SS PvP Idea, or, more insanity from Jeet
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Mar 30, 2012, 9:01 pm |
So PvP in the wild, as I understand it, is uncommon at best and near nonexistent at worst. I'm also pretty sure it wasn't always this way.
In my opinion, PvP should be at the heart of this game. We go out there blasting NPCs like so many pop-up targets in Hogan's Alley, collect our paychecks, and go home. It's entertaining and sometimes dangerous but for the most part dead and bloody gangers are the exception rather than the norm. We need to bring PvP up north, where the action is. The problem (among other things) is that's also where all the new guys are, and we don't want some intercept-happy veteran PvPing them right outta Evan. SO. Whadda we do? I'm proposing a simple modification to the CR-matching rule. Up north, put the attacking forces at a slight moderate disadvantage. Say, 15% down from the squad they're intercepting? This gives the squad that finds itself in a forced PvP encounter a fairly solid advantage in terms of pure firepower. It also gives the attackers something to think about: they may be victorious, but it ain't gonna come easy and they'll probably leave some blood on the dunes. To cover the non-sub issue, there could be a coded restriction against PvP involving squads that contain even a single non-subscriber. And of course there is always the PvP on/off button, which prevents those who want absolutely no involvement with this stuff from being forced into it. Of course, they'd better pay attention to their squad leader's settings if they don't want an unexpected surprise on a group scout. ANYWAY, this got pretty long. Key idea is in a Somerset PvP encounter the attackers would be placed at a 15% combat rating disadvantage. |
||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Mar 30, 2012, 9:08 pm |
Sure | ||||||
|
Tez Posted Mar 30, 2012, 9:46 pm |
Sounds good to me, as long as the 15% is balanced enough. | ||||||
|
Juris Posted Mar 30, 2012, 10:10 pm |
PvP sounds scary. Vets would just attack noobs and take their recycled Chasers and Badlanders, because that is what they do.
Seriously, how would this increase the amount of PvP? It just makes it less advantageous to attack, wouldn't this decrease the amount of PvP? |
||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Mar 30, 2012, 10:15 pm |
The only increase would be in the opening up of PvP in Somerset -- there are vastly more squads going out, so more chances for intercepts and PvP. So I'm trying to find a way to use the SS event frequency while keeping new players viable in a PvP encounter.
EDIT: The other possible advantage for noobs in an SS encounter as opposed to elsewhere is they're in multiplayer scouts more often than not, generally with more experienced players. And don't forget the PvP flag, which could default to 'PvP Off' for new guys.... |
||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Mar 30, 2012, 10:44 pm |
Ok I'll play devils advocate and shorten this thread up about 10 pages...
Anti PvP crowd says "hey I dont have time some some munchkin who gets his jollies attacking me and wasteing my time. Pro-PvP crowd says "hey you were gonna use the time for scouting anyway". Anti - PVP I want to play virtual-whack-a-mole until I'm bored of watching my gangers die of old age in SS Hospital and then play world of ####craft 17. I dont want to pvp...at ALL m k get it? Pro - PvP - Part a) then explain to the attacker and truce or pay the truce (usually ridiculously low if non-famous gang). Part b) dont piss people off if you dont want PvP. Anti-pvp crowd says "this could be used to bully and abuse me". Pro PvP : Report griefers as needed. Anti - PvP : Basic coniption fit after the first wilderness intercept in 2 years... Sam : Creates PvP flag or some new unneeded, overly complicated game mechanic to placate the forum screamers. |
||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Mar 30, 2012, 10:58 pm |
I should just stop thinking about this, shouldn't I? | ||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Mar 30, 2012, 11:43 pm |
Yup and here's why.
You can intercept in SS. Anyone who's flagged anyway. No one's done it and most people didn't even know it can be done. There are no trolls under the bridge despite all the bitching, hand wringing and consternation when Sam opened BL for PvP to anyone. Somehow SS got opened too (for flagged only). It's been that way for more than a year and no one said anything and no one did anything. Even though I've had some enemies I would have loved to plow in that time period. It's just not worth casing them out... CR/ matching, casing out their squads and the risk of going in at a disadvantage (usually). The other times I usually just dont have the patience to kit out cars for PvP, have squads taken up for PvP, wait hours for a chance that happens when I am usually busy with something else. Then If I was to actively pvp *anyone* even for fun ...catch and release, all I do is roll the dice on another forum *event* which might result in PvP nerfs. |
||||||
|
Ragnak Posted Mar 30, 2012, 11:46 pm |
I wouldnt say that GT0, it's more the case that the pro PVP crowd need to win over more of the player base. There's a ton of options out there for you to use today and hardly anyone takes advantage of it.
