Archived Roll No More (pvp And Lore Suggestion)

TheBatman1016 · Jul 8, 2015

For too long, people have been under the misconception that PvP and Role-play have to be entirely separate entities. This has hurt the server especially in recent months with a growing distaste between the two groups. This suggestion hopes to change this.

Currently, important role-play battles are decided by a "roll" system that takes number of units, unit experience, command experience, etc, into account. This can be seen in the many battle threads in the 'World Progression Reports' section of the forums. My idea is to have some of these battles fought by PvPers. Yes. This would work by letting a certain number of PvPers sign up for a battle against tough npc opponents. There would be no respawn to add to the realism, and the General (Most likely a Lore Staff Observing the battle), can order a tactical retreat to conserve units for future battles. Obviously we can't have 15,000 or so PvP'rs fight the battles like there is in the roles, however we can have each player stand for a certain amount of units.

This would allow for PvP'rs to be able to return to Regalia as decorated war heroes, and they will have a chance to engage in RP with civilians about war stories and the such. This will also hopefully encourage some role-players to engage in fighting by joining the armed forces.

I wanna know what you guys think. Thanks for Reading!

Zacatero · Jul 8, 2015

I'm not a role player or a pvper. But I think this is a great idea +1

misterbuttonz · Jul 8, 2015

I think this is a great way to get RP'rs and PvP'rs on the same side, meanwhile creating some good fun in the process. +1

vidivo · Jul 8, 2015

I also do agree, since I think most PvPers have nothing against RP in general, but aren't interested in the type of RP that's taking place in Regalia. I also had a similar idea, which was about crusades that would be fought in PvP. However, I think dying would discourage people from making complex characters, that's why I think they could just get wounded in role-play if they died in PvP.

NChulingeth · Jul 8, 2015

I like both rp and pvp, 1+

Tra_kad · Jul 8, 2015

vidivo said:
...I also had a similar idea, which was about crusades that would be fought in PvP...

#TakeBackMotherlandCeardia?

Either way @TheBatman1016 while I don't think this will solve everything, this certainly looks like a step in the right direction. :3

Herojipps · Jul 8, 2015

I love it +1

LordSylveon · Jul 8, 2015

Hell yeah. Also #TakebackCeardia.

It'd certainly be a good way to force the two groups together. Whether or not it actually makes relations more amiable is up to debate, since both sides seem salty and entitled as of late.

Still great idea. As much + support as I can muster

thor5648 · Jul 13, 2015

TheBatman1016 said:
For too long, people have been under the misconception that PvP and Role-play have to be entirely separate entities. This has hurt the server especially in recent months with a growing distaste between the two groups. This suggestion hopes to change this.

Currently, important role-play battles are decided by a "roll" system that takes number of units, unit experience, command experience, etc, into account. This can be seen in the many battle threads in the 'World Progression Reports' section of the forums. My idea is to have some of these battles fought by PvPers. Yes. This would work by letting a certain number of PvPers sign up for a battle against tough npc opponents. There would be no respawn to add to the realism, and the General (Most likely a Lore Staff Observing the battle), can order a tactical retreat to conserve units for future battles. Obviously we can't have 15,000 or so PvP'rs fight the battles like there is in the roles, however we can have each player stand for a certain amount of units.

This would allow for PvP'rs to be able to return to Regalia as decorated war heroes, and they will have a chance to engage in RP with civilians about war stories and the such. This will also hopefully encourage some role-players to engage in fighting by joining the armed forces.

I wanna know what you guys think. Thanks for Reading!

Possibly have the pvpers fight other. Pvpers? I'd happily represent either side of whatever fight, since in my experience at least fighting mobs isn't fun whatsoever, even if they are challenging

TheSilverSpectre · Jul 13, 2015

Because Attack patterns can only do so much for npc's where as Actual players...yikes

Silent_Ruler · Jul 13, 2015

The "World Proggression Posts" would then be about how skillful you are at OOC clicking a button, switching items, and running rather than how skillful your character is overall.

