Crying about PVP realms ''Blue'' response

[Endus]

Quote me.

It was in the part I quoted there. Stop being disingenuous.

What players understand IS what they have signed up to. Simplest concept in contract law.

If two parties in a contract disagree on a basic principle upon which that contract is based, the contract is unenforcable. It doesn't mean one person gets to say "I thought you meant X" and the contract automatically forces the other party to provide X. If, for instance, we sign a contract for you to use my restaurant to host a party, and you assumed that meant an open bar, and I claimed it didn't, all that means is that the contract is null and void and you're not having a party at my place, not that I'm forced to pay for the open bar you want.

Nobody is on a pvp server. That's because there aren't any any more.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/status#type=pvp

That's the list of current PvP servers.

Since their populations aren't zero, you're being deliberately untruthful.

[Deleted]

It was in the part I quoted there. Stop being disingenuous.

Then you must have misread it.

If two parties in a contract disagree on a basic principle upon which that contract is based, the contract is unenforcable. It doesn't mean one person gets to say "I thought you meant X" and the contract automatically forces the other party to provide X. If, for instance, we sign a contract for you to use my restaurant to host a party, and you assumed that meant an open bar, and I claimed it didn't, all that means is that the contract is null and void and you're not having a party at my place, not that I'm forced to pay for the open bar you want.

8 years of provision and payment taken says you are barking up the wrong tree here.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/status#type=pvp

That's the list of current PvP servers.

Since their populations aren't zero, you're being deliberately untruthful.

None of those is a discrete server any more. CRZ ended them. Pvp, yes. Server, no. I'm not being untruthful, the names need changing to battlegroup.

[Endus]

None of those is a discrete server any more. CRZ ended them. Pvp, yes. Server, no. I'm not being untruthful, the names need changing to battlegroup.

You said you weren't playing definitional games. That's a list of the PvP servers. If your definition says they aren't, then your "definition" is wrong. We're talking about what Blizzard defines as a PvP server, not whatever you've decided to pretend they are.

[Deleted]

You said you weren't playing definitional games. That's a list of the PvP servers. If your definition says they aren't, then your "definition" is wrong. We're talking about what Blizzard defines as a PvP server, not whatever you've decided to pretend they are.

I'm talking about how blizzard defined a pvp server by their repeated actions over 8 years.

You want to talk about some nebulous concept that you get to point to that override the facts of that history.

Facts > words. Always.

Edit - you agree that in fact and in game a pvp server meant that you would only ever meet people from the same server pre CRZ, right? not talking about potential design, or blue posts, or the game manual, or why it was that way - i'm talking about how it actually was - do agree that is how it was - yes or no?

Your options are -

1) Agree. Feel free to add stuff about design decisions etc I can edit the irrelevent out. I win the argument.

2) Disagree. Flat denial of the facts. I win the argument.

Which is it? Are you wrong or am I right?

[Endus]

I'm talking about how blizzard defined a pvp server by their repeated actions over 8 years.

As opposed to the stated policies and such.

As I said; you want to talk about stuff you're making up, not the actual definitions.

[Deleted]

As opposed to the stated policies and such.

As I said; you want to talk about stuff you're making up, not the actual definitions.

When "actual definitions" don't match how reality is, guess what? The "actual definitons" are wrong. Reality is always right.

I'm not making anything up whatsoever. I'm just pointing to facts and expecting you to accept them like a grown up would. I know you are a mod and stuff, but simply insisting on nonsense for the sake of keeping appearances is just making you lose what you wish to keep. Everyone makes mistakes. This is one of yours.

[Endus]

Edit - you agree that in fact and in game a pvp server meant that you would only ever meet people from the same server pre CRZ, right? not talking about potential design, or blue posts, or the game manual, or why it was that way - i'm talking about how it actually was - do agree that is how it was - yes or no?

That it did? Yes.

That this was actually part of the definition? No. That's just false.

That adding CRZ in any way changed said definition? Again, no. The definition's the same as it's always been. The experience has changed, of course, but that's the goal of any change. It does not invalidate the definitions, no matter how much you wish it did.

---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 09:58 PM ----------

When "actual definitions" don't match how reality is, guess what? The "actual definitons" are wrong. Reality is always right.

