No one wants to 5v1 their guildmate over n over so its not entirely uncommon to just not kill them. If its a sweaty match for both sides then everyones fair game.
But it's funny when a player has such fair play on guild mates but have no issues doing so against other players. It's called consistency. For example, it's funny to see some players, for example, talking about how they don't kill guildies if the match is one-sided, and then see them spawn-camping some pug team and stomping happily in PvP
For example, i do not obviously stomp guildies in a one-sided match, but i also do not spawncamp or stomp less geared/ weaker enemies. There are players, instead, who spawncamp, stomp and enjoy trolling "pugs", but then become masters of fair play when it comes to their guild mates or allies. It's called hipocrisy in my opinion. And double standards. Such players are bad for our PvP environment.
No one wants to 5v1 their guildmate over n over so its not entirely uncommon to just not kill them. If its a sweaty match for both sides then everyones fair game.
But it's funny when a player has such fair play on guild mates but have no issues doing so against other players. It's called consistency. For example, it's funny to see some players, for example, talking about how they don't kill guildies if the match is one-sided, and then see them spawn-camping some pug team and stomping happily in PvP
For example, i do not obviously stomp guildies in a one-sided match, but i also do not spawncamp or stomp less geared/ weaker enemies. There are players, instead, who spawncamp, stomp and enjoy trolling "pugs", but then become masters of fair play when it comes to their guild mates or allies. It's called hipocrisy in my opinion. And double standards. Such players are bad for our PvP environment.
*These are my own personal opinions on the issue*
Here are the very simple issues with fighting guildmates/alliancemates. We are fair with guildmates and alliancemates because we are "allied" with them. Therefore we have a duty to show our loyalty to our alliance or guild. If a match is completely lopsided then out of respect for our "ally" we will not gank them. We will not fight them, we will let them sit on a node and kill pugs to their hearts content. It's our way of showing our allies respect.
If you are not our ally, what do we owe you? Essentially you're an enemy. It's no offense, it's simply part of the game. We chose to show respect to our allies, and fight our enemies. Pretty simple, if you want to call it a double standard then I suppose to some degree that's correct. The same way you would show preference for your family over some random stranger.
As a side not to all this, if you say "GG" then it simply means "good game", it's a sign of sportsmanship. It DOES NOT entitle you to points or for that matter safety. For that you should ask "mind if I get some points for glory?". If you are cool about it most players will allow you to get the points you need. However if you are uncool about any part of losing, don't be surprised if you get rekt upon hopping down from camp.
Simply put guildmates and allies garner respect and preference. Pugs and enemies do not. This logic is internally "consistent".
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
"The same way you would show preference for your family over some random stranger"
Wrong. It's not a matter of preference. It's a matter of respect, as you said in the end. Do you respect your family only and disrespect random strangers?
I understand your words but i'm also sorry to say it's such a selfish way to see PvP that i do not agree with it. And it's what hurts PvP.
You should realize that what you described is more like a "gang" of bullies in real life. Re-read your post. The bad part is that gangs of bullies in real life are punished. In a game they are not. They don't break any rule so they can ruin the fun for other players and then blame such players for not being strong enough to fight back (to be clear, i am more than capable to fight back as an old time player, but i see the effects on PvP and its community of such behaviours).
And yes, it's double standards and i also call it hipocrisy when such players try to talk about how to improve PvP environment for everyone, when all they care about is, as you described, their own guild/ allies.
At least it's better when players show their true colors. Like "certain" players who replied "not our fault" when i explained them how removing gear gap/ boons exc...would still leave a huge gap between a PvP guild premade and a pug team.
"The same way you would show preference for your family over some random stranger"
Wrong. It's not a matter of preference. It's a matter of respect, as you said in the end. Do you respect your family only and disrespect random strangers?
I understand your words but i'm also sorry to say it's such a selfish way to see PvP that i do not agree with it. And it's what hurts PvP.
You should realize that what you described is more like a "gang" of bullies in real life. Re-read your post. The bad part is that gangs of bullies in real life are punished. In a game they are not. They don't break any rule so they can ruin the fun for other players and then blame such players for not being strong enough to fight back (to be clear, i am more than capable to fight back as an old time player, but i see the effects on PvP and its community of such behaviours).
And yes, it's double standards and i also call it hipocrisy when such players try to talk about how to improve PvP environment for everyone, when all they care about is, as you described, their own guild/ allies.
At least it's better when players show their true colors. Like "certain" players who replied "not our fault" when i explained them how removing gear gap/ boons exc...would still leave a huge gap between a PvP guild premade and a pug team.
You can call us a gang of bullies, you can say you think it's hypocrisy, you can say it ruins PVP. These are all your personal opinions in the same way I can say it makes us respectful to our alliance and guildmates, it's a standard of loyalty, and it makes PVP more enjoyable for our friends and allies.
"Do you respect your family only and disrespect random strangers?" When my family is surrounded by random strangers attacking them... yes, yes I do.
Hypocrisy by definition means we do something that violates our own rule. Our rule is not to gank alliance members or guildmates. We do our best not to ever violate that rule intentionally. However we have no such rule for those that lie outside our guild and alliance. Therefore, there is no hypocrisy, unless you choose to make up your own definition.
If you think we're bullies because we won't gank a friend, well you have an interesting definition of bully.
As for the last bit, it's obvious you have an issue with a different topic that you're trying to bring into this one, however it's totally irrelevant. I would go so far as to say that if you want to change people's minds honey is a much better approach than salt.
I've explained why alliances often do what they do, what you feel about that explanation is your choice.
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
The bad part is that gangs of bullies in real life are punished. In a game they are not. They don't break any rule so they can ruin the fun for other players and then blame such players for not being strong enough to fight back (to be clear, i am more than capable to fight back as an old time player, but i see the effects on PvP and its community of such behaviours).