Character disabilities can't be played, tactics can't be used by NPC's, and it won't be portrayed realistically. I mean, are we really spawning thousands of NPCs- or have people represent the work of 500?

TheBatman1016 · Jul 13, 2015

SilentsAppeal said:
The "World Proggression Posts" would then be about how skillful you are at OOC clicking a button, switching items, and running rather than how skillful your character is overall.

Character disabilities can't be played, tactics can't be used by NPC's, and it won't be portrayed realistically. I mean, are we really spawning thousands of NPCs- or have people represent the work of 500?

Its not perfect, but I'd sure prefer trying it rather than rolling a die

NoMatter_ · Jul 13, 2015

Sounds cool enough man!

But the only issue I see with this is I feel as though there would be a lot of PVPers still not doing this in character and preferring their usual "get rekt" terminology. This moves well away from the environment of RP.
I would fully support this is I could honestly believe that PVPers would take this serious and stay in strict character the whole time.
But I think a lot of PVPers just honestly prefer not to, which is fine.

Silent_Ruler · Jul 13, 2015

TheBatman1016 said:
Its not perfect, but I'd sure prefer trying it rather than rolling a die

It still is a pro-PvP suggestion which ruins the fun for many of us.
Want to merge the role-play community with the PvP "half"?

Easy. Remember MonMarty's April Fools post in which PvP would all be similar to combat rolls.
Why not make PvP more like Roleplay than make Roleplay more like PvP?

Thing is, you'll disagree and burst into a flame war like many did in April Fools. It is this idea, but the other way around. You see what I mean?

PvP and RP are Church and State.
Division.
Oil and water.

TheBatman1016 · Jul 13, 2015

SilentsAppeal said:
It still is a pro-PvP suggestion which ruins the fun for many of us.
Want to merge the role-play community with the PvP "half"?

Easy. Remember MonMarty's April Fools post in which PvP would all be similar to combat rolls.
Why not make PvP more like Roleplay than make Roleplay more like PvP?

Thing is, you'll disagree and burst into a flame war like many did in April Fools. It is this idea, but the other way around. You see what I mean?

PvP and RP are Church and State.
Division.
Oil and water.

The April Fools joke suggested taking out PvP entirely. Make it Non-existent. I don't think you read my post entirely because I never suggested taking out any part of RP. Role-players would be practically unaffected, since they are completely fine right now with world events being dictated by random chance. There is no scenario where world events would go down in a way that wasn't possible with a roll.

I hope you really don't believe that PvP and RP are "Church and State." This is the ideology that is hurting so much of our community. Back in late 2012 when I first started playing, there wasn't so much of a divide between "PvP'rs" and "RP's." There were some people who tended to PvP more and some people who tended to RP more, but there wasn't so much stigma between them. I just think that we should be open to ideas like this.

Cheers.

SirBacon12 · Jul 13, 2015

SilentsAppeal said:
It still is a pro-PvP suggestion which ruins the fun for many of us.
Want to merge the role-play community with the PvP "half"?

Easy. Remember MonMarty's April Fools post in which PvP would all be similar to combat rolls.
Why not make PvP more like Roleplay than make Roleplay more like PvP?

Thing is, you'll disagree and burst into a flame war like many did in April Fools. It is this idea, but the other way around. You see what I mean?

PvP and RP are Church and State.
Division.
Oil and water.

I think you misunderstood his idea. This isn't really a "Pro PvP" suggestion. It's trying to find common ground between RP and PVP. To quote the original post, "get RP'rs and PvP'rs on the same side." Your last comment about PvP and RP being "oil and water" is kinda proving his point.