The actual definitions are the reality. The stuff you're making up is not.

I'm not making anything up whatsoever. I'm just pointing to facts and expecting you to accept them like a grown up would.

And we're back to you making personal insults.

[Deleted]

That it did? Yes.

Cool.

That this was actually part of the definition? No. That's just false.

That's fine, I never claimed it was part of the definition.

That adding CRZ in any way changed said definition? Again, no. The definition's the same as it's always been. The experience has changed, of course, but that's the goal of any change. It does not invalidate the definitions, no matter how much you wish it did.

I never argued definitions.

I just know that the experience is more important than any of the words. You think the opposite. I'm right on that and you are wrong.

End of debate. Cheers, it's been fun.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 03:06 AM ----------

The actual definitions are the reality. The stuff you're making up is not.

No, and this is the source of our conflict. It's not reconcilable. I am willing to accept facts over words, you are not.

I can be swayed by new data, you get to ignore it.

Like I said, cheers for the debate. We're done.

And we're back to you making personal insults.

Not at all, your refusal to accept that facts are always superior to words is inherently childlike.

[Seegtease]

It's so "obvious" that plenty of people in this thread disagree with you, no definition of any kind supports your claim, whether English or Blizzard-specific, and you've failed to rationalize or otherwise support it in ANY way whatsoever.

You've made a claim that "PvP server" means something other than what those words explicitly mean, going by the dictionary. The obligation is on YOU to back up that claim.

You're claiming something about the definition of "PvP server". That's the kind of thing Blizzard DOES do. And did. In the PvP realm policy. Which doesn't in any way support you. It's nothing like stuff that isn't related to Blizzard's services, like your house having power.

Drop the PvP server thing altogether, and extend it to realms in general.

Yes, when you pick a realm, you do all run under the assumption that you will only be playing with players from that realm (except in certain instanced places, which eventually became BGs and Dungeons, since those were technically divided off, you were never really FORCED to play with other servers. It was all optional.)

Some people pick a realm because of population. They pick a high population realm because they like it, or a low one because they like to be bothered less. Sure, we all know population will fluctuate over time. But what we do NOT come to expect is that suddenly we will be playing sporadically with other servers.

We pick a realm because we want to play with players on that realm. So by very definition of what a realm is, they DID violate the protocol we have come to expect - that is, we are forced to play with people on other realms. There may not be a hidden definition in the term "PvP" but you better be damn sure there is a definition of a "server/realm".

[Endus]

Drop the PvP server thing altogether, and extend it to realms in general.

Yes, when you pick a realm, you do all run under the assumption that you will only be playing with players from that realm (except in certain instanced places, which eventually became BGs and Dungeons, since those were technically divided off, you were never really FORCED to play with other servers. It was all optional.)

Some people pick a realm because of population. They pick a high population realm because they like it, or a low one because they like to be bothered less. Sure, we all know population will fluctuate over time. But what we do NOT come to expect is that suddenly we will be playing sporadically with other servers.

We pick a realm because we want to play with players on that realm. So by very definition of what a realm is, they DID violate the protocol we have come to expect - that is, we are forced to play with people on other realms. There may not be a hidden definition in the term "PvP" but you better be damn sure there is a definition of a "server/realm".

So?

You're saying that as if your assumptions held any inherent value. They don't. MMOs are inherently forward-looking, constantly updated games. Things ALWAYS change. Changing things like this isn't a violation of any "protocol", it's the standard of their business model.

Again; this isn't "you have to like CRZ". But it isn't any kind of breach of contract, spoken or not, for them to update the game with new technologies, changing the way it used to play. That's explicitly in the contract.


Yes, this is redefining what a "server community" means. Because the old system wasn't providing the ideal gameplay experience. If you don't like the new thing, sure, make your criticisms known. Just be aware that if they boil down to "I don't like forced PvP all the time", the response, as with the blue post, is going to be "then get off the PvP realms which exist for that sole purpose". If you have other complaints, by all means, make them known.

But seriously, drop the "it's a violation of protocol/promise/whatever" stuff. It isn't. Not even a little. These kinds of changes are covered by the TOU you all agreed to.

[Seegtease]

So?

