Manners

[Sharkith]

Completely irrelevant as resurrection sickness is long gone by the time you get into action again.

To be honest Briannon you'r more or less trying to enforce your own view on the game onto others who really want to play their own game. Yes, I do agree about the politeness etc, but you can't change people's mind about RvR.

Phew,

I go away for a day or two and come back to see a nice heavy discussion. Zync I am sorry but I think that this actually has very little to do with play styles. A lot of the discussion focusses on individuals which is also not really going to give us the answers. The simple fact is that we are in a difficult position in a game like this Kallima has hit the nail on the head you cannot enforce rules.

To try and enforce a 'no-add' rule is a huge mistake because the rule itself is ambiguous and leaves people in a real quandry. What however is clear that if people use the rule to be ignorant and nasty to each other (on the subject of the thread) then there is something wrong. You are entitled to have norms and rules for behaviour but you need to consider if your rule is clear. In this instance it seems it has not appeared very clear. Now should you (Zync) blame the adder or blame the rule?

Who is to be held accountable your holding to a rule that doiesn't really exist most of the time in RvR and which might actually be a myth? Or should you perhaps then see the person who came to help you in what sounded to them to be a fairly desperate situation as a person aiming to help?

Go to FH (wear glves and wash yourself afterwords) over5 there they have a long thread wondering why no-one is doing this mythical 8v's8 fighting. Ponder on that and I ask you - does this rule exist as a generalisable thing that all players can hold to? I think not.

Then think again - what if you petition Mythic to have a system of signals in game that would allow people to know if a group or individual wants added or not? The current envrionment does not allow this so called rule to be enforced and you are in error to claim that people should follow a rule that makes no sense to anyone in the many situations they find themselves in.

That said you have been polite and reasoned - indeed most of the posts are reasonable here so at least we know that the most important rule of this forum and community is still somewhat in tact.

My final point is that the rule is itself mostly deployed by those who would like to make themselves somehow better more honourable than the rest. Why the need to promote inequality?

As for Kes you will always have my respect I was online when the incident happened but I think I missed it.

Kind regards

Sharkith

[Briannon]

Actually Sharkith, I think I'm gonna ignore the "no-adds" rule. It's a contrivance that is not part of the game design and works against the very essence of realm v realm combat. What I will do is ignore anyone who I know doesn't want help in a fight, be they winning or dying (i.e I won't add to their elitist fights) but apart from that if I see a mid or an alb in our frontiers then as far as I'm concerned they're a legitimate target.

[Tuorin]

There's places in this game for realm vs realm, 8 vs 8, 1 vs 1, 8 vs 98, 1 vs 16, 2 vs 823. I think you can't ignore the fact that a lot of the argument for 8 vs 8 is that the max groupsize is 8 for a single group. If it was 10, it would be 10 v 10 and so on. The no add bit is sometimes taken too far by both of the rvr people, ie the 8man(person) group, or the not in that group people. There's battlegroups, chat groups, keeps, relics and all sorts to keep everyone occupied as well as the 8 vs 8s or whatever. With the action being limited to one zone seemingly atm due to two alb keeps being owned, there's almost zero potential for the 8 vs 8s and tbh you can't criticise anyone for adding or whatever. I would imagine it is extremely frustrating for some people who dont get groups to be told not to get any rps from attacking enemies. Where are they ever going to get any?

Most of the class balancing appears to be done on the 8 vs 8 precept however it seems. The game isnt balanced still after 4 years almost, but at equal realm rank with the best groups of each given realm class and abilitywise( ignore player behind the class in that example) it isnt too far out of whack to make it terribly onerous on any given realm.

The best thing that can happen from any server clustering, and I have my own doubts, is that there will be more zones to rvr in and more chance for everyone, whatever their game persuasion to get some rvr satisfaction. It may allow the 8 v 8 people to fight in a given zone, the non 8 vs 8 to in another or the same and the battlegroup/keeptakers to do whatever they prefer. From sundays example of zerg wars, I hate to think how bad triple the enemies would be in the same spot.