Terence29 · Jul 13, 2015

I'm against this idea for the following reasons, and I'll try to keep it short:

Tactics can not really be applied like they usually would. That ruins a lot of important factors.
The outcome would be highly unrealistic if it was based on this.
Let's be honest here, PvPers wouldn't want to roleplay being champions/war heroes in RP. Not to mention that many do not even possess the knowledge of the lore and thus would very easily RP incorrectly in such an important position.
What would happen to those people who play knights/fighter characters, yet who only RP and not PvP? This system would only really include the PvPers. Roleplayers would just.. Well. Have the outcome effect the world in a way without getting involved much, or at all.

In conclusion, a lot of roleplayers would be highly unhappy with this and it destroys about all aspects of roleplay those world progression events have. Want to merge PvP with Roleplay? Find a roleplay family to be their champion in the upcoming PvP tournaments. Many noble families are still in need of one.

Silent_Ruler · Jul 13, 2015

Let's not make this into an argument.

TheBatman1016 said:
The April Fools joke suggested taking out PvP entirely. Make it Non-existent. I don't think you read my post entirely because I never suggested taking out any part of RP.

I do not think I was understood.
And while it is true that role-play would have not been eliminated, it completely shatters what seems to be a very functional system which seems to be very liked- as people actually support the player quest systems.

TheBatman1016 said:
Role-players would be practically unaffected, since they are completely fine right now with world events being dictated by random chance.

They would be affected, yes, because some are utterly incapable of successfully participating in PvP with a fighting change. Whether it be their computers, their disinterest, or their lack of skill and a mouse, it doesn't matter. Non-OOC action-based roleplay makes it fun for those who are with disability.

TheBatman1016 said:
There is no scenario where world events would go down in a way that wasn't possible with a roll.

I actually agree with this statement.
Just look at the Court Ball!
They're not rolls, and is just as impacting on the server.

TheBatman1016 said:
I hope you really don't believe that PvP and RP are "Church and State." This is the ideology that is hurting so much of our community. Back in late 2012 when I first started playing, there wasn't so much of a divide between "PvP'rs" and "RP's." There were some people who tended to PvP more and some people who tended to RP more, but there wasn't so much stigma between them.

I am also a veteran to the server, and I see what you mean. However, back in 2012, there was no set-in-stone lore. I think we've evolved further. And like an evolved species, it is in human nature to attempt to overpower another group: Roleplayers and PVPers.

TheBatman1016 said:
I just think that we should be open to ideas like this.

I am not against your idea in any way. In-fact, I'm willing to help you develop a suggestion. I just think it hasn't been thought out thoroughly enough.
It does seem like a good idea, but after much thought, there is something that just seems off- which I had specified.

On the off hand, you said that its not perfect. Thus validating my point. How about it is considered for you to tolerate the current system like the great majority? Then again, who am I to suggest you do that?

I'm not actually suggesting you do that. It is just to place an example. Food for thought.

TheBatman1016 said:
Its not perfect, but I'd sure prefer trying it rather than rolling a die

TheBatman1016 said:
Cheers.

Please dont dismiss me in the way you did. Then again, would I be incorrect in supposing those who suggest ideas would defend them to the very end?

~0~

SirBacon12 said:
I think you misunderstood his idea.

Perhaps.

SirBacon12 said:
This isn't really a "Pro PvP" suggestion. It's trying to find common ground between RP and PVP.

I understand this much.

SirBacon12 said:
To quote the original post, "get RP'rs and PvP'rs on the same side."

I can see why he desires this. We all do. But so does communism (to my extent of the knowledge acquired from Model United Nations and research on Cuba), which seeks equality and the- bluntly speaking- destruction of government. Yet, everyone renders it unjust because of the corruption.

SirBacon12 said:
Your last comment about PvP and RP being "oil and water" is kinda proving his point.

In this, you are correct.
Or at least would be, if I had not been making an unbiased decision. I spoke regarding the present, which almost shows an oil/water-like behavior when in accordance to role-play and PvPers. I must specify that, despite enjoying role-play much more than PvP, I am quite capable of setting my differences aside when providing my opinion on a suggestion. My comments in things such as these are as neutral as can be, only bringing up personal opinion when I see it would be constructive.

