Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Involuntarily flagged for PvP as a 32 by a 50 on a PvE server.

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
Involuntarily flagged for PvP as a 32 by a 50 on a PvE server.

Eldartank's Avatar


Eldartank
01.26.2012 , 04:32 PM | #521
Quote: Originally Posted by Goretzu View Post
It's ridiculous as well.

Removing the PvP flag entirely from PvE servers solves this.
Probably the best way to fix the problem is to make it so that your aoe abilities have no effect on flagged players if you're not flagged (making it impossible for people to trick you into getting flagged), and make it impossible for you to cast any kind of heal or buff on friendly players that are flagged unless you first choose to flag yourself. I've already seen many posts stating that other games do it this way.

VarnieTsk's Avatar


VarnieTsk
01.26.2012 , 04:35 PM | #522
Quote: Originally Posted by fixit View Post
Erm, no. Mods here seem to just respond to /report and clean stuff up. I severly doubt any of this feedback is read by actual devs. They certainly never reply to issues like this, that's for sure.
What's really ironic is that the very people who would /report any of our responses in this thread are the ones who are supporting their imagined right to grief people in the game. lol.

Eldartank's Avatar


Eldartank
01.26.2012 , 04:39 PM | #523
Quote: Originally Posted by chton View Post
Hear hear from someone who's cowardly enough to play on a PVE server.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're trying to say here, so please understand that my response is based on how I interpreted your comment:

It is not cowardly to play on a PVE server for the purpose of avoiding PVP. It IS cowardly to flag your level 50 character in a PVE server and trick a lower level player into getting flagged by using an unfair exploit, and then kill that character. People who do that are cowards who couldn't stand a fair fight on a PVP server, so they take unfair advantage of an exploit to grief lower level players on a PVE server.

If you choose to make a character on a PVP server, then you have absolutely no right, reason or excuse to complain when a higher level person ganks you. On a PVE server, using an exploit to trick a lower level player into getting flagged and ganking him is griefing, and should be a bannable offense (if it isn't already bannable).

If I get ganked that way on my PVE server, I will most definitely put in a GM ticket to report that player for harassment.

Frostbyt's Avatar


Frostbyt
01.26.2012 , 04:49 PM | #524
Quote: Originally Posted by Chessack View Post
And that is a real problem... the lack of response on this issue.

I mean, where is the sense of proportion? They responded to an issue of people accidentally needing when they mean to greed an object and then being bound to it and unable to trade it to another party member. And while I have no problem with them trying to fix it so people can't make a mistake like that, such a mistake has VERY little impact on the actual game-play.

Meanwhile, allowing PVE players on PVE servers to be tricked into open world PVP rates no response at all?

This is a VERY serious issue that could result in my entire guild leaving the game eventually, since none of us really like to PVP and we all hate open world PVP. Making it so that I *have* to participate in it is a game-breaker. And I'm not alone... dozens of people on this thread said the same. Yet there is not one dev response to this, not one, in all the hundreds of posts here?

Really BW needs to end the radio silence on this issue, and say something.

Is this guy for real?. You probably have a 0.1% chance of this happening to you. If it does the n you'll have to wait the 3 seconds to respawn and you'll be wiser about your aoe usage.

Sotaudi's Avatar


Sotaudi
01.26.2012 , 04:55 PM | #525
Quote: Originally Posted by EternalFinality View Post
It obviously depends on their definition of consensual. For example, attacking another player indicates that you wish to engage in PvP. If you use an attack while targeting another player, you become flagged for PvP and the attack goes through.

Just because you claim you didn't "want" to attack them doesn't mean that you didn't do it. Someone can make a post saying "I accidentally clicked on someone and attacked them, but I didn't want to participate in PvP! You should only be able to attack other players when you manually set your PvP flag!!!!"

This is the same, just for AOE attacks. You choose to use an AOE attack with another player in the radius - you chose to participate in PvP. Complain about stealth players all you want, it's the same thing.

And thus, Bioware never lied. The description on the server matches reality.
Ah, the Bill Clinton "It depends on the meaning of 'is'" defense. No one bought it when he tried it, and no one here is going to.

Quote:
Consent "to give assent or permission (to do something); agree; accede" (Word English Dictionary).
If you target another player, you are engaging in a PvP act. You are, by any definition, giving consent to PvP when you choose to engage in PvP. When you engage in a PvP act, your AoE should hit other players who have likewise consented to PvP. However, we are not talking about someone targeting another player and complaining that their AoE damage affected a third, are we?

We are talking about an unflagged player, one who has not declared any intent to PvP, attacking an NPC. The attack is a PvE act. The only consent you have a right to construe from that is that the player consented to PvE. The fact that an AoE from an unflagged player directed at a PvE target can affect a flagged player, whether they can see that player or not, and drag the unflagged player into unconsensual PvP clearly contradicts the stated intent of the server rules set. That makes it a bug, not some means of expressing consent.

Besides, your own words utterly destroy your own premise.

Quote:
You choose to use an AOE attack with another player in the radius - you chose to participate in PvP
You do not get to pretend that a person being stealthed is irrelevant. How can you "choose to use an AOE attack with another player in the radius" if you cannot see that player? How can it be your choice when someone runs into your radius, someone that was not present when you started the fight, such as if they were off screen at the time, or were not flagged when the fight started?

