I feel bad...Imp City Death Squads

generalmyrick

30-40 innocent bad pvper or pveERS will be farming molag bol for the skin or pet and then 7-8 of the best pvpers in the whole game that jump on whatever ep/dc/ad character and go wipe the 3 dozen farming bol...

i feel bad for them...

Nova Sky

I sense the presence of crocodile tears here ...

Olen_Mikko

It is a war out there. Use impenetrable gear, 5 heavy armor and drop your useless pve skills for starters.

generalmyrick

i just feel bad for them...i really do. i can defend myself...but that slaughter was just...

like that story i heard about WOW where someone died in real life and the wow clan had a funeral for them...and some rival clan raided them...

it doesn't feel...."right."

Palidon

Hey the thrill of victory the agony of defeat. This is IC and there is an event going on what did you expect. Not only the death squads but gankers, gankers and more gankers. In addition, Bow Snipers who prey on the un-suspecting from the high ground of the buildings. I was a Bow Sniper last IC event and am doing the same thing again this event. Having a blast and collecting a lot of TelVar from the dead corpses of enemy faction players. Be careful there is no place safe except the faction base camps.

Arundo

Oooo can I touch you !

bebynnag

generalmyrick wrote: »

i just feel bad for them...i really do. i can defend myself...but that slaughter was just...

like that story i heard about WOW where someone died in real life and the wow clan had a funeral for them...and some rival clan raided them...

it doesn't feel...."right."

i dont think you can really compare the 2 situations

whats happening in the sewers is normal simulated war within the ES universe

what hapened in WoW was on the surface apauling (i say on the surface because there is the possibility that this was the rival raid teams way of honouring there fellow gamer)

ConeOfSilence

I like to farm there but there is no way I am going there during this event, pointless getting double stones if you are being ganked every 5 mins.

generalmyrick

puffytheslayer wrote: »

generalmyrick wrote: »

i just feel bad for them...i really do. i can defend myself...but that slaughter was just...

like that story i heard about WOW where someone died in real life and the wow clan had a funeral for them...and some rival clan raided them...

it doesn't feel...."right."

i dont think you can really compare the 2 situations

whats happening in the sewers is normal simulated war within the ES universe

what hapened in WoW was on the surface apauling (i say on the surface because there is the possibility that this was the rival raid teams way of honouring there fellow gamer)

Very insightful! I never thought of it that way. Well done!

bebynnag

generalmyrick wrote: »

puffytheslayer wrote: »

generalmyrick wrote: »

i just feel bad for them...i really do. i can defend myself...but that slaughter was just...

like that story i heard about WOW where someone died in real life and the wow clan had a funeral for them...and some rival clan raided them...

it doesn't feel...."right."

i dont think you can really compare the 2 situations

whats happening in the sewers is normal simulated war within the ES universe

what hapened in WoW was on the surface apauling (i say on the surface because there is the possibility that this was the rival raid teams way of honouring there fellow gamer)

Very insightful! I never thought of it that way. Well done!

thank you!

CyrusArya

Ain't no innocent participants in war. Now surely, war that is brought to the front door of innocents is one of the most tragic scenarios in the story of humanity. But what you are describing is not that. Here is a real life scenario for example. This is like if treasure hunters that fly out to Syria from the comfort of their first world dwellings to steal archeological treasures get captured by militants. It's like "boo boo that's sad but you know what you were getting into" .

Far as I'm concerned, if you're in Cyrodiil or IC you left your 'innocence' at the gate.

zyk

Though I'm outspoken about hunting noobs in Cyro, it's different in IC because the core gameplay is based around collecting and stealing TV stones.

NightbladeMechanics

zyk wrote: »

Though I'm outspoken about hunting noobs in Cyro, it's different in IC because the core gameplay is based around collecting and stealing TV stones.

You can't make an exception to a principle. Either "it's wrong to farm noobs" or it's not, regardless of location. If you make one exception, your whole argument falls apart.

I'll also point out that in Cyrodiil, the noobs chase you into towers and canyons looking to run you over. In IC, you seek the noobs as they gleefully farm for Soul-shriven skins. Which noobs sound more innocent when it's put that way?

PvP is 100% opt in. There's no sound argument for mercy for the little guy when you dig down into the logic. The little guy is more often a pack predator -- a wolf weak on his own but biting at the chance to bring down stronger foes with numbers -- than a helpless prey item to sympathize with.

Publius_Scipio

Don't feel bad. It's a game.

zyk

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

You can't make an exception to a principle. Either "it's wrong to farm noobs" or it's not, regardless of location. If you make one exception, your whole argument falls apart.

I can because IC and Cyrodiil are not like things.