So I suggest the following:
We keep the current system, and after results are received, a light-rp like simulation of the event can be performed in-game.

Kind of like the tournaments and the nobility looking for champions, but in a blue-team red-team kind of way with different maps.

TheBatman1016 · Jul 13, 2015

SilentsAppeal said:
Let's not make this into an argument.

I do not think I was understood.
And while it is true that role-play would have not been eliminated, it completely shatters what seems to be a very functional system which seems to be very liked- as people actually support the player quest systems.

They would be affected, yes, because some are utterly incapable of successfully participating in PvP with a fighting change. Whether it be their computers, their disinterest, or their lack of skill and a mouse, it doesn't matter. Non-OOC action-based roleplay makes it fun for those who are with disability.

I actually agree with this statement.
Just look at the Court Ball!
They're not rolls, and is just as impacting on the server.

I am also a veteran to the server, and I see what you mean. However, back in 2012, there was no set-in-stone lore. I think we've evolved further. And like an evolved species, it is in human nature to attempt to overpower another group: Roleplayers and PVPers.

I am not against your idea in any way. In-fact, I'm willing to help you develop a suggestion. I just think it hasn't been thought out thoroughly enough.
It does seem like a good idea, but after much thought, there is something that just seems off- which I had specified.

On the off hand, you said that its not perfect. Thus validating my point. How about it is considered for you to tolerate the current system like the great majority? Then again, who am I to suggest you do that?

I'm not actually suggesting you do that. It is just to place an example. Food for thought.

Please dont dismiss me in the way you did. Then again, would I be incorrect in supposing those who suggest ideas would defend them to the very end?

~0~

Perhaps.

I understand this much.

I can see why he desires this. We all do. But so does communism (to my extent of the knowledge acquired from Model United Nations and research on Cuba), which seeks equality and the- bluntly speaking- destruction of government. Yet, everyone renders it unjust because of the corruption.

In this, you are correct.
Or at least would be, if I had not been making an unbiased decision. I spoke regarding the present, which almost shows an oil/water-like behavior when in accordance to role-play and PvPers. I must specify that, despite enjoying role-play much more than PvP, I am quite capable of setting my differences aside when providing my opinion on a suggestion. My comments in things such as these are as neutral as can be, only bringing up personal opinion when I see it would be constructive.

So I suggest the following:
We keep the current system, and after results are received, a light-rp like simulation of the event can be performed in-game.

Kind of like the tournaments and the nobility looking for champions, but in a blue-team red-team kind of way with different maps.

First, I apologize if I appeared to come off hostile in my previous comments, that was not my intention.
From the way you worded the part in bold about it being better for people who can't PvP as well, it would seem as though we were talking about making roleplay fights actual PvP fights. That is not what I am suggesting. If role-players do not want to PvP, they don't have to. RP fights would still go in as usual in Regalia etc, Im only suggesting that the ones where a computer roles dice and automatically decides an outcome should be replaced. And not even all of them, just some of them if its too much work to organize a lot of them. Im not saying there is anything wrong with the current system. It works fine and nobody has a problem with it. However, that does not mean there is not room for improvement. Though the role system right now may be fine, the situation of RP vs. PvP isn't. The PvP community is dying whether we like it or not. The overall system right now is not working whether we like it or not. We need something to bring RP and PvP together, I don't care if it is this suggestion or not. I just hoped this would be a step in the right direction.

Silent_Ruler · Jul 13, 2015

@TheBatman1016
Your suggestion has been duly noted, though I still disagree with the attempts at replacing some rolls with PvP for already specified reasons not only by me, but by others as well.

Your attempts at reform are noble, and I find it endearing that you even suggested something. Not many people do.

No need to apologize. And thank you for this suggestion, despite me not agreeing with it completely.

TheBatman1016 · Jul 13, 2015

Terence29 said:
I'm against this idea for the following reasons, and I'll try to keep it short:

Tactics can not really be applied like they usually would. That ruins a lot of important factors.

