Character Reset: The Word.

[theTrav]

Arrows against a plated-out oldtimer won't do the damage to make any significant impact, even in large numbers.
27 damage against, what I don't even know, 1.5K total armor hp, 12 soak, nevermind the oldtimer's hp?
That's assuming everyone's using a ranger's bow too.

I understand your point, and I agree with it in small numbers, however how large is large, and what exactly is the armor value you're up against? Is your damage with even belief sliders? or with damage heavy belief sliders? (martial and death both increase damage)

27 damage - say 20 armor (is this low? I don't really know) = 7 damage per hit. * 10 people = 70 damage per volley * 10 volleys = 700 damage.

700 damage seems significant to me. 10 volleys is a long time sure, but if you can pull off kiting successfully then you'll have all the time in the world.

I haven't factored in the hit chance on archery, I believe it's never 100% but gets fairly good?

Best a melee user can hope for in that situation is to find a cabin or mine and force a stale mate.

[Jackard]

without pvp, this game would become incredibly dull. but there is no point in attempting to persuade you, as most of your posts tend to say what you just said.

I think mybest answer to that comes from taking the same test you have in your sig:

It would seem that you'll never know the thrill, the challenge, the intrigue of a human opponent. A cunning foe would only be a nuisance to you.

[kobnach]

without pvp, this game would become incredibly dull. but there is no point in attempting to persuade you, as most of your posts tend to say what you just said.

I think my best answer to that comes from taking the same test you have in your sig:

It would seem that you'll never know the thrill, the challenge, the intrigue of a human opponent. A cunning foe would only be a nuisance to you.

That sounds just about right. I'm 73% achiever to your 0%. The only way that pvp is likely to be efficient is if the attacker focuses on those who can't defend themselves effectively. That has both moral and gameplay issues - which I tend to attribute to all pvp play, since efficiency (and curiousity) are my main motivations for playing, and I tend to unconsciously assume everyone shares those motives.

Relating to current events - folks like Rift and Raephire fighting each other is probably grossly inefficient - they certainly take a large net loss, and I'm not sure that even the winner gained much of anything. But it's not a serious balance problem, or even a big moral issue. However it's also not what I see as typical pvp - that would be alts cleaning out settlements while the players were asleep, whether for profit or just for griefing value.

Perhaps the root of our disagreement is that what you wan to participate in are duels with well matched opponents, whereas that's the last thing I think of. (For duels, I favour a consequence-free arena system.) Except that if that were the case - why would you care about people who want to opt out of pvp; they surely aren't likely to be interesting or challenging opponents?

[Jackard]

Duels? No, not at all - those are entirely artificial in most games.

I desire battles, war, politics, trade. Factions, not heroes.