I consider the Alliance War to be the core gameplay of Cyrodiil. To me, if someone is purely playing the map, any opponent regardless of aptitude is fair game.

The behaviour I criticize is ignoring the core gameplay to intentionally find fights against weaker opponents or avoiding fights against comparable opponents -- or, even, irrelevant Pvdoor. I think my view on this is probably more nuanced than I am given credit for in that I am not critical of as many activities as some might think I am.

In IC, hunting any player for their stones is part of the core gameplay. That's a crucial part of the design which makes the other part of the core gameplay -- hunting mobs for stones/treasure -- interesting. If PVE only players had no fear of being hunted, I think that would break IC gameplay.

Back in 2.1 and 2.2 when I'd go to IC to help friends gear up, knowing that there were larger groups hunting the pair of us made otherwise boring PVE interesting.

In the same vein, I can criticize someone in a game of Capture the Flag or Capture and Hold for only Deathmatching and ignoring objectives -- something that is impossible to criticize someone for in a pure Deathmatch game mode.

With that said, I think if ESO PVP was super popular and able to support multiple active campaigns, a high risk/high reward IC that attracted competitive players would be ideal. Wouldn't an IC or Cyrodiil full of only players who understand builds and mechanics be awesome?

Kartalin

All players should understand the ramifications of stepping foot into a pvp enabled environment. And if they don't, then it is our job to teach them

Ankael07

I spent a great deal in IC and let me tell you those 30-40 PVE'rs are NEVER innocent. They'll stomp on every enemy that isnt the same number as them.

NightbladeMechanics

zyk wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

You can't make an exception to a principle. Either "it's wrong to farm noobs" or it's not, regardless of location. If you make one exception, your whole argument falls apart.

I can because IC and Cyrodiil are not like things.

I consider the Alliance War to be the core gameplay of Cyrodiil. To me, if someone is purely playing the map, any opponent regardless of aptitude is fair game.

The behaviour I criticize is ignoring the core gameplay to intentionally find fights against weaker opponents or avoiding fights against comparable opponents -- or, even, irrelevant Pvdoor. I think my view on this is probably more nuanced than I am given credit for in that I am not critical of as many activities as some might think I am.

In IC, hunting any player for their stones is part of the core gameplay. That's a crucial part of the design which makes the other part of the core gameplay -- hunting mobs for stones/treasure -- interesting. If PVE only players had no fear of being hunted, I think that would break IC gameplay.

Back in 2.1 and 2.2 when I'd go to IC to help friends gear up, knowing that there were larger groups hunting the pair of us made otherwise boring PVE interesting.

In the same vein, I can criticize someone in a game of Capture the Flag or Capture and Hold for only Deathmatching and ignoring objectives -- something that is impossible to criticize someone for in a pure Deathmatch game mode.

With that said, I think if ESO PVP was super popular and able to support multiple active campaigns, a high risk/high reward IC that attracted competitive players would be ideal. Wouldn't an IC or Cyrodiil full of only players who understand builds and mechanics be awesome?

You're creating your own ruleset and own morality for ESO PvP and then extending it onto other people who may not share your views.

This is an open world, play-as-you-want game. Yes, objectives exist, and yes, there is a campaign to compete for. But no, the campaign is not the "core gameplay" of ESO, nor are we all required to participate in it or give a *** about it. Nor will many of us until ZOS reworks end of campaign rewards and gives us some means of contributing to the campaign beyond zerg-sieging keeps and PvDooring resources.

As for your underhanded suggestion that skilled opponents avoid each other, that simply isn't true for the majority of the skilled playerbase, and never has been. Dueling guilds have always existed, GvGs have always happened, both in open world and in tournaments and organized events facilitating both. Private dueling gatherings happen all the time, to this day, and guilds fight each other all the time, to this day. See @"Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO" 's thread full of videos of Dracarys wiping other guilds and getting wiped by other guilds. Just because you do not see the fights happening, are not invited, or are fed some ridiculous insinuation to the contrary does not make this any less true.

zyk

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

As for your underhanded suggestion that skilled opponents avoid each other, that simply isn't true for the majority of the skilled playerbase, and never has been.

At no point did I say all players do this all of the time. There's nothing underhanded about what I've written; I've been clear. I've given specific examples and why I feel they're harmful to the game. I feel like I've argued my point about this enough in another thread.

I am not creating morality. I am conveying standard competitive ethics that apply to almost every other competitive medium.

My point in this thread is that IC and Cyrodiil are different beasts and what may be considered poor ethics in one is not necessarily true in the other.