The outcome would be highly unrealistic if it was based on this.

Let's be honest here, PvPers wouldn't want to roleplay being champions/war heroes in RP. Not to mention that many do not even possess the knowledge of the lore and thus would very easily RP incorrectly in such an important position.

What would happen to those people who play knights/fighter characters, yet who only RP and not PvP? This system would only really include the PvPers. Roleplayers would just.. Well. Have the outcome effect the world in a way without getting involved much, or at all.

In conclusion, a lot of roleplayers would be highly unhappy with this and it destroys about all aspects of roleplay those world progression events have. Want to merge PvP with Roleplay? Find a roleplay family to be their champion in the upcoming PvP tournaments. Many noble families are still in need of one.

You bring up some very valid points.
1. First you mention that tactics cannot realistically be accounted for. This is very true, however, a 15% boost during a role isn't very realistic either.
2. I guess the outcome would be unrealistic, but that doesn't mean we couldn't try to balance it. I am in no way supporting that every battle dictating the entire storyline would be played out this way. But just maybe some of them could.
3. Here is where I would disagree. I think a lot of PvP'rs would not might some light rp about there battles from time to time. It's not like Pvp'rs are completely disinterested in lore/rp, its just that they wouldn't like to go to the tavern and have a 20 minute chat about nobles or the weather. You can see this clearly in the detailed lore a lot of PvP'rs have put into their PvP factions. Great examples were Valryia/Magnanimus.
4. Not every fighter in RP would have to participate in the battles. IRL not every warrior is in every battle. Even if they wanted to they could pretend as if they were in the battle. (Is that not what they do now?)

Finally, you suggest finding an RP family to be their champion during the PvP tournaments. I agree with you. I did it for the unarmed tourney and I plan on the Classic one too. However, there has never been an event like this before, and even if they continue to do RP/PvP tournaments in the future, they only come around every few months. That is not enough to change the relationship between the two groups right now.

Silent_Ruler · Jul 13, 2015

@TheBatman1016

You seem to be very sure that tampering with the system is the step in the right direction to fixing this problem, when you also stated that you just wanted it fixed even if your suggestion was not the one which accomplished it.

You are countering criticism, though, which is very much what one does in an argument to defend their point.

Why defend it when you can go back to the drawing board and perfect it? You've received my suggestion and a good amount of criticism, so why don't we just drop it for now? I'd love to see what you can come up with.

Like light-Roleplay simulations of World Progression rolls in-game as PvP, to the style of team PvP mixed with the current champion/tournaments concept that can be seen today? Mixed with also something like that time when voidlings invaded New Ceardia spawn.

TheBatman1016 · Jul 13, 2015

SilentsAppeal said:
@TheBatman1016

You seem to be very sure that tampering with the system is the step in the right direction to fixing this problem, when you also stated that you just wanted it fixed even if your suggestion was not the one which accomplished it.

You are countering criticism, though, which is very much what one does in an argument to defend their point.

Why defend it when you can go back to the drawing board and perfect it? You've received my suggestion and a good amount of criticism, so why don't we just drop it for now? I'd love to see what you can come up with.

Like light-Roleplay simulations of World Progression rolls in-game as PvP, to the style of team PvP mixed with the current champion/tournaments concept that can be seen today? Mixed with also something like that time when voidlings invaded New Ceardia spawn.

Im not ready to go back to the drawing boards yet because, as much as I value you and terrance's opinion, I have gotten vastly more support than criticism on this idea thus far. More people have liked it than disliked it out of the people who have commented/rated. That does not mean I won't try to perfect it, however I think it is beneficial to respond to criticism so that we can work out the best solution.

Silent_Ruler · Jul 13, 2015

@TheBatman1016
Seems good, but bear in mind that you should acknowledge how many actual and lore-affecting role players support this rather than over all supporters.
I say this because it affects them directly, whereas the PvP community is merely being included.