You can blame Cryptic for that. In other games, trolling, flaming, ganking etc are bannable offenses but Cryptic has had an interesting history dealing with certain behaviors.
I understand some claims made here in terms of double standards. Too often it seems PVP is about bending rules and morale towards whatever fits best to one's own preferred playstyle. For this particular case it's amusing to look back at the enormous amount of qq pre leaver penalty and even after that. Some folks even wanted to repel opponents off the campfire to force them to fight.
And now you won't attack others cause "friendly fire" ? Sorry, not buying it for one second.
I understand some claims made here in terms of double standards. Too often it seems PVP is about bending rules and morale towards whatever fits best to one's own preferred playstyle. For this particular case it's amusing to look back at the enormous amount of qq pre leaver penalty and even after that. Some folks even wanted to repel opponents off the node to force them to fight.
And now you won't attack others cause "friendly fire" ? Sorry, not buying it for one second.
I didn't say I won't attack others I said I won't gank guildmates and alliancemates. That means the match is lost for them and I'm not going to kill them repeatedly after their team has lost. For some reason people on the forums can't read plain English. I assume this is because people are using a second language because the alternative would be insulting to intelligence.
Also what the Hamster are you on about with the other statements as though those somehow relate to this topic? Like leaver penalty and repelling opponents off nodes? What does this stuff even mean? Why is it noone will speak plainly any more? They try to leave things in cryptic messages that fall utterly short.
Like Pando here, why don't you just spit out what you mean?
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
Thanks for the call-out, I meant campfire. I thought my post would make sense in the context, but in case it didn't: I was trying to say that there was a time when PVP was all about "you fight no matter what." That's why the leaver penalty was introduced and people even wanted to go beyond that with pretty insane requests (like repelling afk off the campfire, no rewards for the losing team) and all that stupid HAMSTER.
Now suddenly not fighting under certain circumstances becomes a thing? Also unless I'm mistaken the OP didn't specifically refer to ganking. I agree here though, in a lopsided match get everyone above 600 points and move on.
Here are the very simple issues with fighting guildmates/alliancemates. We are fair with guildmates and alliancemates because we are "allied" with them. Therefore we have a duty to show our loyalty to our alliance or guild. If a match is completely lopsided then out of respect for our "ally" we will not gank them. We will not fight them, we will let them sit on a node and kill pugs to their hearts content. It's our way of showing our allies respect.
If you are not our ally, what do we owe you? Essentially you're an enemy. It's no offense, it's simply part of the game. We chose to show respect to our allies, and fight our enemies. Pretty simple, if you want to call it a double standard then I suppose to some degree that's correct. The same way you would show preference for your family over some random stranger.
As a side not to all this, if you say "GG" then it simply means "good game", it's a sign of sportsmanship. It DOES NOT entitle you to points or for that matter safety. For that you should ask "mind if I get some points for glory?". If you are cool about it most players will allow you to get the points you need. However if you are uncool about any part of losing, don't be surprised if you get rekt upon hopping down from camp.
Simply put guildmates and allies garner respect and preference. Pugs and enemies do not. This logic is internally "consistent".
So, in your opinion, a player does not owe his "team" any respect, or loyalty? I think that is a disturbing situational morality, personally. If players only treat their friends or allies honorably, I think that they should be prevented from forming groups outside of their alliances. Once you queue for PvP, your (temporary) allies are your team. Your (temporary) enemy is the other team. I think that you should owe that alliance some loyalty, regardless of it's short lifespan.
As to the "GG", language changes over time. The majority of the PvP community has agreed to accept the "GG" call as an acknowledgement that the game is so unbalanced that to continue would result in a match with a 1000 - 0 score. That is NOT a "good game. Perhaps there should have been a new term invented, but by the time it became a thing, it was too late. But the reasons for this situation are more important than the terminology. The big reason is the PvP rewards system. The devs changed the rules, so that any player that does not receive 400 points during the match, they receive no rewards. This was to combat players that fireside camped during match. Sadly, this solution took no consideration of WHY some players chose to sit out a match. There really is no point in a team with an average IL of 2.5k to fight against a 4k IL team.
Here are the very simple issues with fighting guildmates/alliancemates. We are fair with guildmates and alliancemates because we are "allied" with them. Therefore we have a duty to show our loyalty to our alliance or guild. If a match is completely lopsided then out of respect for our "ally" we will not gank them. We will not fight them, we will let them sit on a node and kill pugs to their hearts content. It's our way of showing our allies respect.
If you are not our ally, what do we owe you? Essentially you're an enemy. It's no offense, it's simply part of the game. We chose to show respect to our allies, and fight our enemies. Pretty simple, if you want to call it a double standard then I suppose to some degree that's correct. The same way you would show preference for your family over some random stranger.
As a side not to all this, if you say "GG" then it simply means "good game", it's a sign of sportsmanship. It DOES NOT entitle you to points or for that matter safety. For that you should ask "mind if I get some points for glory?". If you are cool about it most players will allow you to get the points you need. However if you are uncool about any part of losing, don't be surprised if you get rekt upon hopping down from camp.
Simply put guildmates and allies garner respect and preference. Pugs and enemies do not. This logic is internally "consistent".
So, in your opinion, a player does not owe his "team" any respect, or loyalty? I think that is a disturbing situational morality, personally. If players only treat their friends or allies honorably, I think that they should be prevented from forming groups outside of their alliances. Once you queue for PvP, your (temporary) allies are your team. Your (temporary) enemy is the other team. I think that you should owe that alliance some loyalty, regardless of it's short lifespan.
