Originally, we had the flagging system, for people who wanted to be "Crusaders", "Assassins", or what have you. Currently the system is about NPC-factions, but those have their own problems too (such as people flocking to certain factions, and then having to switch factions consistently because they want to stick with the one that gives them the most PvP).
From what I've seen, the NPC-faction system just hasn't been well-liked on the whole.
So, I want to propose an opt-in PvP system that makes everything super easy. I think simplicity is the best way to handle all this, because there's enough complicated pieces of the puzzle already, so, it's nice to keep some simplicity where we can imo.
So, onto the system:
It's a flagging system, just like first one proposed, but, there's only one flag: The PvP Flag (makes sense, right?).
Now, GW wisely wanted to balance risk and reward, and since PvP'ers are inherently taking on more risk, let's talk reward.
Every character who PvP will be doing one or more functions of the Holy Trinity (Damage, Tanking, Healing), so I thought, why not improve these 3 basic things, and, allow the players to choose which one they want to improve (once when they flag up, and then the decision cannot be changed without taking down the flag and reflagging).
So the three avenues of reward would be:
% Damage bonus
% Absorption bonus
or
% Healing bonus (for giving heals, not receiving)
So again, you choose one, right when you flag up, and your stuck with that choice unless you take your flag down and then put it up again.
In the first flagging system, someone would flag up, and every hour, for 10 hours, the bonus would "ramp up" until leveling off at 10. This has the obvious flaw that people (even carebears) will use the system to flag up in a Settlement, and just hang around all day while it ramps up, then maybe go do some PvE'ing at night time, and shut it off the next day to go back to bravely avoiding PvP.
To solve this, you simply have to increase the ramp-up time, so instead of 10 hours, I was thinking something closer to 60 days. That way, someone has to make the meaningful choice of either being a PvP'er, or not being a PvP'er, and can't just shut the flag on and off to enjoy the bonuses at their own convenience, without the risks involved.
The bonus given would be 1% every other day. So, even if you flag up, you don't get anything for the first 48 hours, and, even after that, you only get a 1% bonus, then 2% after Day 4, 3% after Day 6, and so on, up to a max of 30% at Day 60.
This would keep it simple, force people to make 2 meaningful choices:
1) Whether to be a PvE'er or a PvP'er
and
2) Whether to enhance their abilities in Damage, Healing, or Absorption (Tanking).
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a flagging system, just like first one proposed, but, there's only one flag: The PvP Flag (makes sense, right?).
Wouldn't it be cool if X ... nobody does X.
The people who don't want PvP will never turn the PvP flag on. The people who want nothing but PvP will always have the PvP flag on. Soon, the PvP people will quit because Pathfinder Online is a s!&~ty substitute for Battlefield/Call of Duty, and if all you want is a meaningless battle for ego, those games deliver a much better experience.
Then the PvE people quit because without the PvP activity to constantly drain stuff from the economy, nobody cares about buying anything from anyone and all the effort of the PvE gets reduced to meaningless wasted time. People who want an awesome PvE themepark will find many, many more games with better themeparks than Pathfinder Online.
So we end up with a game nobody likes and nobody plays even though everyone got exactly what they said they wanted.
RyanD
It's a flagging system, just like first one proposed, but, there's only one flag: The PvP Flag (makes sense, right?).Wouldn't it be cool if X ... nobody does X.
The people who don't want PvP will never turn the PvP flag on. The people who want nothing but PvP will always have the PvP flag on. Soon, the PvP people will quit because Pathfinder Online is a s@+~ty substitute for Battlefield/Call of Duty, and if all you want is a meaningless battle for ego, those games deliver a much better experience.
Then the PvE people quit because without the PvP activity to constantly drain stuff from the economy, nobody cares about buying anything from anyone and all the effort of the PvE gets reduced to meaningless wasted time. People who want an awesome PvE themepark will find many, many more games with better themeparks than Pathfinder Online.
So we end up with a game nobody likes and nobody plays even though everyone got exactly what they said they wanted.
RyanD
How exactly did you get all that from an opt-in PvP system with only one flag? If that scenario was going to happen, it would happen with the current flagging system too, and the previous iteration. I don't see how the system I just proposed would make that MORE likely to happen?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am a fan of PvP flagging, I'm also a fan of PvP auto-flagging when passing into certain zone types.
