Uthgard • View topic - I dont understand Trishins point of view..

I dont understand Trishins point of view..

22 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2

Ronian Phoenix Knight Posts: 1556 Joined: Jan 12, 2008 01:00	by Ronian » Jul 31, 2011 21:10 So if there is a fight Alb vs Mid fg and a Hib fg prefers to add the albs it is ok. On the other hand helping or sparing someone is wrong because you prefer some players WITHOUT any kind of agreement. Now Trishin did you play live? On my server Mids and Hibs sometimes teamed up vs Albs because they were so many (more than 60% of the server population). At least the Mids understand how to play correct: Solo RvR has been nerfed several times by the GMs now. Why do you hate it?

Nymeros Phoenix Knight Posts: 1426 Joined: Apr 12, 2009 00:00	by Nymeros » Jul 31, 2011 21:16 We now have confirmation from the last thread that it is indeed (still) allowed to: a) not add fights b) not initiate fights So now we wait for the next ban to see if the GMs got their own words right. Maybe now they'll ban for adding, because that's all that's left.

Runental Phoenix Knight Posts: 1163 Joined: Aug 21, 2009 00:00 Location: Funkytown	by Runental » Jul 31, 2011 21:23 Ok example: Ramboz and Buddys who dont care about anything fight a low rr hib and me or me (+buddys) (who's ganked 2 years by him) help the hib,- kill ramboz. Hib survive. [Eleras] Statement,- Ban.. because team up with 2nd realm. Another example: Albion start a relicraid..(mage) in midgard. Hibernia see the chance to get his own (str) relics back from midgard. 2 Realms cooperate vs. one. so, ban 100 albs and hibs? well, as i sayd- if this goes live, its time to leave this server ONE a Shaman solo Video TWO a Shaman solo Video

Eleras Gryphon Knight Posts: 321 Joined: Sep 15, 2009 00:00	by Eleras » Jul 31, 2011 21:52 Nymeros wrote:We now have confirmation from the last thread that it is indeed (still) allowed to: a) not add fights b) not initiate fights So now we wait for the next ban to see if the GMs got their own words right. Maybe now they'll ban for adding, because that's all that's left. wrong. i said i don't care. this is more a personal comment. has nothing to do with rules. rules say: §3.3 Cooperation between players and realms Deliberate cooperation between players of different realms is forbidden. The server/game concept states that the realms are in a never ending war against each other and there shall be no exception from this situation. Unintended cooperation between players (example: three players of different realms fighting) is of course allowed. As soon as players or groups of different realms start to organize their fighting, it becomes a rule violation. - like 2 realms vs 1 so we can't say you aren't allowed to add. but we can say that you shouldn't ally with another realm, because §3.3 says that. of course you could say that we need to ban someone who isn't adding a 1 on 1 fight. but i guess the community wouldn't like it. but making alliances between realms should not get a confirmed habit. the only exceptions will be some kind of upcoming events, where 2 realms might fight together vs the 3rd realm, but thats another story. i just want to recap it one last time: not adding a 1 on 1 fight is not the problem (but you have to keep in mind that it is hard for a gm, if there are siting about 20 players at amg fighting one after the other, because it might be a rvr agreement), just don't ally with another realm vs the other and its fine. the decission of adding or not is on everyones own mind, but building an alliance and fighting on the other realm is forbidden. and one last thing: it is very hard for us, to be sure if it is an ally by chance, or an arranged alliance, and because of that there was a warning, i was not that polite in the discussion - i'm sorry for that - but there was no ban, just a warning. You have an idea for an event? Send me a pm and tell me more about it!

Runental Phoenix Knight Posts: 1163 Joined: Aug 21, 2009 00:00 Location: Funkytown	by Runental » Jul 31, 2011 21:56 Runental wrote:Albion start a relicraid..(mage) in midgard. Hibernia see the chance to get his own (str) relics back from midgard. 2 Realms cooperate vs. one. so, ban 100 albs and hibs? ONE a Shaman solo Video TWO a Shaman solo Video

Eleras Gryphon Knight Posts: 321 Joined: Sep 15, 2009 00:00	by Eleras » Jul 31, 2011 21:57 if the hibs stand in the albs a gm should act - yes. You have an idea for an event? Send me a pm and tell me more about it!

Runental Phoenix Knight Posts: 1163 Joined: Aug 21, 2009 00:00 Location: Funkytown	by Runental » Jul 31, 2011 21:59 ok useless, i'am out. ofc they WONT run together- but they cooperate.. its the same thing. anyway, no more to discuss. Last edited by Runental on Jul 31, 2011 22:01, edited 1 time in total. ONE a Shaman solo Video TWO a Shaman solo Video

lsoup Warder Posts: 31 Joined: Aug 02, 2010 00:00	by lsoup » Jul 31, 2011 22:01 Eleras wrote:if the hibs stand in the albs a gm should act - yes. Wait...what? I may be misunderstanding this (English clearly is not your first language), but, are you saying that in the example: Supposing Mids own STR/POW relics Albs form relic raid to take POW relics Hibs, seeing a raid in progress, go for STR relics considering Mids are already pressed on defense This would constitute a bannable offense?