As to the "GG", language changes over time. The majority of the PvP community has agreed to accept the "GG" call as an acknowledgement that the game is so unbalanced that to continue would result in a match with a 1000 - 0 score. That is NOT a "good game. Perhaps there should have been a new term invented, but by the time it became a thing, it was too late. But the reasons for this situation are more important than the terminology. The big reason is the PvP rewards system. The devs changed the rules, so that any player that does not receive 400 points during the match, they receive no rewards. This was to combat players that fireside camped during match. Sadly, this solution took no consideration of WHY some players chose to sit out a match. There really is no point in a team with an average IL of 2.5k to fight against a 4k IL team.
I'm not sure where you've misconstrued this bit about not owing his "team" any respect or loyalty. When I solo Q I will do everything within my power to win even against guildmates. Under specific circumstances (i.e. I've pugged into a full PM of my or another guild which is a useless fight when I look around on my team and I'm the only one above 3K) I may campfire it because there is no point, it is a loss. I owe my team the chance to attempt a win. If we are losing badly then I may chose to campfire or if I know the other peeps say "well, I think you guys got this one lol". I have no idea what you're talking about saying I have no "respect or loyatly to my team".
As far as if we have won the match and the game is over, I will not help you, if you are on my team, 5v1 gank my ally or guilmate as I stated. We've already won, I will chill. If you chose to fight him after that type of loss, you will do it alone. I may even go so far as to tell my guildmate/ally "feel free to kill him, I won't defend him, sorry for the mismatch". Once we've won the match, you will not get my aid killing my peeps.
GG only became a way of asking for points amongst pugs. It is not thought of this way amongst legacy PVPers. The vernacular is something that pugs use as a way of saying "this match sucked, give me points". I will not say GG unless I thought it was a good game (i.e. balanced, close, and well fought). I also will not ask for points. I lost, the game is set up for me not to get points. We circumvent the system by doling them out and it could be called an exploit if people wanted to examine it. However, I fully recognize the state of imbalance in the game as I have written to that effect and give away points to those who ask politely because it's difficult for people starting PVP to get points. Gaining glory for gear is a hazing process instituted by Cryptic with tenacity.
If you want to know how I feel about fixing the problem and getting rid of the need to "ask" for points visit here:
*Addendum: If you find any "morality", situational or otherwise, in a game "disturbing" perhaps video gaming... or the interwebs for that matter... aren't for you m8?
Post edited by ltgamesttv#0999 on
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
Here are the very simple issues with fighting guildmates/alliancemates. We are fair with guildmates and alliancemates because we are "allied" with them. Therefore we have a duty to show our loyalty to our alliance or guild. If a match is completely lopsided then out of respect for our "ally" we will not gank them. We will not fight them, we will let them sit on a node and kill pugs to their hearts content. It's our way of showing our allies respect.
If you are not our ally, what do we owe you? Essentially you're an enemy. It's no offense, it's simply part of the game. We chose to show respect to our allies, and fight our enemies. Pretty simple, if you want to call it a double standard then I suppose to some degree that's correct. The same way you would show preference for your family over some random stranger.
As a side not to all this, if you say "GG" then it simply means "good game", it's a sign of sportsmanship. It DOES NOT entitle you to points or for that matter safety. For that you should ask "mind if I get some points for glory?". If you are cool about it most players will allow you to get the points you need. However if you are uncool about any part of losing, don't be surprised if you get rekt upon hopping down from camp.
Simply put guildmates and allies garner respect and preference. Pugs and enemies do not. This logic is internally "consistent".
So, in your opinion, a player does not owe his "team" any respect, or loyalty? I think that is a disturbing situational morality, personally. If players only treat their friends or allies honorably, I think that they should be prevented from forming groups outside of their alliances. Once you queue for PvP, your (temporary) allies are your team. Your (temporary) enemy is the other team. I think that you should owe that alliance some loyalty, regardless of it's short lifespan.
As to the "GG", language changes over time. The majority of the PvP community has agreed to accept the "GG" call as an acknowledgement that the game is so unbalanced that to continue would result in a match with a 1000 - 0 score. That is NOT a "good game. Perhaps there should have been a new term invented, but by the time it became a thing, it was too late. But the reasons for this situation are more important than the terminology. The big reason is the PvP rewards system. The devs changed the rules, so that any player that does not receive 400 points during the match, they receive no rewards. This was to combat players that fireside camped during match. Sadly, this solution took no consideration of WHY some players chose to sit out a match. There really is no point in a team with an average IL of 2.5k to fight against a 4k IL team.
I'm not sure where you've misconstrued this bit about not owing his "team" any respect or loyalty. When I solo Q I will do everything within my power to win even against guildmates. Under specific circumstances (i.e. I've pugged into a full PM of my or another guild which is a useless fight when I look around on my team and I'm the only one above 3K) I may campfire it because there is no point, it is a loss. I owe my team the chance to attempt a win. If we are losing badly then I may chose to campfire or if I know the other peeps say "well, I think you guys got this one lol". I have no idea what you're talking about saying I have no "respect or loyatly to my team".
As far as if we have won the match and the game is over, I will not help you, if you are on my team, 5v1 gank my ally or guilmate as I stated. We've already won, I will chill. If you chose to fight him after that type of loss, you will do it alone. I may even go so far as to tell my guildmate/ally "feel free to kill him, I won't defend him, sorry for the mismatch". Once we've won the match, you will not get my aid killing my peeps.
GG only became a way of asking for points amongst pugs. It is not thought of this way amongst legacy PVPers. The vernacular is something that pugs use as a way of saying "this match sucked, give me points". I will not say GG unless I thought it was a good game (i.e. balanced, close, and well fought). I also will not ask for points. I lost, the game is set up for me not to get points. We circumvent the system by doling them out and it could be called an exploit if people wanted to examine it. However, I fully recognize the state of imbalance in the game as I have written to that effect and give away points to those who ask politely because it's difficult for people starting PVP to get points. Gaining glory for gear is a hazing process instituted by Cryptic with tenacity.