One of the best systems of PvP zoning I have seen was in Pirates of the Burning Sea, and that could possibly be a system used in PFO.
In order to make the surrounding area around a port city in PotBS, you just began capturing or sinking ships (NPC) within its territorial waters. Thus would begin the port city to experience unrest. You could also advance unrest by smuggling in contraband, boosting that unrest. Soon the waters around the port city were zoned PvP. The radius of this zone continued to expand until it reached several miles in every direction. The port city would eventually become vulnerable for "sacking".
The Unrest and Corruption already planned for PFO, I could see a similar system being used.
Also in PotBS, if several ports, geographically close enough were in a state of unrest at the same time, the PvP zones overlapped and in several instances virtually covered the entire map.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think the PVP flag suggestion of the OP sounds like a good one.
For me the PVP element of the game makes me very cautious. Basically I think the open non consentual pvp will because of the anonymity of the internet basically invite thuggish sociopathic gang like behavior. But I could be wrong.
I was willing to help out with the kick starter, and I am willing to give the game a try. we shall see how it goes.
That's what happened in SWG. Terrible idea that's already been done.
How does the current iteration of the system with the NPC-factions do to improve the down-sides here? Or the previous iteration of the PvP-flagging system?
I really don't see how one single PvP flag is a game ruiner, whereas adding in multiple flags, or NPC factions works so well.
Rawn; Are you just opposed to an Opt-In PvP system in general?
It's a flagging system, just like first one proposed, but, there's only one flag: The PvP Flag (makes sense, right?).Wouldn't it be cool if X ... nobody does X.
The people who don't want PvP will never turn the PvP flag on. The people who want nothing but PvP will always have the PvP flag on. Soon, the PvP people will quit because Pathfinder Online is a s$!*ty substitute for Battlefield/Call of Duty, and if all you want is a meaningless battle for ego, those games deliver a much better experience.
Then the PvE people quit because without the PvP activity to constantly drain stuff from the economy, nobody cares about buying anything from anyone and all the effort of the PvE gets reduced to meaningless wasted time. People who want an awesome PvE themepark will find many, many more games with better themeparks than Pathfinder Online.
So we end up with a game nobody likes and nobody plays even though everyone got exactly what they said they wanted.
RyanD
Ryan, are you opposed to the idea of it taking 60 days, or the idea of just having one flag? After re-reading your post, it seems your issue is just with the duration? What if you made it 10 hours (or maybe 24?) but just used one flag with the system described? Would that work?
He's saying if you have an "opt-in" system at all, you'll end up driving everyone away.
The blog is your friend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that most of us around here have gotten used to the idea that there will be no such thing as an "opt-out" for PVP. We are looking forward to the way that GW is going to be doing it: A little bit differently then it has been done before.
There are still some that are hesitant, due to past experience, but most everyone is pretty much "on-board" with the idea that danger is just outside the gates and sometimes inside too.
Just because we argue in favor of consequential PVP does not mean that we want to be able to avoid it all together.
Whoa, whoa, guys. Let's make something clear:
This thread is meant to discuss OPT-IN PvP, as compared to the OPT-IN PvP system which IS ALREADY in the game (NPC Factions), and the previous iterations of Opt-In PvP (the Crusader flag, Assassin Flag system).
This thread is not to discuss or debate the validity of an Opt-In PvP system itself, because it already goes without saying that there is one, and that's been the way it's been for a LONG time (at least since February of this year).
I was merely comparing a one-flag system to the current NPC-faction system, that's it.
And btw, we're talking about an OPT-IN PvP system where you can kill others in the Opt-In system without consequence and vice-versa, there is already an "Opt-Out" system in place... it's called the Reputation system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's what happened in SWG. Terrible idea that's already been done.How does the current iteration of the system with the NPC-factions do to improve the down-sides here? Or the previous iteration of the PvP-flagging system?
I really don't see how one single PvP flag is a game ruiner, whereas adding in multiple flags, or NPC factions works so well.
Rawn; Are you just opposed to an Opt-In PvP system in general?
Pretty much, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed SWG for what it was, and I was one of the people that stayed flagged for PVP all the time. There were all sorts of problems that stemmed from that, though, not least of which was people *unflagging* for PVP when faced by a superior force. Or people just... not... flagging... at all. And then all you have left is a social city building game with no other real purpose. At all.