You want PVP - 1. Pump up the interest in the SCL. Camp owners would back any new player interested in the leauges. 2. Do challenges and ladders. 3. Play the prey and RP. Declare you are bringing a lorry of rare equipment from BL to GW. Tell them when you are leaving, the CR of the squad, and declare no one has the gonads to intercept you. Have another player bounty you etc. |
||||||
|
Juris Posted Mar 31, 2012, 12:55 am |
When Scav first started and there were a lot of people playing I had a few random PvP intercepts, but that was because 1) there was no flag and 2) PvP was possible on returns. It was still only about 5% of my scouts, but it was there. You couldn't bounty out of it because Scav has no money. No CR balance either.
Nobody died. Nobody cried foul. I was actually glad to get hit on a return because I was pretty shot up and the 'enemy' squad was cool enough to let me go. If anyone had asked I would've let them go too. Seems like we should do another 'experiment' with unlimited PvP in regular DW and see if the sky falls 
|
||||||
|
Serephe Posted Mar 31, 2012, 3:43 am |
You sure we can pvp in SS Joel? I've never succesfully had a pvp scout there catch a bite. | ||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Mar 31, 2012, 3:59 am |
hmm maybe not..I thought I tried it once just to see if it worked with someone... |
||||||
|
iIIyB Posted Mar 31, 2012, 5:38 am |
The biggest reason i never PvP is the gangers. Either they noobs who can perform and im fine losing them, or its my main crew and wouldnt risk them fighting someone WAY WAY smarter n deadlier then A.I. just not my style.
I would however play PvP if it was alil more like Tact. No loss of life. Example: i go scouting with 2 cars, get 2 loot cars, and head home. I lose my PvP attack on way home, so there goes all 4 of my cars. But my gangers are alive n unhurt, just lost money n pride. Or lets say i win that PvP, my 4 take out his 3, now i ride into SS with 7 cars to sell. U could even ransom special cars back to people
what do you guys think? |
||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Mar 31, 2012, 5:49 am |
I think anti-PvP players deserve their PvP-free zone. Arguing in favor of opening up SS to PvP is going to cause much anger among the crowd that wants to play Farmville-on-wheels. They're entitled to their own slice of the game regardless of the opinion of PvP advocates.
I say we keep SS excluded from PvP but spice it up everywhere else: let's make attackers anonymous! This would have a few notable benefits: 1. A player could attack other players in hopes of looting equipment and vehicles that simply don't spawn with NPCs without being systematically accused of sparking a vendetta against the victim. (For the sake of balance, attacks on a player should be limited to 1 or 2 per week to avoid abuse.) 2. An attacker who does want to start a vendetta against his victim would have the choice of either declaring his identity or applying a decal to his vehicles to give hints about his identity. 3. Most importantly, because of point #1, players wouldn't be afraid of initiating PvP like they are now (barring a few more aggressive exceptions). 4. PLAYERS COULD USE MY BRAIN SLUG SKIN TO GUARANTEE THEIR ANONYMITY: IT'S A FREE SKIN!
|
||||||
|
Serephe Posted Mar 31, 2012, 6:12 am |
NO :P Sorry but one of the best parts about pvp in this game, is that you risk losing guys that you've put hours upon hours into -- and risk killing guys that they've put hours upon hours into, REALLY pissing them off. Which means you gotta start watching your back. |
||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Mar 31, 2012, 6:23 am |
I agree with Sere, and only wish there were a bigger font.
Removing death is completely unacceptable. I'm on the other end of the spectrum: I want to NORMALIZE death, make it routine so gangers aren't protected like endangered pandas. That's wishful thinking though. In response to the need for at least one "PvP-Free Zone," doesn't the flag solve that? |
||||||
|
Serephe Posted Mar 31, 2012, 6:40 am |
The flag does solve that EXCEPT that people scouting with flagged people can be attacked even if they don't want to.