**It's easy to agree to invade someone's territory, just as long as that territory isn't yours.**

I think that if most of the Roleplay community welcomes you with open arms, you'd appeal much more and your previous comment would be more valid, but such is not the case at the visible and interpreted moment.

G0atfather · Jul 14, 2015

I don't like making the world progression events pvp however perhaps on a smaller scale it could work? The noble duels that take place between two families tover dispute could function similar to the tournaments. A noble picks a champion and they duel. At that point you have pvp into roleplay but also have the very functional large battles working for you. I don't know how even this idea would work though. Honestly I do not like the idea of a large scale battle being in pvp. For one it'd lag the game and for two, it would take out a huge partof roleplay. However 1v1 duels could definitely work I think.

Mecharic · Jul 14, 2015

Honestly, this is a good idea - if you have pvpers on both sides, have mcmmo disabled, and randomly select teams. In that case it will always be random, and by random teaming the pvp community itself will be forced to stop having "me v/s you" mentality a little. Also, nobody said that these pvpers need to roleplay in Regalia, ncps or other players can roleplay the "heroes" that they become, if the player doesn't want to try.

Lord_Aza · Jul 14, 2015

TheBatman1016 said:
3. Here is where I would disagree. I think a lot of PvP'rs would not might some light rp about there battles from time to time. It's not like Pvp'rs are completely disinterested in lore/rp, its just that they wouldn't like to go to the tavern and have a 20 minute chat about nobles or the weather.

Most pvpers I've come across have had character names like "Shrek" or "Thomas the Tank engine". You're right, there are a few pvp factions that respect the server's lore, but the majority seems to think of it as a joke..

NoMatter_ · Jul 14, 2015

SilentsAppeal said:
It still is a pro-PvP suggestion which ruins the fun for many of us.
Want to merge the role-play community with the PvP "half"?

Easy. Remember MonMarty's April Fools post in which PvP would all be similar to combat rolls.
Why not make PvP more like Roleplay than make Roleplay more like PvP?

Thing is, you'll disagree and burst into a flame war like many did in April Fools. It is this idea, but the other way around. You see what I mean?

PvP and RP are Church and State.
Division.
Oil and water.

I guess that kind of depends on your definition of PVP. Typical God armour, potion chugging, trait set up PVP; I agree. I don't see anyway for this to be merged with RP.
If PVP were medieval focused with Iron armour, traits more realistic to race abilities, and about armies and tactics, that would be great, and easily merge with RP.
I wish PVP was made like this a long time again, I'd certainly have a lot more fun with battles. xD

Silent_Ruler · Jul 14, 2015

NoMatter_ said:
I guess that kind of depends on your definition of PVP. Typical God armour, potion chugging, trait set up PVP; I agree. I don't see anyway for this to be merged with RP.
If PVP were medieval focused with Iron armour, traits more realistic to race abilities, and about armies and tactics, that would be great, and easily merge with RP.
I wish PVP was made like this a long time again, I'd certainly have a lot more fun with battles. xD

I almost agree. If PvP were more lore compliant, perhaps a system beyond my current thinking could be created.

However, it would still be PvP, which calls for many disadvantages such as the inability to play tactics and accurately represent events- as Terence said.

Even with lore compliant PvP, it would still be virtually impossible to merge the two if we want realism and accuracy, unless we speak of the light-Rp circumstances such as the current tournaments- and that example is a stretch.

Mecharic · Jul 14, 2015

SilentsAppeal said:
I almost agree. If PvP were more lore compliant, perhaps a system beyond my current thinking could be created.

However, it would still be PvP, which calls for many disadvantages such as the inability to play tactics and accurately represent events- as Terence said.

Even with lore compliant PvP, it would still be virtually impossible to merge the two if we want realism and accuracy, unless we speak of the light-Rp circumstances such as the current tournaments- and that example is a stretch.