Eleras Gryphon Knight Posts: 321 Joined: Sep 15, 2009 00:00	by Eleras » Jul 31, 2011 22:04 no^^ i mean it literally. On your example it would be like this: Supposing Mids own STR/POW relics Albs form relic raid to take POW relics Hibs, seeing a raid in progress, and hib goes for the POW relics aswell, attacking together with alb as one unit. You have an idea for an event? Send me a pm and tell me more about it!

lsoup Warder Posts: 31 Joined: Aug 02, 2010 00:00	by lsoup » Jul 31, 2011 22:09 So, essentially, the rule is interpreted currently as follows: You may choose to attack an enemy. You may choose not to attack an enemy. You may choose to attack an enemy already engaged with an ally. You may choose not to attack an enemy already engaged with an ally. You may NOT choose to attack an enemy already engaged with another enemy unless you have the intention to kill both enemies immediately. You may choose to not attack an enemy already engaged with another enemy. Is this correct? Edit: To include also the above examples: You may choose to attack an enemy keep or stronghold when said enemy is distracted elsewhere by the other enemy. You may NOT choose to attack the same enemy keep or stronghold as another enemy unless you have the intention to kill both enemies immediately. Last edited by lsoup on Jul 31, 2011 22:11, edited 1 time in total.

ZaiQQ Eagle Knight Posts: 900 Joined: Jan 09, 2011 07:24	by ZaiQQ » Jul 31, 2011 22:10 So what about: I'm having a 1v1 vs ronia, some alb decides to add our fight, we both turn and kill him, reg and restart our 1v1 without any communication. That would get us banned huh?

Ronian Phoenix Knight Posts: 1556 Joined: Jan 12, 2008 01:00	by Ronian » Jul 31, 2011 22:11 Yep, thats what I meant. Any other action is just stupid or brainless Other example: Runental fights vs Scout, Minstrel and Paladin. And I help him and got less hitpoints then him (because he can heal himself). So when I dont attack him I get banned ?!?

Eleras Gryphon Knight Posts: 321 Joined: Sep 15, 2009 00:00	by Eleras » Jul 31, 2011 22:14 ZaiQQ wrote:So what about: I'm having a 1v1 vs ronia, some alb decides to add our fight, we both turn and kill him, reg and restart our 1v1 without any communication. That would get us banned huh? this is what i said before: it makes it very hard for us to decide if it is an alliance or not. the best thing would be to avoid such situations. but it really looks strange for a gm if there are 2 fighting, another one comes, helps one of them, waves hugs and leaves. if you continue your fight it might not be that bad, like you said, but it still would look very strange. You have an idea for an event? Send me a pm and tell me more about it!

ZaiQQ Eagle Knight Posts: 900 Joined: Jan 09, 2011 07:24	by ZaiQQ » Jul 31, 2011 22:19 Eleras wrote: ZaiQQ wrote:So what about: I'm having a 1v1 vs ronia, some alb decides to add our fight, we both turn and kill him, reg and restart our 1v1 without any communication. That would get us banned huh? this is what i said before: it makes it very hard for us to decide if it is an alliance or not. the best thing would be to avoid such situations. but it really looks strange for a gm if there are 2 fighting, another one comes, helps one of them, waves hugs and leaves. if you continue your fight it might not be that bad, like you said, but it still would look very strange. It wouldn't look strange to us who got the fight. This happens on occasion, not very often but its pretty much the same thing for 8v8, when an enemy group pulls out to let you kill the adders. And as ronia stated, if he helps out in a 3v1, would he be forced to engage a fight he would surley lose (being visible, lower hp, maybe ra's down).

lsoup Warder Posts: 31 Joined: Aug 02, 2010 00:00	by lsoup » Jul 31, 2011 22:23 Eleras wrote: ZaiQQ wrote:So what about: I'm having a 1v1 vs ronia, some alb decides to add our fight, we both turn and kill him, reg and restart our 1v1 without any communication. That would get us banned huh? this is what i said before: it makes it very hard for us to decide if it is an alliance or not. the best thing would be to avoid such situations. but it really looks strange for a gm if there are 2 fighting, another one comes, helps one of them, waves hugs and leaves. if you continue your fight it might not be that bad, like you said, but it still would look very strange. So, this would be construed as: If you are engaged with an enemy, and a player of the third realm engages either of the first two combatants, you may NOT choose to kill only one of the enemies and withdraw from the fight. I don't know about this one, it seems like a very gray area. Suppose that you are a class with Vanish and you see that you cannot finish off both enemies at your current HP/timer level. So you would Vanish after killing one to recuperate. This would be one of those 'strange situations' which you have referenced. Perhaps, as you have stated, /hug and /wave emotes would be the most 'strange' part of it? I am not sure. This needs more clarification, I think.