Because of this, and the fact that SS is where MOST of the new guys hang out I see no problem with SS being non-consensual PvP free (you can still do a squad challenge I believe). But everywhere else, PvP should have consequences beyond simple gear. |
||||||
|
*Tango* Posted Mar 31, 2012, 12:05 pm |
|
||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Mar 31, 2012, 12:24 pm |
HA! 
|
||||||
|
JS Posted Mar 31, 2012, 12:27 pm |
Yet, anyone can PvP any day most likely by advertising in the lobby for a squad challenge. People PvP in SCL weekly. There are PvP events on occasion like Rocktacular. There is no "Anti-PvP" crowd. Let's all try to be intellectually honest here, we are not talking about just "PvP" here. When there is angst, it comes from intercepts which are a part of PvP. There ARE, pro-intercept and anti-intercept factions and people in-between. Keep the hysterical rhetoric out of it and make a point without the hyperventilation, and try to keep it honest. Some people want to be able to intercept others at will, some of us do not. but please stop with the "Anti-PvP" non-sense because it is simply not helpful, nor is it true. |
||||||
|
Serephe Posted Mar 31, 2012, 1:02 pm |
Pretty sure Joel was just talking about the anti-pvp crowd that yell and kick and scream like babies anytime someone comes up with an idea for a type of PvP which you can opt out of anyway.
Or the people who had their flags on and still got upset when they were attacked, yet refused to turn them off. There's still folks like that around, though the majority of people tend to be more reasonable. |
||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Mar 31, 2012, 1:05 pm |
That sure read like a lot of yelling and kicking and screaming on Joel's part. | ||||||
|
Serephe Posted Mar 31, 2012, 1:25 pm |
Of course, didn't you know, that's how things get done around here. 
|
||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Mar 31, 2012, 1:40 pm |
I probably have a bounty on my head now. | ||||||
|
*Tango* Posted Mar 31, 2012, 1:48 pm |
Dora needs a brain slug.
Nope, that's a brain slug. It's that tingly feeling when you try and think of anything at all. |
||||||
|
Serephe Posted Mar 31, 2012, 1:50 pm |
Getting back on topic, I'll repeat that opening PvP in SS is a bad idea, even with the flag system in place simply because group scouts would open up new players to PvP possibly before they understand there can even BE PvP. If it was possible to set it so that only squads with all participants flagged were open to interception, I can see it working, but other than that probably not.
As far as advantages go, I've attacked people with higher CR before. 15% doesn't really make a whole lot of difference.
|
||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Mar 31, 2012, 4:06 pm |
I guess I'm using the terms incorrectly. I say "PvP," but I mean "intercept."
None of these put your guys' lives and cars on the line. They're not "the real deal." We shoot at each other a little bit, we stop shooting when things get dangerous, we go fix our cars and get irritated and huffy if actual blood was drawn. I'd like the opportunity to be the badguy if I want to. Join the raiders faction. Paint my cars black and have people tremble when they see my name in the lobby list. That kinda thing. Maybe deny intercepts of any squad containing a player who does not yet have his 'wasteland veteran' badge. Whatever. I'm wasting time here obviously. Sure would be fun though. A squad of five players suddenly finding themselves intercepted by a squad of several pirate players? With all the vendettas, personalities, and resulting chaos? That wouldn't suck one little bit. Shame we get so attached to our virtual cars and imaginary friends. I'm done here. Sorry I brought it up. Hysterical picture earlier though! Pretty much says it all. |
||||||
|
Serephe Posted Mar 31, 2012, 4:13 pm |
You're welcome to intercept me down south, but I don't think it'd work out too well for ya. 
|
||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Mar 31, 2012, 4:25 pm |
Hahahaha yeah, I'm not real established down there. Thanks for your very generous offer though!