So how exactly is having people hit each other less realistic than rolling dice? Not saying it's realistic, just that the rolling of dice isn't any more realistic. The suggestion isn't saying to write the lore to follow the battles, just to allow the battle to decide things that the dice otherwise decided.

NoMatter_ · Jul 14, 2015

Mecharic said:
So how exactly is having people hit each other less realistic than rolling dice? Not saying it's realistic, just that the rolling of dice isn't any more realistic. The suggestion isn't saying to write the lore to follow the battles, just to allow the battle to decide things that the dice otherwise decided.

I think the rolling dice is inspired by original Dungeon & dragons way of making decisions, which is essentially RP.

Mecharic · Jul 14, 2015

NoMatter_ said:
I think the rolling dice is inspired by original Dungeon & dragons way of making decisions, which is essentially RP.

I wonder how long I'd live if I typed "e:rolls dice+" when being attacked in roleplay... xD

But I suppose. I still don't see how one is somehow more realistic than the other though :/

NoMatter_ · Jul 14, 2015

Mecharic said:
I wonder how long I'd live if I typed "e:rolls dice+" when being attacked in roleplay... xD

But I suppose. I still don't see how one is somehow more realistic than the other though :/

It's not. It's just a lack of the right word used. I don't think he honestly mean't realistic but rather "rolling a dice" is probably less problematic than PVP.

Silent_Ruler · Jul 14, 2015

NoMatter_ said:
It's not. It's just a lack of the right word used. I don't think he honestly mean't realistic but rather "rolling a dice" is probably less problematic than PVP.

Forgive me and my language limitations. English is not my first language. I used realistic for lack of a better word.

Mecharic said:
So how exactly is having people hit each other less realistic than rolling dice? Not saying it's realistic, just that the rolling of dice isn't any more realistic.

The question I should be asking is, "How is this constructive?" If both are equally unrealistic, why are we merging the two concepts when PvP would be problematic on large-scale events unlike tournaments?

Mecharic said:
The suggestion isn't saying to write the lore to follow the battles, just to allow the battle to decide things that the dice otherwise decided.

Dices decide much of the World Progression Lore. By allowing PvP to take the dice's role, you are literally allowing your "stay behind the person and attack" skill determine the lore.

Rolls are more realistic, because they take into account the characters weight, skill, and body as well as mind, mindset, numbers, and actually obey a certain tactic which doesn't include pressing shift keys to have to hide or spamming a button to deliver the same attacks. Rolls provide diversity, while PvP is much more limited in terms of your actions. I can make a character who can park-our, but I cant OOC because of my mouse. The rolls make people with such limitations be able to partake in the lore-changing events through clever character creation.

The dices determine many things, actually, that a PvPer would not be capable to. These include, but are not limited to, and I quote the whole post:

Terence29 said:
I'm against this idea for the following reasons, and I'll try to keep it short:

Tactics can not really be applied like they usually would. That ruins a lot of important factors.

The outcome would be highly unrealistic if it was based on this.

Let's be honest here, PvPers wouldn't want to roleplay being champions/war heroes in RP. Not to mention that many do not even possess the knowledge of the lore and thus would very easily RP incorrectly in such an important position.

What would happen to those people who play knights/fighter characters, yet who only RP and not PvP? This system would only really include the PvPers. Roleplayers would just.. Well. Have the outcome effect the world in a way without getting involved much, or at all.

In conclusion, a lot of roleplayers would be highly unhappy with this and it destroys about all aspects of roleplay those world progression events have. Want to merge PvP with Roleplay? Find a roleplay family to be their champion in the upcoming PvP tournaments. Many noble families are still in need of one.

I've put too much time into this thread, and it's giving me a headache already. Is this what I get for giving my opinion? If I were trolling or being unreasonable, I'd understand; but I think I've given a plethora of explanations and reasons to discard that.

Lets be honest. This question is more directed to the person who invented the dice/roll system and the person who runs it. Instead of asking me, who is hardly relevant to the situation, why don't you ask him or her instead? I am now personally curious.

Mecharic · Jul 14, 2015

SilentsAppeal said:
Forgive me and my language limitations. English is not my first language. I used realistic for lack of a better word.

The question I should be asking is, "How is this constructive?" If both are equally unrealistic, why are we merging the two concepts when PvP would be problematic on large-scale events unlike tournaments?

Dices decide much of the World Progression Lore. By allowing PvP to take the dice's role, you are literally allowing your "stay behind the person and attack" skill determine the lore.

Rolls are more realistic, because they take into account the characters weight, skill, and body as well as mind, mindset, numbers, and actually obey a certain tactic which doesn't include pressing shift keys to have to hide or spamming a button to deliver the same attacks. Rolls provide diversity, while PvP is much more limited in terms of your actions. I can make a character who can park-our, but I cant OOC because of my mouse. The rolls make people with such limitations be able to partake in the lore-changing events through clever character creation.

The dices determine many things, actually, that a PvPer would not be capable to. These include, but are not limited to, and I quote the whole post:

I've put too much time into this thread, and it's giving me a headache already. Is this what I get for giving my opinion? If I were trolling or being unreasonable, I'd understand; but I think I've given a plethora of explanations and reasons to discard that.

Lets be honest. This question is more directed to the person who invented the dice/roll system and the person who runs it. Instead of asking me, who is hardly relevant to the situation, why don't you ask him or her instead? I am now personally curious.

Sorry for making it feel like I'm against you, I just think that some form of this idea would be a good way to get PvPers more interested in roleplay and vice-versa. Maybe a combination of the two, like, have a killcount from the PvP battle be factored into whatever equation is used to decide the winner (and outcomes) of a battle?

Pumpkin_Rot · Jul 20, 2015

No serious pvper is ever going to go for this. That's sort of the end of the discussion.

NoMatter_ · Jul 20, 2015

Pumpkin_Rot said:
No serious pvper is ever going to go for this. That's sort of the end of the discussion.

I honestly think you should re-consider your approach on how you make statements like that.. Having a opinion is one thing, and fine man, declaring opinions as fact without evidence to support it is not.

Pumpkin_Rot · Jul 20, 2015

NoMatter_ said:
I honestly think you should re-consider your approach on how you make statements like that.. Having a opinion is one thing, and fine man, declaring opinions as fact without evidence to support it is not.

Sorry, Almost no serious pvper is ever going to go for this.

BenRekt · Jul 20, 2015

Mecharic said:
by random teaming the pvp community itself will be forced to stop having "me v/s you" mentality a little.

Actually that has been gone for a while, there is almost none of that mentality left, which is part of the reason why PvP is dying, because wars are no longer personal when you know and talk to the enemy side in teamspeak regularly.

TheBatman1016 · Jul 20, 2015

Pumpkin_Rot said:
Sorry, Almost no serious pvper is ever going to go for this.

A lot of the positive ratings I have already gotten on the original post were from "Serious Pvpers."

Archived Roll No More (pvp And Lore Suggestion)

Definitely Maybe

The Best

Gopnik of the North™

Meemay.

Massives biggest Adventurer and Conspiracy Maker

Dragon of Harreldyr

The Desciple of Cecidit

Ever Waiting

No, I will not do that for a Klondike bar.

Scrapper.

Definitely Maybe

Pioneer

Scrapper.

Definitely Maybe

Duke of Faldrus Cove

"Kittyhulk"

Scrapper.

Definitely Maybe

Scrapper.

Definitely Maybe

Scrapper.

Definitely Maybe

Scrapper.

The G0atfather

I'm tempermental, deal with it.

I actually work at a medieval castle nowadays!

Pioneer

Scrapper.

I'm tempermental, deal with it.

Pioneer

I'm tempermental, deal with it.

Pioneer

Scrapper.

I'm tempermental, deal with it.

Wanderer of Eternia

Pioneer

Wanderer of Eternia

Chopper Gunner

Definitely Maybe