Why are thieves allowed to harass gray/red players in town without repercussion?

[Vizeroth]

What is the purpose of allowing thieves to steal from criminals and murderers without flagging? All it does is allow degenerate gameplay by enabling thieves to harass people trying to find PVP in town until they concede and leave in frustration.

If a thief steals from someone, the thief should flag to the target as though an attack were made, regardless of the target's criminal status.

 

[DragonSlayer69r]

Make box, tinker trap box. No more theif. That one item ruins thief's, and makes them unplayable.

 

[Vizeroth]

Or we could do what I said because it makes sense and doesn't require convolution of macros.

 

[Simon Cowell]

lol no, it's always been that way. If you're too lazy to make a locking box it's on you.

 

[Vizeroth]

Two replies, one sad excuse for an argument that is a textbook appeal to tradition fallacy. Try harder.

 

[kdivers]

When you go grey/red with the intent to get involved with more pvp, that is a sacrifice you must make. You have to balance the good with the bad. The question then becomes: Is the occasional thief a bigger deal than the PVP I gain?

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, son.

 

[incubusfan1413]

lead the thief out of town. or dont pvp in town.

 

[Vizeroth]

lead the thief out of town. or dont pvp in town.

Hopefully he's as dense as you and has no idea where the guard line is, am I right?

 

[Simon Cowell]

When you go grey/red with the intent to get involved with more pvp, that is a sacrifice you must make. You have to balance the good with the bad. The question then becomes: Is the occasional thief a bigger deal than the PVP I gain?

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, son.

Exactly, this.

 

[incubusfan1413]

Hopefully he's as dense as you and has no idea where the guard line is, am I right?

huh

 

[Anti.Christ]

What is the purpose of allowing thieves to steal from criminals and murderers without flagging? All it does is allow degenerate gameplay by enabling thieves to harass people trying to find PVP in town until they concede and leave in frustration.

If a thief steals from someone, the thief should flag to the target as though an attack were made, regardless of the target's criminal status.

i do like you, but you seem to complain a whole lot when it comes to making it "difficult" lol like the mage shop tele spot, and now this? lol your red and in town. comon now!

 

[Simon Cowell]

How is stealing from a red/grey being a trammie? There are risks to being a red/grey and it sounds like people just want to be red without any risks.

 

[Vizeroth]

How is stealing from a red/grey being a trammie? There are risks to being a red/grey and it sounds like people just want to be red without any risks.

How is stealing from a red/grey without flagging not being a trammie? There are risks to being a thief and it sounds like people just want to steal without any risks.

It's amazing how you could type up those two lines and think you nailed it. People irrationally cling to the familiar.

When you go grey/red with the intent to get involved with more pvp, that is a sacrifice you must make. You have to balance the good with the bad.

Here's a helpful tip when attempting to formulate an argument: if what you said could be applied to just about any topic no matter how ridiculous it might be, you've failed.

What if reds and grays couldn't recall for ten minutes after being engaged in combat? "That's a sacrifice you must make. Gotta balance the good with the bad." What if reds suffered permanent stat loss when dying? "Just a sacrifice they've gotta make." What if all attacks performed by reds dealt less damage than their blue counterparts? "Oops, another sacrifice they've got to make."

There should be no point at which a player can perform a hostile action against another player without the victim of that action being able to retaliate. The current system deters PVP, and for what? So those who are too incompetent to actually kill someone can sit around and molest people who are looking for a fight while incurring no risk to themselves?

 

[GimpCent]

Another thing that needs investigating which has been a bug for well over 4 years now is... why is it someone can loot someone in town and then res up and have the loot from their cursor dropped to their bag... I simple fix would be upon death play drop item you are currently holding... this isn't dropped until after the player res's... Pretty trammie right there. Protected un-blessed loot that you can pick up off someone who lost it with death.

+1

 

[Bobby McPrescott]

Here's a helpful tip when attempting to formulate an argument: if what you said could be applied to just about any topic no matter how ridiculous it might be, you've failed.

What if reds and grays couldn't recall for ten minutes after being engaged in combat? "That's a sacrifice you must make. Gotta balance the good with the bad." What if reds suffered permanent stat loss when dying? "Just a sacrifice they've gotta make." What if all attacks performed by reds dealt less damage than their blue counterparts? "Oops, another sacrifice they've got to make.

But now you're just turning his argument into a straw man

 

[Vizeroth]

But now you're just turning his argument into a straw man

No explanation at all, eh? You're just going to fling that sentence out there?

 

[Chaos_Lord]

No explanation at all, eh? You're just going to fling that sentence out there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

 

[Vizeroth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

Weird, I'm still not seeing any explanation as to how a straw man was used here.

 

[Bobby McPrescott]

Weird, I'm still not seeing any explanation as to how a straw man was used here.

You changed the entire context of his argument, multiple times even - that's a pretty clear straw man.

This isn't a categorical imperative.

 

[Vizeroth]

You changed the entire context of his argument, multiple times even - that's a pretty clear straw man.

This isn't a categorical imperative.

His "argument" was nothing more than a mindless statement that thieves stealing from reds and grays scot free is just something they have to deal with. He made no attempt to explain why that should be the case. Showing his words in response to different contexts served to highlight the ridiculousness of the statement. Nothing was misrepresented; there wasn't anything THERE to misrepresent.

If the topic were kicking explosion potions, his post would be akin to saying "when you throw a pot with the intent to hurt someone, having it kicked back at you is a risk you must take." It's pure drivel.