+ years of the life of UO that plays and doesn't know that by entering Fel they are consenting to an open pvp ruleset that gives other characters the ability to attack them whenever they want will never know.
1) That is correct, itmeans that if you go to Fel you may have to PvP someone even ifyou don't want to.
1) I have seen quite a few cases where it says Fel and non-consensual PvP.
2) I have seen where it says if you want to PvP you have to goto Fel.
3) I haven't seen where it says if you goto Fel you have to PvP, just be aware of the risk.
4) As long as there exists other reasons to goto Fel (not just scrolls, but quests also that require entering Fel), the mere act of entering Fel is just acknowledgment of the risk associated and not consent to PvP.
5) EA's documentation states Felucca allows PvP, not that it is a requirement.
6) I just don't see how one can have Consensual Non-Consensual PvP, and as quoted before EA specifically refers to it as non-consensual repeatedly.
If you go to Fel and someone attacks you, you have to pvp. You may sit there and just let them kill you, but thats still pvp. You consent to the ruleset which allows a character to attack you anytime they want. Thats pretty simple. You might not get attack, true. You might not die when you get attacked, true. But you are always at risk of getting attacked anytime that you consent to the Fel ruleset. No one is saying that you consent to die everytime you go to Fel. That point is accept so you don't have to keep trying to make it. Now all you have to do is accept that you consent to the ruleset of Fel whenever you enter Fel and that part will be done as well. Easy peasy.
I have seen quite a few cases where it says Fel and non-consensual PvP.
I have seen where it says if you want to PvP you have to goto Fel.
I haven't seen where it says if you goto Fel you have to PvP, just be aware of the risk.
Why you go to Fel doesn't change the rules of Fel. Open pvp means you can be attacked at anytime without giving an individual specific consent to do so. Your general consent to the ruleset of Fel covers that ability just fine. You accept that if someone decides to attack you, they can. That means you consent to pvp by entering Fel.
If they changed the rules to where you went perma red after one murder, I think you would see a lot less blues in Fel. Not because they turned red, but because they would rarely show up because they are too afraid to be perma red and wouldnt be able to compete with Red PvPers.
Factions are Fel only. And will add guilds themselves to your exception, as your guild mates can choose to attack you as well either jokingly or a griefer that infiltrated the guild just to kill in Tram.
In my mind acknowledging and agreeing are not the same. I see the point of entering is accepting, I just don't fully share it. I acknowledge the risk but do not accept, therefor I enter with caution and take measures to prevent PvP. (except when I go there for PvP specifically, then I just take measure to make sure I have plenty of gold in the bank
). To me it is a matter of compliance vs agreement, I am fully capable of complying with rules with which i don't agree.Heh, well im not in Tram too often or factions so thanks for the corretion
In my mind acknowledging and agreeing are not the same. I see the point of entering is accepting, I just don't fully share it. I acknowledge the risk but do not accept, therefor I enter with caution and take measures to prevent PvP. (except when I go there for PvP specifically, then I just take measure to make sure I have plenty of gold in the bank
No, I acknowledge but do not agree. I accept that there is nothing I can do to change the rule set, that doesn't mean i accept the rule set. It means I have little choice. Consent, agreement whatever you want to call it, for me is about choice, and when there are outside factors that choice is compromised. And I will never consider a choice that it is influenced by outside factors as an agreement. There are aspects of the game that can only be completed or acquired in Fel, hence my choice is limited to compliance or miss out on part of the game. To me that is an unfair choice, and thus when I enter Fel for anything other than PvP I feel my decision was made for me and thus I am not agreeing to anything, the powers that be decided for me, all is required of me is acknowledge the risk at that point. We had this discussion early about coercion. Coercion by definition is to cause someone to do things they either don't agree with or wouldn't do without the outside influence. So as long as the reasons for entering Fel are through coercion, there is no agreement just acknowledgment of risk.
There is a differnce between agreeing with and agreeing to. You agree to follow the rules of Fel by entering it, and to follow the rules of UO in general by playing. You don't have to agree with those rules to agree to them.
That takes us back to agree with versus agree to. I don't agree with the devs' decision to create powerscrolls. But I am forced to agree to that rule because the fact of this game in this day and age is that skills can now go past 100 regardless of if I like it or not.
I believe coercion fits better as there are reasons to go to Fel that can't be done or obtained by any other means by the game.
We call it Fellucia