Again, i want to stress. I loved SWG. But, SWG would have been better if there was no toggleable PVP.
Is the GW system the answer? I have no clue. I won't know until I've played it. On paper I like it, though. But, I can say that I don't want toggle PVP with 100% certainty. Either make it FFA with various flags that give you consequences (what they're doing), or make it FFA, or don't have PVP at all.
That's what happened in SWG. Terrible idea that's already been done.How does the current iteration of the system with the NPC-factions do to improve the down-sides here? Or the previous iteration of the PvP-flagging system?
I really don't see how one single PvP flag is a game ruiner, whereas adding in multiple flags, or NPC factions works so well.
Rawn; Are you just opposed to an Opt-In PvP system in general?
Pretty much, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed SWG for what it was, and I was one of the people that stayed flagged for PVP all the time. There were all sorts of problems that stemmed from that, though, not least of which was people *unflagging* for PVP when faced by a superior force. Or people just... not... flagging... at all. And then all you have left is a social city building game with no other real purpose. At all.
Again, i want to stress. I loved SWG. But, SWG would have been better if there was no toggleable PVP.
Is the GW system the answer? I have no clue. I won't know until I've played it. On paper I like it, though. But, I can say that I don't want toggle PVP with 100% certainty. Either make it FFA with various flags that give you consequences (what they're doing), or make it FFA, or don't have PVP at all.
OK, I get it. People are getting confused because of the word "Opt-In". The system I am proposing is IN ADDITION to the system of reputation already in place.
The people who don't "Opt-In" will still be just as vulnerable to PvP, but, will simply be LESS likely to be attacked simply because the attacker would lose Reputation. I AM NOT SAYING that people should be allowed to "Opt-out" of PvP entirely.
The Opt-Ins would be no different from anyone else, except that they could attack eachother without Reputation losses or Alignment shifts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The two things the first and current system have in common is that they are tied into the world someway. In the first you chose a flag that assisted you in playing a role. In the new one, you join a faction and help advance it's cause.
I think perhaps Ryan is concerned about making it seem like PvP is the point of PFO.
Meaningful player interaction is the goal and PvP is only a means to that end. Perhaps he does not wish to attract the crowd for whom PvP is the objective and not the means to their objectives. So I think the big question is how does this promote meaningful player interaction?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's what happened in SWG. Terrible idea that's already been done.How does the current iteration of the system with the NPC-factions do to improve the down-sides here? Or the previous iteration of the PvP-flagging system?
I really don't see how one single PvP flag is a game ruiner, whereas adding in multiple flags, or NPC factions works so well.
Rawn; Are you just opposed to an Opt-In PvP system in general?
Pretty much, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed SWG for what it was, and I was one of the people that stayed flagged for PVP all the time. There were all sorts of problems that stemmed from that, though, not least of which was people *unflagging* for PVP when faced by a superior force. Or people just... not... flagging... at all. And then all you have left is a social city building game with no other real purpose. At all.
Again, i want to stress. I loved SWG. But, SWG would have been better if there was no toggleable PVP.
Is the GW system the answer? I have no clue. I won't know until I've played it. On paper I like it, though. But, I can say that I don't want toggle PVP with 100% certainty. Either make it FFA with various flags that give you consequences (what they're doing), or make it FFA, or don't have PVP at all.
OK, I get it. People are getting confused because of the word "Opt-In". The system I am proposing is IN ADDITION to the system of reputation already in place.
The people who don't "Opt-In" will still be just as vulnerable to PvP, but, will simply be LESS likely to be attacked simply because the attacker would lose Reputation. I AM NOT SAYING that people should be allowed to "Opt-out" of PvP entirely.
The Opt-Ins would be no different from anyone else, except that they could attack eachother without Reputation losses or Alignment shifts.
Oh, yep, I definitely didn't understand that bit.
In that case, I'll plus one this.
+1
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Roleplaying reasons are never a good basis for making game mechanics decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whoa, whoa, guys. Let's make something clear:
This thread is meant to discuss OPT-IN PvP, as compared to the OPT-IN PvP system which IS ALREADY in the game (NPC Factions), and the previous iterations of Opt-In PvP (the Crusader flag, Assassin Flag system).