NightbladeMechanics

zyk wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

As for your underhanded suggestion that skilled opponents avoid each other, that simply isn't true for the majority of the skilled playerbase, and never has been.

At no point did I say all players do this all of the time. There's nothing underhanded about what I've written; I've been clear. I've given specific examples and why I feel they're harmful to the game. I feel like I've argued my point about this enough in another thread.

I am not creating morality. I am conveying standard competitive ethics that apply to almost every other competitive medium.

My point in this thread is that IC and Cyrodiil are different beasts and what may be considered poor ethics in one is not necessarily true in the other.

ESO is not a wholly competitive medium. It's open world play as you want. The campaign can be competitive. Dueling and GvGs can be competitive. Players aren't required to play any or all of it. This is not a competitive game at its core --
players create competition in their spheres of how they like to play the game.

Edit: I'll add that Cyro and IC are both opt-in PvP zones. Therefore, I think it's foolish to suggest that killing anyone at any time in any way is morally bad. You may not like someone's methods, but to imply that there is an ethical code governing ESO is entirely self-constructed. I don't see you complaining about premades wrecking randoms in BGs or experienced players accepting duel challenges from newer players. Your morality is inconsistent, picky, and in the minority here.

zyk

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

ESO is not a wholly competitive medium. It's open world play as you want. The campaign can be competitive. Dueling and GvGs can be competitive. Players aren't required to play any or all of it. This is not a competitive game at its core --
players create competition in their spheres of how they like to play the game.

Cyrodiil is indisputably a competitive environment. The core competition is the Alliance War. Like any game, it can be played any way players choose to, that doesn't change the fact there is underlying gameplay.

Drakkdjinn

155k tel var so far this event for me

generalmyrick

grow a heart! ;-)

NightbladeMechanics

zyk wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

ESO is not a wholly competitive medium. It's open world play as you want. The campaign can be competitive. Dueling and GvGs can be competitive. Players aren't required to play any or all of it. This is not a competitive game at its core --
players create competition in their spheres of how they like to play the game.

Cyrodiil is indisputably a competitive environment. The core competition is the Alliance War. Like any game, it can be played any way players choose to, that doesn't change the fact there is underlying gameplay.

It is in the lore, but the lore is merely a backbone around which to create a compelling and interesting environment. The purpose of the game is still open ended, with the Alliance War sitting to the side as a mere suggestion of something to do for players who don't already have direction. Show me where ZOS has written that players are expected to participate in the Alliance War, and that opting not to is somehow to be looked down upon.

zyk

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

ESO is not a wholly competitive medium. It's open world play as you want. The campaign can be competitive. Dueling and GvGs can be competitive. Players aren't required to play any or all of it. This is not a competitive game at its core --
players create competition in their spheres of how they like to play the game.

Cyrodiil is indisputably a competitive environment. The core competition is the Alliance War. Like any game, it can be played any way players choose to, that doesn't change the fact there is underlying gameplay.

It is in the lore, but the lore is merely a backbone around which to create a compelling and interesting environment. The purpose of the game is still open ended, with the Alliance War sitting to the side as a mere suggestion of something to do for players who don't already have direction. Show me where ZOS has written that players are expected to participate in the Alliance War, and that opting not to is somehow to be looked down upon.

I would, but next you might ask me to prove that you exist and failing that, you'd accuse me of arguing with myself. The Alliance War is obviously the core game of Cyrodiil and not simply at a lore level. I've made my points and not going further down this rabbit hole.

NightbladeMechanics

zyk wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

ESO is not a wholly competitive medium. It's open world play as you want. The campaign can be competitive. Dueling and GvGs can be competitive. Players aren't required to play any or all of it. This is not a competitive game at its core --
players create competition in their spheres of how they like to play the game.

Cyrodiil is indisputably a competitive environment. The core competition is the Alliance War. Like any game, it can be played any way players choose to, that doesn't change the fact there is underlying gameplay.

It is in the lore, but the lore is merely a backbone around which to create a compelling and interesting environment. The purpose of the game is still open ended, with the Alliance War sitting to the side as a mere suggestion of something to do for players who don't already have direction. Show me where ZOS has written that players are expected to participate in the Alliance War, and that opting not to is somehow to be looked down upon.

I would, but next you might ask me to prove that you exist and failing that, you'd accuse me of arguing with myself. The Alliance War is obviously the core game of Cyrodiil and not simply at a lore level. I've made my points and not going further down this rabbit hole.

This is not an existential debate.

It's a debate of what should motivate player action: ZOS's advertising or Cyrodiil lore. It's a debate over whether players are compelled to fight for objectives to win the Alliance War just because the Cyrodiil story line revolves around it, even if ZOS does not tell us to do so.

