Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 57

Thread: Is this forum still alive?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CimmerianHoX View Post
    My guild is Red Lotus. I have only ever played on Wiccana and Set servers. I did RP with Sahada Berjara and The Fallen before now. My character is Jiahuo. Currently can't access the game as I'm on vacation, but I try to keep tabs with my guild.
    Ah, then it's from this forum that I know your name. You have been a regular contributor for forever, it seems. Glad you're still here.

    or else a very patient host with a long time frame for people to meet up, similar to Invicta's old Tesso Thursdays.
    Something like again that would be wonderful.
    (lol started to edit but leaving it because it's entertaining. "Type good, I do. Unnecessary, word order.")

    Good, frequent RP should not be difficult to access. SHI offers a stomping ground, but I suppose it tends to begin and end with tavern RP. I used to take people out on adventures into the nearby desert or on boatrides north into Tarantia and Cimmeria to seek some artifact or another, but even that was infrequent. Having a guild seems to be the best way to find like-minded people these days.
    Yes, I love RP out in the world.

    The closed group that goes off on some particular mission is good fun and can be as heavy or light as the participants wish.

    But being open to outside influence is also fun (usually even more fun, in my opinion). Another time when my character and her business partner were in a cave on some business, and some RPers from another guild showed up to oppose us. Damn that generated hours of fantastic fun deep intense RP, with lasting consequences and ripples, as well.

    Good stuff happens with RP out in the world!
    Last edited by Sendra; 6th July 2015 at 19:59.

  2. #22

    Default

    We did some PvE Rp about a month ago in the Scorpion caves. The big problem is a shortage of RPing soldier classes that can tank. That said we managed ok... I even got an extra PvP kill in the process >.>

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamsmith View Post
    We did some PvE Rp about a month ago in the Scorpion caves. The big problem is a shortage of RPing soldier classes that can tank. That said we managed ok... I even got an extra PvP kill in the process >.>
    Yeah, you killed me, you wretched destroyer of dreams of a positive kdr.

    As far as soldiers that can tank, you've got a conk and dt that both spend more time in k6 and uc than anything, and we're working on corrupting a guard that outgears us both.
    I don't make points I make dents.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unutterable View Post
    Yeah, you killed me, you wretched destroyer of dreams of a positive kdr.

    As far as soldiers that can tank, you've got a conk and dt that both spend more time in k6 and uc than anything, and we're working on corrupting a guard that outgears us both.
    You should take comfort in the fact that I wouldn't have been able to kill you had I meant to... The days of ToSy positive K/d is but a fond and fleeting memory

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamsmith View Post
    You should take comfort in the fact that I wouldn't have been able to kill you had I meant to... The days of ToSy positive K/d is but a fond and fleeting memory
    Depends on the team and the player. I still see some Toses raep face here and there. Put a solid team with them and they'll give you nightmares.

    And speaking of, seeing as the idea of open-world pvp still seems to appeal to some folks, if we could get 6-10 people interested in some small-scale conflict, it wouldn't be hard to set up a two or three faction group of planned campaign fights to break up the dungeon runs and so forth.

    Trying to do story-minded sieges is a wonderful dream, but the majority of rprs don't pvp, and the vast majority of pvprs don't rp. I know that's painfully obvious but it does seem to fade in significance when people try to set up guild v guild siege conflicts.
    I don't make points I make dents.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unutterable View Post
    And speaking of, seeing as the idea of open-world pvp still seems to appeal to some folks, if we could get 6-10 people interested in some small-scale conflict, it wouldn't be hard to set up a two or three faction group of planned campaign fights to break up the dungeon runs and so forth.

    Trying to do story-minded sieges is a wonderful dream, but the majority of rprs don't pvp, and the vast majority of pvprs don't rp. I know that's painfully obvious but it does seem to fade in significance when people try to set up guild v guild siege conflicts.

    <3 <3 <3

    My dream is to once again be able to participate in RP-related, character- and story-related PvP.

    But as you have observed, the more people care about the characters and story - what happens after the battle - the less they usually are interested in the prospect of PvP changing it in ways they have little control over.

    I can understand that. That is why the fights I have arranged in the past have not been any kind of decisive "winner takes all" war-ending battle. I prefer them to be one skirmish among potentially many. Some conflict brews, comes to a climax with a skirmish (whether spontaneous on a PvP server or pre-arranged), you talk and yell and fight and cheer your victories and nurse your wounds (and wounded pride) and the story carries on - with the battle being but one feature of the entire story.

    It really should not be that difficult - with the understanding that RPers are still in charge of their own ultimate consequences (with the exception of the actual outcome of the battle itself) - to find a couple of guilds or groups who can agree to some conflict and fight it out for good fun.

    I mean - make up a relic that is important to your group, you want it, someone else wants it too (or else they just want to be sure you don't get it). Then fight over it. The winner gets the "relic", the loser doesn't. No one is perma-dead (unless they choose), ownership and leadership of cities doesn't change hands.

    I learned late in my RP-PvP career one reason many RPers avoid PvP - and that is when the better PvPers think that by winning, they can RP total obliteration, humiliating defeat, confiscation of all property, and such over the losers.

    No - in my book, it is just a fight that was won or lost. One battle. And even crushing defeat does not mean obliteration. I generally see each "death" of an RPer in an RP-PvP battle as either an injury, or the death of an anonymous soldier. It is up to each side and each RPer to decide how the defeat effected them.