And that's why I'm focused on Somerset. It's where the PEOPLE are. But it's looking fairly unrealistic at this point. |
||||||
|
Serephe Posted Mar 31, 2012, 4:26 pm |
Yeah SS ain't a good idea for the reasons I mentioned above.  Sorry dude. Probably won't happen. But I wish you luck.
|
||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Mar 31, 2012, 5:10 pm |
Maybe I'll just stake out Elmsfield and make all the courier runs and junkie dropoffs a bit more interesting!
|
||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Mar 31, 2012, 5:20 pm |
I'm 100% calm. I don't give a flying phuck if SS is wide open intercepts anymore or anywhere else for that matter. I am only worried that it happens, and the response from the fallout is an over-the-top response. I am 100% intellectually HONEST also, keep your insults to yourself. I gave a very accurate but abbreviated history of how the argument usually goes. |
||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Mar 31, 2012, 8:17 pm |
You left yourself out of the argument Joel. You hurt the PvP cause as much with your banter as any detractor. | ||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Mar 31, 2012, 8:25 pm |
That's your opinion. The first (or probably 2nd or 3rd) fight over PvP I stayed out of it and that's when the useless PvP flag came in. Now I'm a huge loudmouth about it. Things improved a little bit, but frankly it's all much ado about nothing as I predicted when BL went "open PvP intercepts for everyone". No one got griefed and there wasn't any more intercepts than before. It doesn't really happen. So ya, I will toot my own horn about it, especially when I'm right. Want PvP in this Game GTO? Get Sam to put in the Risk game for camps that was suggested on the rules council forum I believe. PvP is fighting, in anger(or for a goal), for real. Everything else is grabassing. It only happens in special events now. |
||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Mar 31, 2012, 9:41 pm |
This post is about interceptions, not consensual PvP.
I'm contradicting what I wrote earlier, but upon further reflection, I've changed my mind: I think PvP should be opened like everywhere else in SS. Here's why: 1. The PvP flag. Players who want to set their flag to PvP-open are making a conscious decision to expose themselves to the threat of player interception. Whether you are consenting or not, you could be immune to player attacks if you had chosen to be. 2. The entirety of Evan's over-inflated economy is hidden away behind the absence of PvP in Somerset. Disregarding the obvious potential for NPC-farming for the sake of brievity, take a look at the SS marketplace: anyone can tell the treasure trove of products being sold there aren't local. Somewhere along the line, the seller snuck it in from the South. With SS immune to PvP, interceptors never have a chance to steal away a bit of cash and equipment from the money-mongers of the marketplace. If PvP interceptors had the means to stalk that SS-GW alley from the SS end, players with an open flag might think twice about bragging so loudly about their profits in the lobby. 3. All the toys that don't end up on the SS marketplace are shamelessly flaunted in SS scouts by almost everyone. Last I checked, this was the post-apoc: I never dreamed it could be a less paranoid era than our own. 4. Because of Somerset's prominence over all other Evan towns (i.e. number of available players in SS), the ideal spot for running PvP intercepts would be the SS-GW alley. As long as SS holds such a massive chunk of the entire player base, and as long as GW is the only 'gateway' to the richer South, there will exist no acceptable substitute for this wasted segment of PvP potential. Currently players are forced to guess where they might find an opponent: They have to choose from 7 towns, totalling 16 (I think?) avenues of approach. Unless an interceptor has spread a HUGE amount of gangers and equipment across the entire continent (an unlikely scenario, excepting a handful of fanatic players) and can intercept in the town of his choice, an attacker has absolutely no tools at his disposition to deduce the potential concentration of targets in any given town. If you've never tried to intercept someone -anyone- in DW, it's a lot like fishing: you sit around for a very, very long time and nothing happens; often you get nothing for your troubles. 5. The odds of being intercepted are stacked in the defender's favor. This may not be a fact known to all, but a player who chooses to target another's squad only has a chance of successfully intercepting his target. Between the consistently low number of active PvP interceptors (Shark being the last notable one almost 2 years ago, I think) and the low chance of successful intercepts, players with their flag set to PvP-open aren't running much of a risk: at best, the inteceptors could probably encounter 5% to 10% of available squads? And that is by no means a guaranteed victory over the defender! 