I believe that the Alliance War takes a back seat to player decision and preference because ZOS tells us that the game is "play how you want." I believe that Cyrodiil is designed to facilitate numerous diverse and equally valid play styles and individual player goals. I believe that the primary purpose of the Alliance War is serving as a foundation upon which to build an interesting and immersive world inside which players can pursue their own goals, with the secondary purpose of occupying people who either 1) prefer the global cooperation toward an end goal over a long period of time over the excitement of actual fights themselves, or 2) haven't yet experienced other spheres of PvP play. Having all the NPCs and most other players buzzing around with a purpose makes the game more fun, interesting, and engaging for the rest of us even if we don't play to your purpose.

You believe that the Alliance War should be the core motivating factor behind player actions because it's the core story line of Cyrodiil and sits behind the big L screen. Feel free to elaborate on your position, but I and most of the rest of us are still not convinced.

Remember, preferring to fight for objectives to win the Alliance War as your chosen play style is different from believng everyone should do so and openly criticizing them on the forums for not doing so.

generalmyrick

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

ESO is not a wholly competitive medium. It's open world play as you want. The campaign can be competitive. Dueling and GvGs can be competitive. Players aren't required to play any or all of it. This is not a competitive game at its core --
players create competition in their spheres of how they like to play the game.

Cyrodiil is indisputably a competitive environment. The core competition is the Alliance War. Like any game, it can be played any way players choose to, that doesn't change the fact there is underlying gameplay.

It is in the lore, but the lore is merely a backbone around which to create a compelling and interesting environment. The purpose of the game is still open ended, with the Alliance War sitting to the side as a mere suggestion of something to do for players who don't already have direction. Show me where ZOS has written that players are expected to participate in the Alliance War, and that opting not to is somehow to be looked down upon.

I would, but next you might ask me to prove that you exist and failing that, you'd accuse me of arguing with myself. The Alliance War is obviously the core game of Cyrodiil and not simply at a lore level. I've made my points and not going further down this rabbit hole.

This is not an existential debate.

It's a debate of what should motivate player action: ZOS's advertising or Cyrodiil lore. It's a debate over whether players are compelled to fight for objectives to win the Alliance War just because the Cyrodiil story line revolves around it, even if ZOS does not tell us to do so.

I believe that the Alliance War takes a back seat to player decision and preference because ZOS tells us that the game is "play how you want." I believe that Cyrodiil is designed to facilitate numerous diverse and equally valid play styles and individual player goals. I believe that the primary purpose of the Alliance War is serving as a foundation upon which to build an interesting and immersive world inside which players can pursue their own goals, with the secondary purpose of occupying people who either 1) prefer the global cooperation toward an end goal over a long period of time over the excitement of actual fights themselves, or 2) haven't yet experienced other spheres of PvP play. Having all the NPCs and most other players buzzing around with a purpose makes the game more fun, interesting, and engaging for the rest of us even if we don't play to your purpose.

You believe that the Alliance War should be the core motivating factor behind player actions because it's the core story line of Cyrodiil and sits behind the big L screen. Feel free to elaborate on your position, but I and most of the rest of us are still not convinced.

Remember, preferring to fight for objectives to win the Alliance War as your chosen play style is different from believng everyone should do so and openly criticizing them on the forums for not doing so.

HEAR HEAR!!! GOOD JOB!

zyk

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

You believe that the Alliance War should be the core motivating factor behind player actions because it's the core story line of Cyrodiil and sits behind the big L screen. Feel free to elaborate on your position, but I and most of the rest of us are still not convinced.

This is not even close to being accurate.

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

It's a debate of what should motivate player action: ZOS's advertising or Cyrodiil lore. It's a debate over whether players are compelled to fight for objectives to win the Alliance War just because the Cyrodiil story line revolves around it, even if ZOS does not tell us to do so.

<snipped stuff>

Remember, preferring to fight for objectives to win the Alliance War as your chosen play style is different from believng everyone should do so and openly criticizing them on the forums for not doing so.

You are only debating with yourself on this. These are not all my positions. I believe I've expressed them clearly in other threads and I've also already explained that I've had my say for now. Yet you continue. If you want to post generally about this topic, that's completely your prerogative, but please refrain from putting me in a position of having to refute your representation of my views by including me in it.

NightbladeMechanics

zyk wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

You believe that the Alliance War should be the core motivating factor behind player actions because it's the core story line of Cyrodiil and sits behind the big L screen. Feel free to elaborate on your position, but I and most of the rest of us are still not convinced.

This is not even close to being accurate.