The fact is, you cannot choose to do that if you cannot tell they are there or if they were not there before you started the fight. If the choice was not present, you cannot claim that there was an act of consent. Even if that were not the case, there is simply no logical reason that an AoE attack from an unflagged player directed at a PvE target should affect a flagged player. Or what? Are you going to tell us that the preferred method of getting into PvP now is to attack NPCs?

Basically, what you are saying is that no PvE player who wants to avoid PvP should ever be able to use any AoE attack in the open world because the simple act of using the attack is consenting to PvP even when you attack an NPC and even when there is no PvP flagged player visible. Even if that convoluted logic remotely made any sense, someone else's choice to engage in PvP by flagging themselves and their choice to stand in your PvE related AoE cannot remotely be construed as you making a choice to engage them in PvP. In other words, the problem is not that attacking a PvP flagged player can flag you. The problem is that there is simply no reason in the world why an unflagged player's attack on a PvE target should affect a PvP-flagged player in any way.

I will say it again. The only reason to argue in favor of this mechanic is if you want to be able to force people into PvP without their consent. There simply is no other reason. Preventing an unflagged player's AoE from affecting a PvP flagged player does absolutely nothing to stop an unflagged player from flagging themselves or directly attacking the player. Again, I doubt people are running around looking for flagged players standing next to NPCs just so they can attack the NPC with an AoE and flag themselves.

The fact that you would go to these absurd lengths to justify an obvious bug is beyond comprehension. Even if you will not accept the clear intent of their statements as proof that this is a bug and that people using it are exploiting, someone has already spoken of at least one person who was warned and then banned for doing so.

I am done wasting my time arguing with you about this.
(██████████████)

HanoverFist's Avatar


HanoverFist
01.26.2012 , 04:57 PM | #526
Quote: Originally Posted by Frostbyt View Post
Is this guy for real?. You probably have a 0.1% chance of this happening to you. If it does the n you'll have to wait the 3 seconds to respawn and you'll be wiser about your aoe usage.
And 5 minutes waiting on the /pvp timer. Then you get to wade through all the mobs you cleared that have now respawned. And If your really lucky you'll get to do all that again as soon as you try to AoE an NPC mob.

Also your estimate of .1% is false judging solely by the posts in this thread. Not Withstanding the 4 or 5 other threads on this very subject.

Ultrasroma's Avatar


Ultrasroma
01.26.2012 , 04:57 PM | #527
Quote: Originally Posted by Frostbyt View Post
Is this guy for real?. You probably have a 0.1% chance of this happening to you. If it does the n you'll have to wait the 3 seconds to respawn and you'll be wiser about your aoe usage.
Yes, and you know what? He is not alone. It is not difficult to understand that some people do NOT want to PvP in any case, so why should I change my style of playing, and not using AoE, which is important in PvE just because someone is exploiting it?

And you are not getting it. There should 0% that should be happening. I should not have to watch my back (and even that doesn't suffice, as the player can be stealthed) before tagging a mob.

Oh I guess you are a PvP player in a PvP server. Good for you, but PvE servers are named like that for a reason: people do not want to PvP, unless they WILLINGLY choose to.

VorpalK's Avatar


VorpalK
01.26.2012 , 04:58 PM | #528
Quote: Originally Posted by Frostbyt View Post
Is this guy for real?. You probably have a 0.1% chance of this happening to you. If it does the n you'll have to wait the 3 seconds to respawn and you'll be wiser about your aoe usage.
We shouldn't have to care about our AOE usage on a PvE server.

How are we going to avoid a stealthed opponent? Just not use our AOEs at all?

That's not even close to reasonable.
CE Preorder VIP
PvE players on PVE servers should NEVER be forced into PvP through the actions of greifers. http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=159167

Sotaudi's Avatar


Sotaudi
01.26.2012 , 04:59 PM | #529
Quote: Originally Posted by Frostbyt View Post
Is this guy for real?. You probably have a 0.1% chance of this happening to you. If it does the n you'll have to wait the 3 seconds to respawn and you'll be wiser about your aoe usage.
First, the chance of it happening is irrelevant. It should not be able to happen at all.

Second, you can't be "wiser about your aoe usage" if people are hiding in stealth or jumping into a fight after it started.

Finally, it is not just 3 seconds to respawn. It is three second followed by 5 minutes of having to hide until your PvP flag goes away.

Quit blaming people who are victims of someone exploiting this mechanism. It is not their fault that they were ganked for playing PvE on a PvE server.
(██████████████)

Valkirus's Avatar


Valkirus
01.26.2012 , 05:08 PM | #530
Quote: Originally Posted by Frostbyt View Post
Is this guy for real?. You probably have a 0.1% chance of this happening to you. If it does the n you'll have to wait the 3 seconds to respawn and you'll be wiser about your aoe usage.
Are you for real? The respawn rate is longer than 3 secs. Are you a politician who likes to twist the numbers to suit thier argument? There is no way we should get accidently flagged for using a skill/ability our chars have on a PVE server.
Trust is something which is earned.