6. If for any reason you can't or won't take part in a PvP intercept, you always have the option to expend the most readily available ressource in Evan, next to standard tires: money (pay the bounty). 7. If you disagree with points 2 through 6, did I mention you're free to opt out of PvP entirely? One important point: The only difference between SS and everywhere else should be that squads travelling with even one player set to PvP-off with his flag should be immune to player attacks. This alone should be more than enough to protect both new players and those who categorically refuse to partake in PvP. --- I have been running my flag on PvP-open since it was first implemented. For me, the thrill of PvP doesn't come from organizing an event with a friendly player in the pub before giving him a big gay man-hug and heading out to the waste for smiley-smiley-good-times. No. Ever since my flag has been set to open, I have drastically altered my vehicle design to make each and every one powerful, endurant and expendable. Every time I leave town, I consider the very real possibility that I will be attacked by a hostile player with whom I have no prior arrangement. So how often have I been intercepted? Twice. Once while running a travel in a courier... and I was intercepted by accident by another courier. The second time by Glow Plug, who turned tail and ran when he accepted that I would give him no easy targets. I want intercepts to be a real possibility - a prominent factor in the mind of any player who decides to go out into the wild with an open flag. Players need to be encouraged to give in to occasional aggression. It starts with a much more comprehensive and open PvP field, but -more importantly- it is completed by players accepting interceptions for what the are: nothing more and nothing less than interceptions. It's nothing personal: it's business. Just ask the marketplace fatcats. |
||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 1, 2012, 1:12 am |
Groove's post makes me think I should spend a lot more time on preparation before I put together my next Intercepts/Non-Consentual PvP (NCPVP) suggestion.
+1 on the entire freakin' post. |
||||||
|
Serephe Posted Apr 1, 2012, 2:46 am |
Bah I intercepted far more people than Shark, Groove. Took out more people too, and actually made a (very significant) profit out of piracy. | ||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 1, 2012, 6:13 am |
Ya know, I'd bet if there were some way to compare and/or equalize the specializations and ganger skill -- as opposed to just the combat rating -- there would be less resistance to this idea overall.
You can put two guys on the field of battle in identical cars and have one hellofa fight... or you can give one of them Sniper 4 and Defensive Driving 2 and you've got little more than an execution. Hasn't the idea of incorporating ganger skill into the CR been raised before, in the context of the SCL? Maybe that discussion (if it's still going on) should be expanded to include squad intercepts. |
||||||
|
Groove Champion Posted Apr 1, 2012, 7:15 am |
That idea might have merit, GTO, but I like to think that if I hit a player enough times, and he's putting his top gangers in his vehicles every time, he will end up regretting his choice and will eventually review his style of play. I don't think another amendment to the game parameters is the right idea: anyone with guts already has the means to show the 'elite' the error of their ways 
Serephe: Your efforts are commendable! I might have actively seeked out targets if I hadn't been so concerned with the inevitable moralizing backlash that would ensue. |
||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Apr 1, 2012, 12:47 pm |
Aye good post, it should be this way, be fun to pvp in ss with your buddies against your friends/enemies and their buddies just because EVERYONE has their PVP flags ON |
||||||
|
JS Posted Apr 1, 2012, 2:45 pm |
Yes, by me, many times. The lack of some kind of a ganger skill/spec balancing mechanic is the SINGLE greatest failing of the balance system in this game. I can very much understand that a new player is not exactly interested in non-consensual intercepts when they have to face that 300 skill ganger with their new guys. Interestingly, many of the Pro-Intercept players are rabidly against this. I find that quite telling actually. |
||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 1, 2012, 2:47 pm |
Indeed. | ||||||
|
JS Posted Apr 1, 2012, 3:01 pm |
As a side note, personally I am not really against SS being open to intercept PvP so long as there is a way for those who do not want it to opt out. And by opt out I do not mean a bounty system, I mean to be immune if they wish.