If you want to know how I feel about fixing the problem and getting rid of the need to "ask" for points visit here:
This thread is about PvP matches where some players stop fighting in the middle of a match against teams that have guilds/alliance members. When you say things like, "we have a duty to show our loyalty to our alliance or guild.", or "If you are not our ally, what do we owe you? Essentially you're an enemy." & "We chose to show respect to our allies, and fight our enemies"; then, within the framework of this discussion, it is safe to assume that you feel that a PvP guild player owes more loyalty to his guild than to his teammates. That he, or she, shows respect by fighting their hardest & not giving up in the middle of a match, when fighting alongside their guild, but not alongside a team not composed of guildmates.
By the way, this situation does not always apply to games which are already lost. This thread, and the thread which this conversation was spun off from, which can be found in the link below, alos refer to PvP matches where a close game was lost when some players stopped trying in the middle of the match because, "that's muh guild over there." This is the context which makes the defense of a situational morality in PvP so disturbing. If the PvP guilds are manipulating the outcome of matches by queueing onto both teams, that is something that needs to be addressed.
Calling "GG" is something only pugs do, because Premades don't need to call it to get any points. They get the points they need in the first couple minutes of the match. Rewards on the otherhand, are something different. If the losing team gets no points, neither team gets any rewards. Most premades will respect the "GG" call because they know that if the pugs can't get any rewards, they will stop coming. A smaller PvP population is something no one wants. Should it be called something else. Probably. But saying something that is only said @ the end of a fight, is a pretty clear indication that everyone understands what the outcome would be.
This thread may also contain discussion about some players that stop fighting in the middle of the match but what I said, and what you quoted by me was not about that at all. If you want to discuss that portion of the threads topic kindly leave me out as I said nothing about that at all. I only spoke about not ganking in a lop sided lost match.
I always owe more allegiance to a permanent ally than a temporary one, the same way that they would feel more strongly about their guild than they would about me as a pug. To say otherwise is silly and false. However when we are in PVP my full intent is to win every match and to fight until it is a given that there is no way to win.
So while this "situation" may occur in games that are not already lost I made no commentary about that. When you ask the question or make the assumption that PVP guilds are "manipulating" the Queue to be on both teams it is possible but both highly unlikely and highly unprofitable. Plainly put, when my guild intentionally Queues against each other to try and do inhouses it takes anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour to get into a match calling pops and trying to sync/match Queues. If you are not in a full premade the chance of getting on opposite teams in the same match is even less likely. If they are going to this level of effort to throw a single match then they are wasting hours and hours of time. Why would they do that when they could simply form a group and stomp?
As for calling "GG" is something only pugs do, what do you think PVPers are when they solo Q? Pugs. They are in the same boat as any pug, albeit better geared, built, and potentially skilled. GG was something Premaders said to other Premaders first. Like literally from beta. The fact that pugs took it over and changed it's meaning is not our fault. GG still means good game, it's a literal abbreviation. If you want points for losing a match I would say that perhaps by your same logic we should look into you throwing matches for giving up quickly, saying "GG" and getting free points you didn't earn.
This sounds silly to you I'm sure because of the imbalance. The same way pugs thinking PVP guilds would bother with trying to time Queuing on opposite sides of a team to throw a match to get, what? a lil glory? 3K ad? pffft that's nothing to an end game PVPer. The sooner pugs realize that PVPers don't Q for glory and/or AD they Q for fun and for fighting the better. Believing anything else is incorrect.
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
Thanks for the call-out, I meant campfire. I thought my post would make sense in the context, but in case it didn't: I was trying to say that there was a time when PVP was all about "you fight no matter what."
Now suddenly not fighting under certain circumstances becomes a thing? Also unless I'm mistaken the OP didn't specifically refer to ganking. I agree here though, in a lopsided match get everyone above 600 points and move on.
I'm guessing its because of the big big gear difference, but how often do you see Dota or Counterstrike matches end after a minute because one sided conceded? Even if a team is clearly superior, everyone keeps fighting for quite sometime, usually to the end. Its only in Neverwinter that I see people quitting so early.
But again, maybe Neverwinter PVP is too gear dependent. That needs to change.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
Hey All,
There was a lot of back and forth statements that kind of took over this thread which have been removed. If you see any quotes you can't find in the that was likely the reason.
While there is no rule that two or three people shouldn't respond back and forth to each other large amounts of time at some point it is best to agree to disagree and leave the floor open to different opinions.
I was in a match once where a friend was on the opposite team. Every time I killed him I said "sorry m8!" in chat lol.
For some reason he wasn't amused...
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Personally, I don't mind fighting anyone on the opposite team in a fair fight. I also don't enjoy killing people in unfair fights -- or being killed in an unfair situation, and I don't like seeing people pile up kills as some sort of ego-boost due to an unfair advantage. Thus, a rule that states not to gank your fellow guild members in a situation where they are on a much weaker team I'd generally consider fair.
However, personally, I generally tend to apply the same rule to every player -- I'm not generally going to engage in aggravating behavior racking up kills against players who are unwilling or unable to fight back. That doesn't feel like PvP at all, and it generates unnecessary bad feelings in many cases. Deliberately wasting other people's time by refusing them even a consolation prize when the teams are grossly unfair also seems abusive and wrong to me. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that going on in this game.
Some people have issues of various types that are reflected in their in-game behavior. You rarely know what's on the other side of the screen. People might have a bad time at work or in a relationship, or be stressed out, they might be psychopaths, they might have some degree of autism or have some mental disorder. All those things and others might contribute to people reacting unusually badly to behavior in video games -- or behaving unusually badly. That doesn't necessarily mean they're bad people in general, but the faceless nature of video game communication does lead to a lot of behavior we wouldn't see elsewhere. Playing a board game is generally face-to-face, which involves visual communication that the internet does not allow for while playing video games, besides involving people you actually know well.