    At one point my guild had an ongoing RP thing of running low on wine and needing to get more. Our usual suppliers had dried up. Through the fun ongoing RP we ended up learning of a winery who was supplying the Nemedians. And we had some Nemedian friends who wanted an RP-PvP battle. So we had one. In Aquilonian End (the PvP version of Poitain). Such fun terrain for battles. And the villages were great fun for fighting in. We had a great time and the only thing permanently lost were some bottles of wine bought from NPC bartenders.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sendra View Post
    <3 <3 <3

    My dream is to once again be able to participate in RP-related, character- and story-related PvP.

    But as you have observed, the more people care about the characters and story - what happens after the battle - the less they usually are interested in the prospect of PvP changing it in ways they have little control over.

    I can understand that. That is why the fights I have arranged in the past have not been any kind of decisive "winner takes all" war-ending battle. I prefer them to be one skirmish among potentially many. Some conflict brews, comes to a climax with a skirmish (whether spontaneous on a PvP server or pre-arranged), you talk and yell and fight and cheer your victories and nurse your wounds (and wounded pride) and the story carries on - with the battle being but one feature of the entire story.

    It really should not be that difficult - with the understanding that RPers are still in charge of their own ultimate consequences (with the exception of the actual outcome of the battle itself) - to find a couple of guilds or groups who can agree to some conflict and fight it out for good fun.

    I mean - make up a relic that is important to your group, you want it, someone else wants it too (or else they just want to be sure you don't get it). Then fight over it. The winner gets the "relic", the loser doesn't. No one is perma-dead (unless they choose), ownership and leadership of cities doesn't change hands.

    I learned late in my RP-PvP career one reason many RPers avoid PvP - and that is when the better PvPers think that by winning, they can RP total obliteration, humiliating defeat, confiscation of all property, and such over the losers.

    No - in my book, it is just a fight that was won or lost. One battle. And even crushing defeat does not mean obliteration. I generally see each "death" of an RPer in an RP-PvP battle as either an injury, or the death of an anonymous soldier. It is up to each side and each RPer to decide how the defeat effected them.

    At one point my guild had an ongoing RP thing of running low on wine and needing to get more. Our usual suppliers had dried up. Through the fun ongoing RP we ended up learning of a winery who was supplying the Nemedians. And we had some Nemedian friends who wanted an RP-PvP battle. So we had one. In Aquilonian End (the PvP version of Poitain). Such fun terrain for battles. And the villages were great fun for fighting in. We had a great time and the only thing permanently lost were some bottles of wine bought from NPC bartenders.
    That's why I was thinking a staged campaign, with an initial introduction of the MacGuffin and establishing alliance, allegiances, and agendas. A sequence of small scale conflicts in the pvp zones, whether take-and-hold, escort-and-assassination, or race-to-the-finish (complete with ambuscades and assaults and other alliterative additions) where the victor for each stage gets to choose the next direction of the campaign. It could be done with as few as two teams of 2-3 and could work with as many as 3 full groups without getting needlessly complicated (although, if we can get two full teams, tournament mode minis ftw).
    I don't make points I make dents.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unutterable View Post
    That's why I was thinking a staged campaign, with an initial introduction of the MacGuffin and establishing alliance, allegiances, and agendas. A sequence of small scale conflicts in the pvp zones, whether take-and-hold, escort-and-assassination, or race-to-the-finish (complete with ambuscades and assaults and other alliterative additions) where the victor for each stage gets to choose the next direction of the campaign. It could be done with as few as two teams of 2-3 and could work with as many as 3 full groups without getting needlessly complicated (although, if we can get two full teams, tournament mode minis ftw).
    My soul mate! Where have you been all my RP life?


  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sendra View Post
    I learned late in my RP-PvP career one reason many RPers avoid PvP - and that is when the better PvPers think that by winning, they can RP total obliteration, humiliating defeat, confiscation of all property, and such over the losers.

    No - in my book, it is just a fight that was won or lost. One battle. And even crushing defeat does not mean obliteration. I generally see each "death" of an RPer in an RP-PvP battle as either an injury, or the death of an anonymous soldier. It is up to each side and each RPer to decide how the defeat effected them.
    This is actually a large reason why I tend to avoid PvP RP. And "Getting good" at PvP doesn't always answer the issues that I find with it. It's that having a skill in something unrelated to RP means that those who have had more time in the game to work on PvP tend to automatically have all decisions swing their way whenever this becomes a sticking point. Or else bringing in non-RPers who PvP to fight their battles for them.

    I'm sure good, planned PvP RP with fair outcomes would be a great thing to see.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CimmerianHoX View Post
    This is actually a large reason why I tend to avoid PvP RP. And "Getting good" at PvP doesn't always answer the issues that I find with it. It's that having a skill in something unrelated to RP means that those who have had more time in the game to work on PvP tend to automatically have all decisions swing their way whenever this becomes a sticking point. Or else bringing in non-RPers who PvP to fight their battles for them.

    I'm sure good, planned PvP RP with fair outcomes would be a great thing to see.
    That's why I'm saying a dozen people would be the outer edge of what I'd be comfortable with. The community is not large enough to support that much rp-pvp without bringing in non-rp fillers. That's where Satet-Ka goes wrong. He bolsters the ranks with people with no interest in rp or with people who will actively troll it. It's a really good effort but it gets undermined by the compromises needed.

    Nine would be my ideal number, three factions of three. Easier to balance, easier to schedule, no need for anyone to have to ask Kokkschmasher89 to fill a spot.
    I don't make points I make dents.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •