Genesis Forums

It's always been a stupid idea. It's just a reason to playerfight under the guise of roleplay.

Zar: If you want to play that way. I suspect you whine about Haradrims and how the Mages protect them. There are a very few who is attacked on sight at Haradrims and most who are caught will get a fair warning, even Laurel, before the shield comes whacking.

IMHO it's really cool, if guild protects npcs that are linked to it by theme. At the same time, trying to 'protec' npcs thematically linked, only to grind on them is probably one of the most lame and pathetic excuses, I've ever seen on Genesis. It's just plain dumb. For me it's perfectly ok, if someone says 'Go away, I don't want you here, because I've got a bad mood, am a bad guy, don't like the look of your face'.

This is 10 thousand times better role playing than the whole 'protecting' stuff. Honestly I have absolutely no idea, how on earth could someone even come up with it. To make matters worse, how could someone consider it an RP-wise explanation. For me that's possibly the dumbest thing you could ever say. "Hey you there, don't you dare to touch my girlfriend- I'm the one trainign on her. Need her to be in a good shape'. Seriously... this is soooo stupid.

Posting in a QQ thread.

It makes more sense to just kill you on sight with zero warning if you are engaging or in combat with allied troops.

You willingly enter a high risk zone and assault troops that serve the Eye, and complain when their allies/masters arrive at the scene, assisting them?

while Genesis seems to float towards complete pve carebearism, it's not quite there yet, so expect atleast some minimum pvp/conflict-related pockets in the corners of the donut.

Embrace it, it's actually a good thing.

Targun wrote:IMHO it's really cool, if guild protects npcs that are linked to it by theme. At the same time, trying to 'protec' npcs thematically linked, only to grind on them is probably one of the most lame and pathetic excuses, I've ever seen on Genesis. It's just plain dumb. For me it's perfectly ok, if someone says 'Go away, I don't want you here, because I've got a bad mood, am a bad guy, don't like the look of your face'.

This is 10 thousand times better role playing than the whole 'protecting' stuff. Honestly I have absolutely no idea, how on earth could someone even come up with it. To make matters worse, how could someone consider it an RP-wise explanation. For me that's possibly the dumbest thing you could ever say. "Hey you there, don't you dare to touch my girlfriend- I'm the one trainign on her. Need her to be in a good shape'. Seriously... this is soooo stupid.

Thank you Targun for understanding my point. I think it encourages player interaction to have protected areas. I am not opposed to that at all. Its that someone came up to us, told us pretty much that he protected that area, and that only his laymen guild and the Priesthood was able to train there. To me like Targun said I think its pathetic. Either protect the area, or kill in it. It is in my opinion silly to "protect" an area and then go hunting in it. I've now seen it done in both the Haradrims and the Centaurs.

Kas wrote:Posting in a QQ thread.

I don't think I'm whining about it at all either Kas. I think I posed a question and my opinion on it. Obviously from some of the statements made I am not the only one who finds it absurd.

As I stated in the above post. Protected areas. Awesome in regards to the fact it encourages RP and possibly a PvP battle. Ridiculous that those people who claim to protect those areas though then go and kill in them.

Zestana wrote:Obviously from some of the statements made I am not the only one who finds it absurd.

I think at least Targun and me are quite with you on that one.

Kas wrote:You willingly enter a high risk zone and assault troops that serve the Eye, and complain when their allies/masters arrive at the scene, assisting them?

As I understood it, those allies/masters didn't arrive at the scene, assisting the troops that serve the Eye.
They arrived at the scene, _attacking_ those troops, and then told the others to go away, because this was _their_ xp.
Protecting your allies is ok roleplaying. Protecting your allies so you can kill them yourself, is not.

Booger wrote:

Kas wrote:You willingly enter a high risk zone and assault troops that serve the Eye, and complain when their allies/masters arrive at the scene, assisting them?

As I understood it, those allies/masters didn't arrive at the scene, assisting the troops that serve the Eye.
They arrived at the scene, _attacking_ those troops, and then told the others to go away, because this was _their_ xp.
Protecting your allies is ok roleplaying. Protecting your allies so you can kill them yourself, is not.

guess that's semantics - "assisting" could as well mean "be there for you to kill, so you can grow" ...

Kas wrote:Posting in a QQ thread.

It makes more sense to just kill you on sight with zero warning if you are engaging or in combat with allied troops.

You willingly enter a high risk zone and assault troops that serve the Eye, and complain when their allies/masters arrive at the scene, assisting them?

while Genesis seems to float towards complete pve carebearism, it's not quite there yet, so expect atleast some minimum pvp/conflict-related pockets in the corners of the donut.

Embrace it, it's actually a good thing.

Says the guy from the guild with one of the best set of pvp utilities.