I know that I'm personally responsible for aggravating behavior on occasion, which I generally tend to regret.
This! It's basically what i tried to say from the start. But you explained it better/ more clearly.
Thanks for the call-out, I meant campfire. I thought my post would make sense in the context, but in case it didn't: I was trying to say that there was a time when PVP was all about "you fight no matter what." That's why the leaver penalty was introduced and people even wanted to go beyond that with pretty insane requests (like repelling afk off the campfire, no rewards for the losing team) and all that stupid HAMSTER.
Now suddenly not fighting under certain circumstances becomes a thing? Also unless I'm mistaken the OP didn't specifically refer to ganking. I agree here though, in a lopsided match get everyone above 600 points and move on.
Or pulling people out of the campfire with singularity (or more like singHilarity...HAHAHAHAHA...ehhhh sorry). This was back in the old days of no tenacity, awesome shards in mastery slot, bilethorns, and permastealthers >:) .
It seems to me that online gaming veils the intentions and emotions of all people participating. We imagine snarling, evil, puppy-bashing bullies on the other side of the screen, when in reality they are normal human beings. Perhaps some of us should try to not let competitiveness/ego crossover into obsession. This is a DnD product that happens to have an awesome combat/pvp system. I'm sure there are other games out there that offer the hyper-competitive (and balanced) experience.
So I'm of the mindset that if you get curb-stomped, DON'T TAKE IT SO PERSONALLY, and likewise, if the other team/guild shows favoritism to an alliance member then WHO CARES...see previous capitalized statement. Maybe try to not base your happiness/experience on the behaviour of other pvpers.
SoloQ helps ease this, somewhat.
Nuff said, this is my first "online" game so what do I know.
Cheers
(P.S. I include myself in that statement...I have gotten angry a few times. You just have to see it for what it is: A big ball of unbalanced, messy, mostly fun HAMSTER.)
Post edited by sweatapodimas on
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" - Frank Zappa
Thanks for the call-out, I meant campfire. I thought my post would make sense in the context, but in case it didn't: I was trying to say that there was a time when PVP was all about "you fight no matter what." That's why the leaver penalty was introduced and people even wanted to go beyond that with pretty insane requests (like repelling afk off the campfire, no rewards for the losing team) and all that stupid HAMSTER.
Now suddenly not fighting under certain circumstances becomes a thing? Also unless I'm mistaken the OP didn't specifically refer to ganking. I agree here though, in a lopsided match get everyone above 600 points and move on.
Or pulling people out of the campfire with singularity (or more like singHilarity...HAHAHAHAHA...ehhhh sorry). This was back in the old days of no tenacity, awesome shards in mastery slot, bilethorns, and permastealthers >:) .
It seems to me that online gaming veils the intentions and emotions of all people participating. We imagine snarling, evil, puppy-bashing bullies on the other side of the screen, when in reality they are normal human beings. Perhaps some of us should try to not let competitiveness/ego crossover into obsession. This is a DnD product that happens to have an awesome combat/pvp system. I'm sure there are other games out there that offer the hyper-competitive (and balanced) experience.
So I'm of the mindset that if you get curb-stomped, DON'T TAKE IT SO PERSONALLY, and likewise, if the other team/guild shows favoritism to an alliance member then WHO CARES...see previous capitalized statement. Maybe try to not base your happiness/experience on the behaviour of other pvpers.
SoloQ helps ease this, somewhat.
Nuff said, this is my first "online" game so what do I know.
Cheers
(P.S. I include myself in that statement...I have gotten angry a few times. You just have to see it for what it is: A big ball of unbalanced, messy, mostly fun HAMSTER.)
In earlier mods, where it was possible to find a "fair" match in two or three tries, or even get a win in less than an hour, it was a lot easier to write off the bad behaviour that you found in PvP. Now that that is no longer the case, it isn't so easy to shrug off. It gets even harder when your opponents conspire to prevent you from advancing your progress.
Because money rules the world plavia, simple as that.
@ilusiphur If you get "angry" about a game more often than happy, you should maybe try to play something else. When I reached the point of getting "mad" in the past I simply ALT F4'd the game. At some point you will see & play the game with a different attitude.
I don't get mad because a bunch of bullies are acting like bullies. I simply don't PvP anymore. Unless there is a solo-Q event. There are more fun things in the game than PvP. I still love the game. I just don't love what has happened to PvP.
Thanks for the call-out, I meant campfire. I thought my post would make sense in the context, but in case it didn't: I was trying to say that there was a time when PVP was all about "you fight no matter what." That's why the leaver penalty was introduced and people even wanted to go beyond that with pretty insane requests (like repelling afk off the campfire, no rewards for the losing team) and all that stupid HAMSTER.
Now suddenly not fighting under certain circumstances becomes a thing? Also unless I'm mistaken the OP didn't specifically refer to ganking. I agree here though, in a lopsided match get everyone above 600 points and move on.
Or pulling people out of the campfire with singularity (or more like singHilarity...HAHAHAHAHA...ehhhh sorry). This was back in the old days of no tenacity, awesome shards in mastery slot, bilethorns, and permastealthers >:) .
It seems to me that online gaming veils the intentions and emotions of all people participating. We imagine snarling, evil, puppy-bashing bullies on the other side of the screen, when in reality they are normal human beings. Perhaps some of us should try to not let competitiveness/ego crossover into obsession. This is a DnD product that happens to have an awesome combat/pvp system. I'm sure there are other games out there that offer the hyper-competitive (and balanced) experience.
