Current healing game mechanic is encouraging antisocial behavior

Sarcasm does not translate well through text.

But yet I do not have to ask your consent to do many many other things. You fail to understand that excluding one consent but allowing others does not make a game of consent.

I do not need your consent to kill your target. I do not need your consent to pull your target away and force leashing. I do not need your consent to cast my spells in your general vicinity, no matter how annoying they are. I do not need your consent to speak in chat, and sure you can block it but your consent is not by default. I do not need your consent to speak about you.

Where is your game of consent.

Also to note, as a medical professional in the real world I come to this world to be one. If i see someone injured my instinct is to help them. Unless the majority will get upset by this and not just the select few loud people, I should be able to do just that. It is more realistic to give those who wish to opt out an option, just like there is currently an option to opt out of PvP.

 

none of those things directly affect my character. They might piss someone off, they might make them log out but they do not physically do anything to the character. I should probably explain personal property rights to you but I feel you would just willfully ignore that also. Its not about whether you feel its good or bad to do something to someone, it is the act of doing something to someone without consent. I do not want you to heal me. There are other people like me that do not want you healing them. You healing them is an act of aggression and violating the consent. IF you can cast a spell on me, i can cast a spell on you, mine probably would not be a heal. Go play in pvp and you would have no problem casting your heals.

 

Have to agree... and there is already an advocate of non-consensual gaming. *HUGE SMILE*

Ask any dev, we don't need two Ahus

 

Whats wrong with an opt-out option ?

 

I have mentioned a toggle that would turn healing on yourself off and on many times in this thread, he is willfully ignorant of it.

 

Oh that explains the confusion... I just got from his last post that it is what he finally agreed on.

 

I too played siege, for a couple years I am for non consensual gaming for sure. I am just stating to him that he cannot have his cake and eat it too.

 

See what I mean ?

 

yes, I am glad he finally said it. If you read the entire thread he did not for a long time.

 

Yeah ! I just wish more people that lived through siege would come up and tell everyone that it WASN'T SO TERRIBLE

The NEW guild made sure every low level player had a fair chance, and the community was so tight knit... if I got griefed (and not merely killed, I'd swallow the pill then) but if I was harassed or anything bad, ONE word on the chat and there was minimum 10 people rescuing me.

Not only that most bad guys didn't want to repeal every able pvper from the server, so often they either didn't loot you, or equipped you with better things than you had in the first place, so you could train and fight them again.

One murderer when I joined was so impressed that I wasn't yelling at him for killing me that he took me on a tour and gave me an actual fortune, which guaranteed my ressources for at least 1000 pvp matches

 

It worked when we had only IRC and ICQ.. in a world where we're so connected, it seems ridiculous that the main argument against siege is that it encourages anti-social behavior...

Non consensual gaming forces people to flock together and EARN respect !

Eventually every griefer left... and the slower skill and ressource gain made everyone important. The grandmaster blacksmith at britain was a legend... people would queue because there was only a handful on the server. Every profession had a specialist... even a Gm tracker that we used to run after griefers

Ah... ok you got me nostalgic

 

Really? Because I've replies to that several times. Maybe you should read more and argue less. I've mentioned an option to opt out at least 7 times.
I began mentioning it when the idea was brought forth. I liked the idea to opt out as that would be beneficial to death mages.

Your point of earning respect is interesting. Because as a healer I've had to do exactly that.

 

I look back fondly at it. Some of the best times where had there! and your right, it was a great community. There really was no actual griefing, but it was intense!

 

Then this thread should shut down as we have reached a consensus. Why did you feel the need to reply and argue with me repeatedly?

 

Hard to tell that you have reached consensus when the replies were not stating this, but arguing a point even more.

Shut down? Not only your opinion matters sir. As you can see, ideas evolve as you learn, I'm curious to see what other ideas will be brought forth.

 

Thanks for admitting it...

I was griefed only once on siege... and arranging my revenge was short of orgasmic

Some moments I felt almost as if the way EA treated Siege (ignore it, give it no updates or event moderators) was kinder on our very loyal niche than what portalarium did (just accuse it of being immature and a griefer paradise, not even to be considered for the future).

It's strange, some days I could feel the hate, could almost touch it... it caused me many more lucid dreams, some of which made me raise my hopes for portalarium, cause when I have dreams it usually is a sign of integrity.

However I soon realised that the only person who had this integrity was King British, and see what happened with his wishes about the cannibalism easter egg... I have a list of things he said he wanted and they never ever listened to him.

Feels almost like he only rented his name to the team for publicity...

 

I was just talking about our argument. Since you agree that the toggle that was mentioned, and I have mentioned the toggle like 2 years ago in the same argument we are having now that we should be friends instead of arguing. I only tried to use facts to illustrate my point. I was never emotional about it .
So to sum it up:
We have a consensual game where you cannot cast on another person unless flagged.
A toggle would be the solution to this and you only have to check it one time to be able to receive heals.
You can cast any spell on anyone flagged for pvp while flagged for pvp.
You can say you want this and want that but the rules still have to apply, or we have to remove the consensual tag in the game.
That is why I say if you should be an advocate for non consensual gaming if you want to cast on people that might not want to be cast upon.

 

I hear ya, I feel like the shadowlords have taken over the helm.

 

I'm glad you brought it up @TheWanderingPoet there are clear parallels in how the team views certain forms of "positive" griefing and the way they treated "us" players who would gladly pay 20$ a month to have a siege perilous.

 

I would like to see multiple toggles if that isn't too much Someone might love when you dispel a few curses but want to raise their own healing etc... flexibility is the answer