This thread is not to discuss or debate the validity of an Opt-In PvP system itself, because it already goes without saying that there is one, and that's been the way it's been for a LONG time (at least since February of this year).
I was merely comparing a one-flag system to the current NPC-faction system, that's it.
And btw, we're talking about an OPT-IN PvP system where you can kill others in the Opt-In system without consequence and vice-versa, there is already an "Opt-Out" system in place... it's called the Reputation system.
Apologies then Qallz. I did read more behind your post than was there. I thought that by suggesting Opt-in, you were leaving the door open for opt-out.
I do disagree. What we know so far about the rep, alignment, or faction systems amounts to no more than a small bit. It is too early to judge whether they will work as intended or not.
I do not see consequences for a small portion of the PVP as a built in opt-out.
Just because something has not worked well when tried one way, does not mean that it will not work when tried in another way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just assumed people here knew me well enough to assume that I would never suggest people should be allowed to opt-out of PvP entirely. lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Roleplaying reasons are never a good basis for making game mechanics decisions.
My mantra is:
Fun > Realism
Fun > Fidelity to tabletop
However sometimes things that are realistic and/or true to the tabletop are also really fun. I am very much in favor of such mechanics.
I think a game that has a central focus of creating a world where people want to "play a role" sounds really fun. I'm all in favor of PvP and PvPers but I'd like to see that PvP have a lot of depth and complexity to it. I don't feel like generic PvP flags give us either of those things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your flag system is the very thing that has earned PVP a well deserved bad rep with most MMOers, why stick it in the middle of a game that wants to go a different direction and be all about meaningful pvp? You propose having a flag for meaningless pvp , that will ruin the core of what PFO is. So what is really the problem with having an in-game reason for killing, you want to take that away for some reason.
Your flag system is the very thing that has earned PVP a well deserved bad rep with most MMOers, why stick it in the middle of a game that wants to go a different direction and be all about meaningful pvp? You propose having a flag for meaningless pvp , that will ruin the core of what PFO is. So what is really the problem with having an in-game reason for killing, you want to take that away for some reason.
I'm not talking about "taking anything away", I'm just talking about a different iteration of the NPC faction system which is already in place.
If you think that fighting for some NPC faction is somehow "meaningful" to PvP'ers, I can assure you, it's not. No more or less meaningful than a single-flag system would be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your flag system is the very thing that has earned PVP a well deserved bad rep with most MMOers, why stick it in the middle of a game that wants to go a different direction and be all about meaningful pvp? You propose having a flag for meaningless pvp , that will ruin the core of what PFO is. So what is really the problem with having an in-game reason for killing, you want to take that away for some reason.I'm not talking about "taking anything away", I'm just talking about a different iteration of the NPC faction system which is already in place.
If you think that fighting for some NPC faction is somehow "meaningful" to PvP'ers, I can assure you, it's not. No more or less meaningful than a single-flag system would be.
Would it be meaningful to PVPers if it was done with actual game affecting results from the conflicts?
If not, what things would make it more meaningful?
Your flag system is the very thing that has earned PVP a well deserved bad rep with most MMOers, why stick it in the middle of a game that wants to go a different direction and be all about meaningful pvp? You propose having a flag for meaningless pvp , that will ruin the core of what PFO is. So what is really the problem with having an in-game reason for killing, you want to take that away for some reason.I'm not talking about "taking anything away", I'm just talking about a different iteration of the NPC faction system which is already in place.
If you think that fighting for some NPC faction is somehow "meaningful" to PvP'ers, I can assure you, it's not. No more or less meaningful than a single-flag system would be.
Would it be meaningful to PVPers if it was done with actual game affecting results from the conflicts?
If not, what things would make it more meaningful?
I enjoy PvP.
The PvP is enjoyable in and of itself. Giving me more opportunities to PvP with other people who want more opportunities to PvP is all I want.
I don't need it to have RP'ing consequences, or anything. And in a game where players are the content, PvP in general will have countless game-affecting results, in fact, it will affect the result of the game more than any other system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your flag system is the very thing that has earned PVP a well deserved bad rep with most MMOers, why stick it in the middle of a game that wants to go a different direction and be all about meaningful pvp? You propose having a flag for meaningless pvp , that will ruin the core of what PFO is. So what is really the problem with having an in-game reason for killing, you want to take that away for some reason.I'm not talking about "taking anything away", I'm just talking about a different iteration of the NPC faction system which is already in place.