So I'm of the mindset that if you get curb-stomped, DON'T TAKE IT SO PERSONALLY, and likewise, if the other team/guild shows favoritism to an alliance member then WHO CARES...see previous capitalized statement. Maybe try to not base your happiness/experience on the behaviour of other pvpers.
SoloQ helps ease this, somewhat.
Nuff said, this is my first "online" game so what do I know.
Cheers
(P.S. I include myself in that statement...I have gotten angry a few times. You just have to see it for what it is: A big ball of unbalanced, messy, mostly fun HAMSTER.)
In earlier mods, where it was possible to find a "fair" match in two or three tries, or even get a win in less than an hour, it was a lot easier to write off the bad behaviour that you found in PvP. Now that that is no longer the case, it isn't so easy to shrug off. It gets even harder when your opponents conspire to prevent you from advancing your progress.
That is unfortunate that this ruins your experience. Looking at it objectively, PVP will either improve or completely devolve into a wasteland so perhaps my advice was a little off topic. I was just speaking to those that project and reflect hostility and egomania, i.e. stop the madness by having a greater perspective.
Let's try to improve the game we are stuck with or move on, that simple.
Good luck and cheers,
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" - Frank Zappa
I had a horrible holiday season, cause of Alliances, i was forced in and out of guilds, long story won't bore you guys.
I came to the conclusion, that Alliances don't work at all, not in PVE, but especially not in PVP.
Let me tell you why. In PVE there are simply too many people from different cultures, different time zones, different mindsets under one hood. Now in RL would you share your bed room with dozens of people, who have different views on nearly all subjects, of course not, but none the less in PVE there is less competition and it can work with some bumps, although i won't go into details how many Alliances in PVE are falling now apart, not subject of this thread.
PVP is a completely different beast, here rules the ego and that causes Alliances to fail.
In the past weeks i saw low IL players used as punching bags when there were none to kill and if the poor individuals said i have enough of it, they were instantly kicked.
I saw people suffer on daily basis and only PM between each other, cause they were afraid, if they say no or they attack other Alliance members, they would be kicked and would lose all their hard work/money put in the guild. For those poor guys every day in the game is pure humiliation, running around with duck tape on their mouths.
I saw guilds where one was handed a long Google doc on what not to do with Alliance members if it comes to facing them as opponents.
I saw how one little rank was not allowed to fight the bigger one or the Alliance leaders, cause even the guild feared it would lose it's spot in the Alliance and i could go on and on and on...
Since Alliances is now here, i would say only fix is to make matchmaking put everybody from the same Alliance on the same team and basta. This would solve most of the tensions which lie under the hood and would let the every day player enjoy PVP a tiny bit more. Currently it's just a bad show, no competitiveness at all. More than 50% of the matches is just standing around and maybe chatting, no fighting at all. The small Alliance members are afraid to attack their own fearing a huge drama, which can eventually lead to their kicking and the enemy team has many traitors this way, cause most only mimic a fight or plainly don't do anything at all.
The real honest man is honest from conviction of what is right, not from policy.
Robert E. Lee
I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself.
Winston Churchill
The human race is a herd. Here we are, unique, eternal aspects of consciousness with an infinity of potential, and we have allowed ourselves to become an unthinking, unquestioning blob of conformity and uniformity. A herd. Once we concede to the herd mentality, we can be controlled and directed by a tiny few. And we are.
David Icke
Since Alliances is now here, i would say only fix is to make matchmaking put everybody from the same Alliance on the same team and basta. This would solve most of the tensions which lie under the hood and would let the every day player enjoy PVP a tiny bit more.
I can believe every single story you stated. It sounds feasible and I've also heard and seen examples of it in different guilds.
Your suggestion however will be really difficult due to the low player population. I also disagree with your premise that alliance drama is the main issue. Guildies and alliance members will fight each other until they see that the match is imbalanced. There are a few exceptions but the majority of the bigger alliances on Dragon server do allow for players to attack their guildmates and alliance members in PVP as long as the match is competitive and still going on.
I think a better approach is to normalize gear to an extent. Cryptic wants people to keep buying Zen so they will introduce more unnecessary features like mount powers, artifacts, weapons, enchantments and I get that, but they can still offer a compromise to certain stats such as tenacity and hp.
Comments
For example, it's funny to see some players, for example, talking about how they don't kill guildies if the match is one-sided, and then see them spawn-camping some pug team and stomping happily in PvP
For example, i do not obviously stomp guildies in a one-sided match, but i also do not spawncamp or stomp less geared/ weaker enemies.
There are players, instead, who spawncamp, stomp and enjoy trolling "pugs", but then become masters of fair play when it comes to their guild mates or allies. It's called hipocrisy in my opinion. And double standards. Such players are bad for our PvP environment.
Here are the very simple issues with fighting guildmates/alliancemates. We are fair with guildmates and alliancemates because we are "allied" with them. Therefore we have a duty to show our loyalty to our alliance or guild. If a match is completely lopsided then out of respect for our "ally" we will not gank them. We will not fight them, we will let them sit on a node and kill pugs to their hearts content. It's our way of showing our allies respect.
If you are not our ally, what do we owe you? Essentially you're an enemy. It's no offense, it's simply part of the game. We chose to show respect to our allies, and fight our enemies. Pretty simple, if you want to call it a double standard then I suppose to some degree that's correct. The same way you would show preference for your family over some random stranger.
As a side not to all this, if you say "GG" then it simply means "good game", it's a sign of sportsmanship. It DOES NOT entitle you to points or for that matter safety. For that you should ask "mind if I get some points for glory?". If you are cool about it most players will allow you to get the points you need. However if you are uncool about any part of losing, don't be surprised if you get rekt upon hopping down from camp.
Simply put guildmates and allies garner respect and preference. Pugs and enemies do not. This logic is internally "consistent".