You're saying that as if your assumptions held any inherent value. They don't. MMOs are inherently forward-looking, constantly updated games. Things ALWAYS change. Changing things like this isn't a violation of any "protocol", it's the standard of their business model.

Again; this isn't "you have to like CRZ". But it isn't any kind of breach of contract, spoken or not, for them to update the game with new technologies, changing the way it used to play. That's explicitly in the contract.


Yes, this is redefining what a "server community" means. Because the old system wasn't providing the ideal gameplay experience. If you don't like the new thing, sure, make your criticisms known. Just be aware that if they boil down to "I don't like forced PvP all the time", the response, as with the blue post, is going to be "then get off the PvP realms which exist for that sole purpose". If you have other complaints, by all means, make them known.

But seriously, drop the "it's a violation of protocol/promise/whatever" stuff. It isn't. Not even a little. These kinds of changes are covered by the TOU you all agreed to.

Of course we agreed to it, or we couldn't play the game at all.

But when you have a TOU that basically says "we can do whatever, whenever, however we want" you have to admit it's kind of pointless. No matter what bullshit their TOU is full of, it's still a bait and switch. People picked a server, and are being forced (not in any way optional) to play with other servers. In some cases, those people may have even paid money for a transfer from those servers they are merged with.

Just because "they didn't break any rules" doesn't make it any less lame of them. Something doesn't have to be a violation of a promise to still make players feel cheated out of what they thought (those thoughts being based on years of experience and consistency) they were getting into.

[stresskiller]

Then don't be RUDE to me by taking up space on a pvp server that's better left for people who, ummm, enjoy unfair world pvp?

thats why i think that the transfers should be free from PVP to PVE due to huge change on the PvP realms since CRZ.
People actual stop playing the game because of CRZ , not to mention the selfish attitude of the average player these days.
if people pay a monthly fee to be entertained in a gym the won't have to pay a $25 penalty if they switch fitness machines.
so why is it that wow players should pay a $25 penalty if they want to move ?

[Nerraw]

What's funny is that so many of you complain about the LFD/LFR community and how packed with assholes/retards/jerks/ and you name it. Well guess what CRZ is. Crz is forcing that on the majority of players leveling with the game. Now it would be alright if the wow public didn't contain so many misanthropes and nehrdowells but it does and CRZ effectively gives those players a sand box to fuck around in. Yes you agreed to pvp in a pvp server, congratulations. I don't think any of you agreed to being beseiged by an onslaught of assholes or being subjected and forced to swallow the playstyle of Jhonny Ghankyou. It's madness and it's bad business for Blizzard. Subject new players to the community of douche bags.

I've never complained about LFR/LFD. In fact, it's probably the only thing that keeps people on low pop realms like mine still interested in the game because it gives them a chance to gear up instead of wasting 6 hours in Trade waiting for a tank to log on.

[Deleted]

I've never complained about LFR/LFD. In fact, it's probably the only thing that keeps people on low pop realms like mine still interested in the game because it gives them a chance to gear up instead of wasting 6 hours in Trade waiting for a tank to log on.

Ive never said that about LRD so it cant be happening. Sound logic.

[Nerraw]

Ive never said that about LRD so it cant be happening. Sound logic.

Everything in this thread has been about the personal experiences of people. And it seems to be that among the people against cross-realm tech, it's a near-absolute fact that because these people are against it, the majority of the playerbase is against it too. But when the same thing happens for those on the opposite site of the argument, it's personal and anecdotal evidence only.

[Banzhe]

None of those is a discrete server any more. CRZ ended them. Pvp, yes. Server, no. I'm not being untruthful, the names need changing to battlegroup.

Their still the same servers, you can argue that if you get zoned onto another realm.., then you're technically not playing on the server you signed up for, but in all cases, you could extend this to ending realms when they implemented the LFD / LFR tools, which isn't the case.

Personally I see no valid claims of any kind in your replies (if anything only false claims about how the game had run for 8 years, that implies you haven't been playing for to long), merely some upset little muppet who's now lashing out on anyone who isn't agreeing with him.