You said that people should act in the interests of the Alliance War (mainly sparing noobs unless they are defending an important objective) because the Alliance War is the core of PvP gameplay. It's the core of PvP gameplay because it's the story line around which Cyrodiil is designed and is presented to players in the Alliance War menu screen and campaign scores.

zyk wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

It's a debate of what should motivate player action: ZOS's advertising or Cyrodiil lore. It's a debate over whether players are compelled to fight for objectives to win the Alliance War just because the Cyrodiil story line revolves around it, even if ZOS does not tell us to do so.

<snipped stuff>

Remember, preferring to fight for objectives to win the Alliance War as your chosen play style is different from believng everyone should do so and openly criticizing them on the forums for not doing so.

You are only debating with yourself on this. These are not all my positions. I believe I've expressed them clearly in other threads and I've also already explained that I've had my say for now. Yet you continue. If you want to post generally about this topic, that's completely your prerogative, but please refrain from putting me in a position of having to refute your representation of my views by including me in it.

Keep in mind that you came into this thread making your distinction between who it is "right" and "wrong" to kill in Cyrodiil and IC and criticizing others' actions. If you cannot defend your position to criticism, then perhaps keep it to yourself. Being critical to others but then refusing criticism yourself is rude.

davey1107

@NightbladeMechanics While I won't jump into eeeeeeeeeeveey point you guys made in that meandering thread, I will say that your first point was a logical fallacy. You said that a player can't complain about killing noobs in one zone and then feel it's wrong to do so in another.

In point of fact, people can construct completely legitimate ethical arguments about various styles of play. A player might say that they feel overland cyrodiil kills are legitimate, but that delve kills are uncool, for example. Or as another example, a player might have a code of ethics that says it's ok to kill anyone perceived as a threat to the keep system, but you should leave others alone...people horsing in the middle of nowhere.

When entering IC, it's a different game with slightly different mechanics and different rewards. So it's not unnatural for a person to consider that because the rules and rewards have changed they should treat others differently between the two systems.My argument is not to say how people should behave, but that it's entirelty legitimate for people to construct differing systems of ethics between these zones. Human being are like that.

I think what might drive some of the distinctions people make is the nature of the two areas. In Cyrodiil a person might have a natural inclination to feel they need to determine if another player is a hostile or a civilian, while in IC one might assume that everyone there is a conscripted soldier who volunteered to have a target on their back. In the real world, active combat zones that are similar the games zones would have different rules of engagement. Soldiers dropped into the countryside with advancing and retreating fronts have to behave differently than troops in an active urban battle.

But it's a game, so it's more like courtesies than moralities.

NightbladeMechanics

davey1107 wrote: »

@NightbladeMechanics While I won't jump into eeeeeeeeeeveey point you guys made in that meandering thread, I will say that your first point was a logical fallacy. You said that a player can't complain about killing noobs in one zone and then feel it's wrong to do so in another.

In point of fact, people can construct completely legitimate ethical arguments about various styles of play. A player might say that they feel overland cyrodiil kills are legitimate, but that delve kills are uncool, for example. Or as another example, a player might have a code of ethics that says it's ok to kill anyone perceived as a threat to the keep system, but you should leave others alone...people horsing in the middle of nowhere.

When entering IC, it's a different game with slightly different mechanics and different rewards. So it's not unnatural for a person to consider that because the rules and rewards have changed they should treat others differently between the two systems.My argument is not to say how people should behave, but that it's entirelty legitimate for people to construct differing systems of ethics between these zones. Human being are like that.

I think what might drive some of the distinctions people make is the nature of the two areas. In Cyrodiil a person might have a natural inclination to feel they need to determine if another player is a hostile or a civilian, while in IC one might assume that everyone there is a conscripted soldier who volunteered to have a target on their back. In the real world, active combat zones that are similar the games zones would have different rules of engagement. Soldiers dropped into the countryside with advancing and retreating fronts have to behave differently than troops in an active urban battle.

But it's a game, so it's more like courtesies than moralities.

I highlighted your key word, which repeats in different ways throughout your reply.

He can feel however he wants, as can everyone else. It's still how he feels as an individual about killing in each zone, though. You described yourself how such systems of morality are self-constructed and can differ between individuals, so until ZOS establishes some official morality or primary method of play in PvP, that is all everyone's moralities are. Feelings.

So where again does he come off condescending to others who don't share his ethics?

By the way, in real world wars, soldiers dropped into the countryside are more concerned with who's armed and who's not. If the person isn't armed, they're generally considered a civilian. The moment they have a gun in their hands, they're the enemy. I think we can agree that everyone in Cyrodiil is armed, seeing as that's how the game works, so I consider your last analogy a bit of a stretch as well...