Wrong. It's not a matter of preference. It's a matter of respect, as you said in the end. Do you respect your family only and disrespect random strangers?
I understand your words but i'm also sorry to say it's such a selfish way to see PvP that i do not agree with it.
And it's what hurts PvP.
You should realize that what you described is more like a "gang" of bullies in real life. Re-read your post.
The bad part is that gangs of bullies in real life are punished. In a game they are not. They don't break any rule so they can ruin the fun for other players and then blame such players for not being strong enough to fight back (to be clear, i am more than capable to fight back as an old time player, but i see the effects on PvP and its community of such behaviours).
And yes, it's double standards and i also call it hipocrisy when such players try to talk about how to improve PvP environment for everyone, when all they care about is, as you described, their own guild/ allies.
At least it's better when players show their true colors. Like "certain" players who replied "not our fault" when i explained them how removing gear gap/ boons exc...would still leave a huge gap between a PvP guild premade and a pug team.
"Do you respect your family only and disrespect random strangers?" When my family is surrounded by random strangers attacking them... yes, yes I do.
Hypocrisy by definition means we do something that violates our own rule. Our rule is not to gank alliance members or guildmates. We do our best not to ever violate that rule intentionally. However we have no such rule for those that lie outside our guild and alliance. Therefore, there is no hypocrisy, unless you choose to make up your own definition.
If you think we're bullies because we won't gank a friend, well you have an interesting definition of bully.
As for the last bit, it's obvious you have an issue with a different topic that you're trying to bring into this one, however it's totally irrelevant. I would go so far as to say that if you want to change people's minds honey is a much better approach than salt.
I've explained why alliances often do what they do, what you feel about that explanation is your choice.
And now you won't attack others cause "friendly fire" ? Sorry, not buying it for one second.
Also what the Hamster are you on about with the other statements as though those somehow relate to this topic? Like leaver penalty and repelling opponents off nodes? What does this stuff even mean? Why is it noone will speak plainly any more? They try to leave things in cryptic messages that fall utterly short.
Like Pando here, why don't you just spit out what you mean?
Now suddenly not fighting under certain circumstances becomes a thing? Also unless I'm mistaken the OP didn't specifically refer to ganking. I agree here though, in a lopsided match get everyone above 600 points and move on.
As to the "GG", language changes over time. The majority of the PvP community has agreed to accept the "GG" call as an acknowledgement that the game is so unbalanced that to continue would result in a match with a 1000 - 0 score. That is NOT a "good game. Perhaps there should have been a new term invented, but by the time it became a thing, it was too late. But the reasons for this situation are more important than the terminology. The big reason is the PvP rewards system. The devs changed the rules, so that any player that does not receive 400 points during the match, they receive no rewards. This was to combat players that fireside camped during match. Sadly, this solution took no consideration of WHY some players chose to sit out a match. There really is no point in a team with an average IL of 2.5k to fight against a 4k IL team.
As far as if we have won the match and the game is over, I will not help you, if you are on my team, 5v1 gank my ally or guilmate as I stated. We've already won, I will chill. If you chose to fight him after that type of loss, you will do it alone. I may even go so far as to tell my guildmate/ally "feel free to kill him, I won't defend him, sorry for the mismatch". Once we've won the match, you will not get my aid killing my peeps.
GG only became a way of asking for points amongst pugs. It is not thought of this way amongst legacy PVPers. The vernacular is something that pugs use as a way of saying "this match sucked, give me points". I will not say GG unless I thought it was a good game (i.e. balanced, close, and well fought). I also will not ask for points. I lost, the game is set up for me not to get points. We circumvent the system by doling them out and it could be called an exploit if people wanted to examine it. However, I fully recognize the state of imbalance in the game as I have written to that effect and give away points to those who ask politely because it's difficult for people starting PVP to get points. Gaining glory for gear is a hazing process instituted by Cryptic with tenacity.
If you want to know how I feel about fixing the problem and getting rid of the need to "ask" for points visit here:
arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1227023/pvp-the-issues-all-of-them
*Addendum:
If you find any "morality", situational or otherwise, in a game "disturbing" perhaps video gaming... or the interwebs for that matter... aren't for you m8?
then, within the framework of this discussion, it is safe to assume that you feel that a PvP guild player owes more loyalty to his guild than to his teammates. That he, or she, shows respect by fighting their hardest & not giving up in the middle of a match, when fighting alongside their guild, but not alongside a team not composed of guildmates.
By the way, this situation does not always apply to games which are already lost. This thread, and the thread which this conversation was spun off from, which can be found in the link below, alos refer to PvP matches where a close game was lost when some players stopped trying in the middle of the match because, "that's muh guild over there." This is the context which makes the defense of a situational morality in PvP so disturbing. If the PvP guilds are manipulating the outcome of matches by queueing onto both teams, that is something that needs to be addressed.
http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1225760/when-will-be-pvp-guild-tricks-penalized-or-is-the-legit-solo-player-always-the-loser
Calling "GG" is something only pugs do, because Premades don't need to call it to get any points. They get the points they need in the first couple minutes of the match. Rewards on the otherhand, are something different. If the losing team gets no points, neither team gets any rewards. Most premades will respect the "GG" call because they know that if the pugs can't get any rewards, they will stop coming. A smaller PvP population is something no one wants. Should it be called something else. Probably. But saying something that is only said @ the end of a fight, is a pretty clear indication that everyone understands what the outcome would be.
I always owe more allegiance to a permanent ally than a temporary one, the same way that they would feel more strongly about their guild than they would about me as a pug. To say otherwise is silly and false. However when we are in PVP my full intent is to win every match and to fight until it is a given that there is no way to win.