Players missed World PvP, so blizzard implemented CRZ and gave them World PvP.., some players who started in Wrath or later, now complain because they thought World PvP was level appropriate scenario's

[Deleted]

One problematic thing thesedays on world pvp/ganking is resilence.. as a rogue i dont see any chance to do dailies as sub and pvp gear instead of my pve gear which leads that im easy target for those who are just ganking. Sure its fun for me to go and gank with pvp gear, when ppl are doing their dailies in pve gear, but i wouldnt call it pvp. in vanilla when world pvp existed, there was no resi and ppl were on same "line" when they wondrered arounf world.

[Deja Thoris]

Endus / Injin.

With respect, I'm not sure any of you have added anything new to this thread in the last 40 pages. All you are doing is repeating points you made ad nauseum using different words and analagies. Repetition isn't discussion.

Your views are diametrically opposed and it's clear that one will not convince the other or compromise.

Can you give it a rest and see how it plays out in a few months ingame?

[Deleted]

Endus / Injin.

With respect, I'm not sure any of you have added anything new to this thread in the last 40 pages. All you are doing is repeating points you made ad nauseum using different words and analagies. Repetition isn't discussion.

Your views are diametrically opposed and it's clear that one will not convince the other or compromise.

Can you give it a rest and see how it plays out in a few months ingame?

I'd already jacked in responding to Endus for that very reason, and said so.

Just pointing that out.

[coldbear]

PvP servers never promised server-exclusive world PvP. Provide a blue source or policy document to back up that claim, or admit you're making it up.

The main reason people complain about it in LFD/LFR is because those are inherently cooperative environments, and one player not cooperating throws a wrench into the works.

PvP is inherently combative, not cooperative. Other players acting like mouth-frothing ravenous baboons just encourages more world PvP, which is the entire point. The 4chan effect, if anything, is a boon for CRZ where it's a detriment for LFD/LFR. Not least because those babboons are often poor at PvP against other level-capped players, making them ripe and easy pickings for counter-ganking.

Yeah, they kind of did, for a long while. Maybe not explicitly, but sure as hell in practice. Either case, if all people are crying about is that they're not getting ONLY ganked by members of their own server, then they really need to get a grip.

Rest of your post was spot on, though.

Personally I think the whole thing could be solved by 1:1 ratio server-only BGs with mediocre rewards, which would incidentally auto-self-balance the servers, sloooooowly and little by little over the years.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 06:33 PM ----------

Really? So the only thing we can make a valid complaint about are things that violate the original promises? Anything that was not specifically stated is fair game for change and we should shut up and take it?

Come on. Just because something isn't stated doesn't mean it's a reasonable thing to change. It's absolutely impossible to cover everything. If they added 30 NPCs to every zone on PvE servers that flew around and one-shot people randomly, could we not complain? I mean, after all, they never promised they wouldn't do that. Or maybe they could just make an AoE spell that covers Azeroth entirely dealing 1,000,000 damage to all players every 5 minutes. Hey, I can't show you where Blizzard said they would never do such a thing, so I guess it's totally acceptable.

No, just because it's not a broken promise doesn't mean we can't (or shouldn't) complain about it.

Do you remember the time that Blizzard was going to reveal everybody's real name on the forums instead of using character names? You remember how much people flipped out over it? And you must know they cancelled the idea. Why? Because we complained. The CRZ situation is quite similar. Sure, there were a few people here and there who wanted more populated zones, but ultimately, more people dislike it than like it. However, Blizzard made the change because they want people to play the game the way THEY, the designers, intended. The only way to make them change their mind is to be as loud as we were about the whole "show your real name" issue.

The RealID was a noble way to counteract this:



But sadly that was not to be, for identity theft and persecution and bullying issues, obviously.

Endus / Injin.

With respect, I'm not sure any of you have added anything new to this thread in the last 40 pages. All you are doing is repeating points you made ad nauseum using different words and analagies. Repetition isn't discussion.

Your views are diametrically opposed and it's clear that one will not convince the other or compromise.

Can you give it a rest and see how it plays out in a few months ingame?

I smiled. It's still interesting. Keeping this thread going makes more people aware of the fact that THEY NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE IF THEY DON'T LIKE DODGING. Or something. You get the point. People need to start taking responsibility for their choices. Nobody holds a gun to someone's head and says "You better roll on a pvp server or I'll blow your brains out."