NF was in some ways an attempt to stop the mindless 8 vs 8 around emain and it has done. What it did do was drive some of those players away. If the cluster is going to be effective it will allow people to have more choice, the 8 vs 8 or 16 vs 16 to fight their stuff and the others theirs. It won't preclude any from combining or just enjoying realm combat, however its each to its own persuasion. A lot of computers can't handle the keep stuff and it is very disillusioning if you aren't a certain class, so imo there should be a place for all types of combat in the game. Personally I don't enjoy keeps, especially on my hero, but that's choice. I always help the realm out though. As far as adding, personally there is a lot of enjoyment from beating another group as 8 people and similarly sometimes if you lose but have had a good go. I don't think in the current climate its wise to dictate don't add to anyone. If its too near a keep/bridge, then that's the reality and there are others that play the game for their enjoyment.

[Sharkith]

hi,

nice post and I actually don't disagree where I have a subtle problem is with those that define a rule i.e. on adds and then fail to appreciate it is not actually workable in most RvR situations. Sure it happens that some can spot 8v8 (after counting or whatever) but it rarely happens. Why invent the rule and try to enforce it and then balme people if a) the game mechanics do not allow for it and b) on average it fails?

Notwithstanding that some like it when they get it and not knocking those that like it but if you can't get it why wish for it....

[Cryn]

No adds has always been hit or miss at best, for the simple reason that there are two completely polarised approaches. Some people would be annoyed if you watched them die when you could have helped, others will be annoyed if you add. The main issue is how people handle their annoyance. To me, adding on someone who doesn't want you to is arguably bad form, but giving someone aggro because they joined the fight is always wrong.

[Ovi]

No adds has always been hit or miss at best, for the simple reason that there are two completely polarised approaches. Some people would be annoyed if you watched them die when you could have helped, others will be annoyed if you add. The main issue is how people handle their annoyance. To me, adding on someone who doesn't want you to is arguably bad form, but giving someone aggro because they joined the fight is always wrong.

Very well put

[Briannon]

To me, adding on someone who doesn't want you to is arguably bad form...

I can see your point here, but I guess my issue is how do you find out which is which? A non-add or a please help fight?

Last night, I tried out the idea of politely asking before engaging in a fight whilst out in albion. On one occasion Hibernia was attacking a keep tower and a number of people in my battle group were attacking the NPCs. Because I wasn't in their actual group I did a /say asking if I could please join in, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the battlers were too preoccupied with the fight to respond. Being a good and kindly person I hung back waiting for a response and when no reply was forthcoming I wandered off to do something else. So imho that didn't work.

My next approach was to post in /bu a question asking if it was OK if I saw an alb or mid to attack them. We agreed that it was best to find the enemy, post a question on FH asking for permission and then, only then, attacking if granted consent. By this time, you can probably tell, the idea of not engaging the enemy in the frontiers before getting permission from someone to do so was becoming something of a joke.

So, I tried to be fair to all concerned and before I made any further comments on this matter I decided to test out, in the heat of battle, the idea of playing RvR by the no adds/no leach ruleset. I think most people present would agree that it didn't really work too well. By the end I logged out having accumulated just under 3,000 rps for the evening. At that rate it would take me 19.17 YEARS of playing every night to get to RR12.

EDIT: make that 21.38 years to get to RR12.

[Bidi]

You're damned if you do and damned if you dont.

On xcal I have verbally abused for adding, not helping, ressing with a 10% and not ressing at all...

I play my own game now and the people I play with have play by pretty much the same rules. We try to use common sense.

Both sides are right to a degree, but verbally abusing somebody in game for adding is a bit silly and extreme. What I find so amazing is that all these people that have a go for adding do so within a stones throw of a major keep.

For crying out loud if you want fg vs fg then take it away from the populated areas. if you dont you simply have no grounds to complain when somebody adds on you imho.

Just my 2 cents worth.



Big Edit: I have been verbally abused, not verbally abused others....phew..tks for pointing that out Bri..

[Briannon]

You're damned if you do and damned if you dont.

On xcal I have verbally abused for adding, not helping, ressing with a 10% and not ressing at all...

Bidi, was that really that YOU have abused or you have BEEN abused? Important distinction.

[Bidi]

Bidi, was that really that YOU have abused or you have BEEN abused? Important distinction.

Opps "been verbally abused"

Big typo soz..