So while this "situation" may occur in games that are not already lost I made no commentary about that. When you ask the question or make the assumption that PVP guilds are "manipulating" the Queue to be on both teams it is possible but both highly unlikely and highly unprofitable. Plainly put, when my guild intentionally Queues against each other to try and do inhouses it takes anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour to get into a match calling pops and trying to sync/match Queues. If you are not in a full premade the chance of getting on opposite teams in the same match is even less likely. If they are going to this level of effort to throw a single match then they are wasting hours and hours of time. Why would they do that when they could simply form a group and stomp?
As for calling "GG" is something only pugs do, what do you think PVPers are when they solo Q? Pugs. They are in the same boat as any pug, albeit better geared, built, and potentially skilled. GG was something Premaders said to other Premaders first. Like literally from beta. The fact that pugs took it over and changed it's meaning is not our fault. GG still means good game, it's a literal abbreviation. If you want points for losing a match I would say that perhaps by your same logic we should look into you throwing matches for giving up quickly, saying "GG" and getting free points you didn't earn.
This sounds silly to you I'm sure because of the imbalance. The same way pugs thinking PVP guilds would bother with trying to time Queuing on opposite sides of a team to throw a match to get, what? a lil glory? 3K ad? pffft that's nothing to an end game PVPer. The sooner pugs realize that PVPers don't Q for glory and/or AD they Q for fun and for fighting the better. Believing anything else is incorrect.
But again, maybe Neverwinter PVP is too gear dependent. That needs to change.
There was a lot of back and forth statements that kind of took over this thread which have been removed. If you see any quotes you can't find in the that was likely the reason.
While there is no rule that two or three people shouldn't respond back and forth to each other large amounts of time at some point it is best to agree to disagree and leave the floor open to different opinions.
For some reason he wasn't amused...
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
It seems to me that online gaming veils the intentions and emotions of all people participating. We imagine snarling, evil, puppy-bashing bullies on the other side of the screen, when in reality they are normal human beings. Perhaps some of us should try to not let competitiveness/ego crossover into obsession. This is a DnD product that happens to have an awesome combat/pvp system. I'm sure there are other games out there that offer the hyper-competitive (and balanced) experience.
So I'm of the mindset that if you get curb-stomped, DON'T TAKE IT SO PERSONALLY, and likewise, if the other team/guild shows favoritism to an alliance member then WHO CARES...see previous capitalized statement. Maybe try to not base your happiness/experience on the behaviour of other pvpers.
SoloQ helps ease this, somewhat.
Nuff said, this is my first "online" game so what do I know.
Cheers
(P.S. I include myself in that statement...I have gotten angry a few times. You just have to see it for what it is: A big ball of unbalanced, messy, mostly fun HAMSTER.)
if they set gear score limit of 3.1K at esva cause they know 2.1k noob won't survive it, why do they excpect him to survive a 4.2K "guilde" GF in PVP?
why do they increase they amount of items by hundres each mod and never increase the amount of space in invetory?
in all the analysis they have not figured the amount of play Vs need to stop to dump staff time,
or average time by the fire in PVP Vs GS
Let's try to improve the game we are stuck with or move on, that simple.
Good luck and cheers,
I had a horrible holiday season, cause of Alliances, i was forced in and out of guilds, long story won't bore you guys.
I came to the conclusion, that Alliances don't work at all, not in PVE, but especially not in PVP.
Let me tell you why. In PVE there are simply too many people from different cultures, different time zones, different mindsets under one hood. Now in RL would you share your bed room with dozens of people, who have different views on nearly all subjects, of course not, but none the less in PVE there is less competition and it can work with some bumps, although i won't go into details how many Alliances in PVE are falling now apart, not subject of this thread.
PVP is a completely different beast, here rules the ego and that causes Alliances to fail.
In the past weeks i saw low IL players used as punching bags when there were none to kill and if the poor individuals said i have enough of it, they were instantly kicked.
I saw people suffer on daily basis and only PM between each other, cause they were afraid, if they say no or they attack other Alliance members, they would be kicked and would lose all their hard work/money put in the guild. For those poor guys every day in the game is pure humiliation, running around with duck tape on their mouths.
I saw guilds where one was handed a long Google doc on what not to do with Alliance members if it comes to facing them as opponents.
I saw how one little rank was not allowed to fight the bigger one or the Alliance leaders, cause even the guild feared it would lose it's spot in the Alliance and i could go on and on and on...
Since Alliances is now here, i would say only fix is to make matchmaking put everybody from the same Alliance on the same team and basta. This would solve most of the tensions which lie under the hood and would let the every day player enjoy PVP a tiny bit more. Currently it's just a bad show, no competitiveness at all. More than 50% of the matches is just standing around and maybe chatting, no fighting at all. The small Alliance members are afraid to attack their own fearing a huge drama, which can eventually lead to their kicking and the enemy team has many traitors this way, cause most only mimic a fight or plainly don't do anything at all.
Robert E. Lee
I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself.
Winston Churchill
The human race is a herd. Here we are, unique, eternal aspects of consciousness with an infinity of potential, and we have allowed ourselves to become an unthinking, unquestioning blob of conformity and uniformity. A herd. Once we concede to the herd mentality, we can be controlled and directed by a tiny few. And we are.
David Icke
Your suggestion however will be really difficult due to the low player population. I also disagree with your premise that alliance drama is the main issue. Guildies and alliance members will fight each other until they see that the match is imbalanced. There are a few exceptions but the majority of the bigger alliances on Dragon server do allow for players to attack their guildmates and alliance members in PVP as long as the match is competitive and still going on.
I think a better approach is to normalize gear to an extent. Cryptic wants people to keep buying Zen so they will introduce more unnecessary features like mount powers, artifacts, weapons, enchantments and I get that, but they can still offer a compromise to certain stats such as tenacity and hp.