Additionally, I do not think such a system should give people who opt into intercept PvP some kind of bonus to training, or any other incentive kind of thing one can think of. If PvP intercepts are a good part of the game and desireable, then they will stand on their own merits. Incentives are made for things that people would not otherwise desire to do, and that is no way to design/run a game mechanic like this. I think the experience of Scavenger has shown that a lot of what Joel has said about much ado about nothing is valid although I would add this. I intercepted quite a few people early on, probably did about 10 PvP events that were either me intercepting or random encounters when lots of people were playing scav. On several occasions there were probably some hard feelings generated because I was asked to truce and did not. Now, we all walked away friends, but the fact is that several of the players were less than pleased. After a few of those I realized that it's not for me due to the underlying feelings. Essentially, when a person is intercepted when they do not want to be, and they lose, hard feelings soon follow. I don't think people will start to imemediately execute each others gangers. However, as I said above, giving an indivdual an option is IMO always a good thing. |
||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Apr 1, 2012, 3:02 pm |
come on when as this ever happened? (yes it was PvP open in SS before Shark started hunting vets and noobs with his own low spec noobs) |
||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 1, 2012, 4:13 pm |
I'm gonna keep this one short. Lately I've been rambling and probably losing my key points.
Tinker: It's not a question of when it has happened. The simple fact is the idea of catching a HCR round in the face from a vehicle that's not even close enough for them to see, much less shoot, scares a lot of casual players and new guys. JS: I know the "hard feelings" thing is there. It makes exactly ZERO sense to me -- we're playing a game with cars and guns and maybe I'm crazy but I expect my guys are gonna get hurt and/or dead -- but it's there and apparently it's always gonna be there. And that's why there's a freaking FLAG. If people don't want their precious stuff shot up, turn it to "PvP NO!" Problem solved. But c'mon, people. These are imaginary guys driving pretend cars to make virtual money to hire more imaginary guys and buy more pretend cars. In fact, later today I think I'll drive my gangleader into a wall at 100+ mph to prove he's only imaginary. Watch. The real world - and my personal well-being - will be totally unaffected. I'll make sure to announce it in the lobby.
|
||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Apr 1, 2012, 4:31 pm |
Yes by all means make it even more complicated (by a LOT) to intercept. That will help. Again if you want to balance specs then balance skill too a 300 gunner is a LOT better than a 150gunner 150Lrg gunner... We need LESS complicated not more complicated. As Groove said, use your good gangers...lose your good gangers. So since we've been over that point many times: The arguments for: 1. Perceived to be more equal 2. vets have less advantage than newbies 3. will encourage people to participate. These arguments have been shot down a few times by these counterpoints: 1. It is not more equal - it puts high skill ganger at risk of ganking (if this proposed system would actually have an effect it must be drastic). 2. Vets will still be able beatup newbies no matter what handicap. No one has done this since Darth and Shark and Shark used lowbie gangers...think about that. 3. I've found even with good advantage some people just will not PvP...they just dont want to for whatever reason. This will not encourage anyone(but maybe you JS) to PvP or fight intercept when they can just pay a small fee on the truce button after the interceptor wasted even more time trying desperately to match CR/Skill and specs to his defender. This is not the story Harrison Bergeron (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron) by Kurt Vonnegut. It's darkwind ffs. |
||||||
|
*Tango* Posted Apr 1, 2012, 4:45 pm |
for skill matching you can always just go by the total number of specializations. that will favor people who cross train, but I don't see that as a problem unless you have a fierce desire to rally around people who don't. |
||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Apr 1, 2012, 4:53 pm |
So Tango you figure a 300 gunner is the same as a 150/150 gunner large gunner? And you've been playing 2 years now?
You know what do what the #### you guys want I'm gonna light this game on ####ing fire. |
||||||
|
*Tango* Posted Apr 1, 2012, 4:57 pm |
I didn't say either of those things. Does anyone run their Gunners up to 300 and not cross-train? |
||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Apr 1, 2012, 4:58 pm |
How does just counting spec not disadvantage cross training, think about it you [[this personal attack removed by Marshal JeeTeeOh in the interest of general civility]] |
||||||
|
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 1, 2012, 5:28 pm |
"What do I want?"
I want PvP intercepts available throughout Evan, Somerset included. Any other discussion is trying to find some common ground that'll have everyone (reasonably) happy. And now what I want is to lock up this thread. The TOPIC was a possible CR disadvantage for attackers. Unfortunately it was gradually hijacked and turned into another large-scale PvP ragefest. I'm done with it. We'll call this a resounding "NO THAT WON'T FIX IT EITHER" for the relative CR adjustments. |