Don't put maneuvers behind rage please

[wonder-ass]

because they are extremely powerful moves? you could shit on someone with out dog and rage that has same stats as you simply because you have rage.

If a man want to fight in PvP it seem reasonable to me that he will buy the PvP skill.

what if this man didnt want to fight but got aggroed? what is he supposed to do just get beat up because he cant fight back to rage and dog?

[Ysh]

because they are extremely powerful moves? you could shit on someone with out dog and rage that has same stats as you simply because you have rage.

If a man want to fight in PvP it seem reasonable to me that he will buy the PvP skill.

what if this man didnt want to fight but got aggroed? what is he supposed to do just get beat up because he cant fight back to rage and dog?

It takes only one man to decide to attack another. I think this violence is not system of mutual consent by its nature. If you will opt out of ability to fight other men, then I think you can not complain when other men who are trained in fighting decide to fight you and win.

As consolation, this impotent man is harder to kill, and can teleport away after he is knocked out.

[Omnipotent]

-1

These moves are locked behind rage for a good reason. If you want to have these powerful moves, you have to commit to having rage.

They give you an advantage in PvP over players who don't have it, so it makes perfect sense for it to be locked behind a PvP skill.

[Vigilance]

it actually super duper sucks that i cant run bloodlust on one of my characters right now for hunting but its w/e.

[_Gunnar]

After some reflection and reading others posts & reactions, I'm willing to retract my suggestion and admit I was wrong

I guess I will buy rage and just rely on my knarr's speed to avoid getting killed if I want to have fun with these moves

[Kaios]

-1, knowing that someone is using these rightfully powerful stances, ensures the attacker he has found someone with rage instead of casual player.

Yes because I know when I have rage I too always wander around using my death or glory/bloodlust decks.

The maneuevers are also both good in combat so to have people walking in fights without rage skill but with these maneuevers would also be dumb.

Would you take the same stance if powerful maneuver was created exclusively for players that chose not to get rage? You can still die without rage so because you’re the one taking the risk to aggro first means you should get access to abilities giving you a significant advantage over others in combat? When you go out to hunt players you are prepared with the correct deck and equipment, have backup and are prepared to attack, fight and kill the players you come across. When I go out it’s probably not with the intent to kill a player and I don’t have soldiers at my side and you’re telling me because I may not have a certain skill I deserve to be at a disadvantage.

Knowing whether someone has it or not of course affects your willingness to go for the ko because playing risky yourself (risk death) just to take some guy his gear is not worth

Don’t want to take that risk? Don’t buy rage, don’t attack players expecting to be able to easily differentiate between those you can rock and those who are gonna turn around and fuck on you. Get good.

[_Gunnar]

powerful maneuver was created exclusively for players that chose not to get rage?

quite a nice suggestion!

[Granger]

If you will opt out of ability to fight other men, then I think you can not complain when other men who are trained in fighting decide to fight you and win.

It dosn't surprise me that the ones interested in PvP want to have it as easy as possible to crush every character that isn't in their (criminal scum that intents to murder others) peer group. But you're performing a fallacy here: not buying rage is (or should be, as that was the suggestion I made) about opting out of being the aggressor.

I support the OP: not buying rage should opt out of the ability to attack others, not out of the ability to fight in self defense.

[Ysh]

If you will opt out of ability to fight other men, then I think you can not complain when other men who are trained in fighting decide to fight you and win.

It dosn't surprise me that the ones interested in PvP want to have it as easy as possible to crush every character that isn't in their (criminal scum that intents to murder others) peer group. But you're performing a fallacy here: not buying rage is (or should be, as that was the suggestion I made) about opting out of being the aggressor.

I support the OP: not buying rage should opt out of the ability to attack others, not out of the ability to fight in self defense.

Not buy rage is not opt out of ability to defense yourself. You are still allowed to fight if you are attacked without rage.

Usually I will consider video game mechanism to be some abstraction for real live situations. In the real live, there is no such magic force which will prevent me from attack some other man. Thematically, I have assume that rage represent some thing like specific combat training within context of fighting other men, instead of animals. I do not become trained in shooting in the real live, but I assume some training on how to hunt deer is different than military training on how to hunt men.

Operating within this context, it seem reasonable to me that men lacking in rage will be at disadvantage against ''trained warrior'' types who have rage. Of course, I think there is other reasonable implementations that can be chosen. Perhaps this one do not lead to ideal gameplay, even if I think it is reasonable from philosophical perspective.

[Granger]

Along that logic the soldiers (characters with rage) turn into war criminals when they attack civilians (rage-less characters).

Bad design IMHO as the stances can also be quite useful in PvE and the rage distinction is ment to prevent slaughtering of non-PvP players.