If you think that fighting for some NPC faction is somehow "meaningful" to PvP'ers, I can assure you, it's not. No more or less meaningful than a single-flag system would be.
I agree that in most games faction warfare is utterly meaningless, and really if they are going to do faction warfare as has been done in most games, then it's a waste of their time and they shouldn't bother.
However there are things they could do to make it very meaningful, and very interesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying reasons are never a good basis for making game mechanics decisions.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Roleplaying reasons, theme reasons, lore reasons are the perfect basis to build a foundation of game mechanics. It is what breathes life into an MMORPG and transforms it into a virtual world. In my opinion the MMORPGs of today have turned into lobby mini-games. Game Design that enforces and supports the world is a world I will want to play in for a long time. I am excited and looking forward to Pathfinder Online offering just that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 to Andius's link. I think there are definitely ways to make factions affect the world significantly, so that it becomes meaningful PvP instead of fighting for fighting's sake. NPC factions does not always have to equate to meaningless fighting.
What's wrong with fighting for fightings sake, if people choose to opt-in to it? I'm sick of people acting like RP'ing, crafting, PvE'ing, etc are somehow more valid and meaningful than PvP.
How is the original suggestion different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?
How are pandas different from alligators? They're both animals afterall...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What's wrong with fighting for fightings sake, if people choose to opt-in to it? I'm sick of people acting like RP'ing, crafting, PvE'ing, etc are somehow more valid and meaningful than PvP.
When the anti-PvP crowd came here what they advocated for was a PvE only server. I argued that it would be terrible for the game because it would distract from this game's intent which is meaningful player interaction. I didn't want it like you have in some other titles where there is a huge group of PvEers demanding all the developers attention trying to get content for their little PvE only server and screaming about how every game change imbalanced their little no-PvP utopia. It even got to be a pretty heated debate.
Unfortunately the fighting for fightings sake crowd comes in on the other side of the spectrum. They argue that core feature like reputation and alignment should be repealed, and that this is a "PvP game" where you should be able to kill anyone, any time, for any reason.
About a year ago this forum was a place where there was a wide array of discussions going on about many issues both PvP and non-PvP related. We were getting a lot of ideas out there and the game was advancing on many fronts, including the PvP.
There was frequently a bit of heat to debates but for the most part people focused on the issues being discussed and not the player posting them. GMs having to delete posts and lock topics was an incredible rarity. I mean the players who I was probably most frequently at odds with were Nihimon and Mbando.
Then a very small group of of people who only care about PvP came in, polarized the community, made things personal and drove off a lot of regular posters. Personally I feel anything positive they've offered this community has been outweighed by the incredible damage they have done, and this game, and community would quite frankly be better off without them.
I know this is an opinion shared by many. Some who still post here, many who don't. It's caused me to skeptically examine content that will attract these types of players even though I was perhaps the most vocal and consistent advocate of PvP before their arrival.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My understanding is that the game already has an opt in pvp flag.
Its called "logging into the game"...
Seriously if you don't want to risk the possibility of having to engage in pvp you can either not log in or stay in the "safe" areas close to town.
Honestly trying to force the game into a non-pvp model is a waste of time. It was presented as a pvp-centric game right from the get go during the kickstarter and that isn't going to change for the same reasons they listed during the kickstarter.
Unless you maybe win the lottery and offer them several buttloads of cash to allow them to develop all of the pve theme park content a non pvp-centric game would require that is NOT going to change. (admittedly that would be an awesome use of lottery winnings, just sayin...)
Instead of wasting time on yet another "can we have a non pve pfo game pls kkthx" thread maybe the time and effort would be better spent fine tuning whatever systems GW sets in place to control the pvp and make it constructive, engaging and something other then the griefer s*#&fest every other pvp-centric game has turned it into?
PS:
If you want a non-pvp game might I recommend Neverwinter. Free to play, expanding content on a regular basis and you don't have to pvp, strictly voluntary.
Then a very small group of of people who only care about PvP came in, polarized the community, made things personal and drove off a lot of regular posters. Personally I feel anything positive they've offered this community has been outweighed by the incredible damage they have done, and this game, and community would quite frankly be better off without them.
I know this is an opinion shared by many. Some who still post here, many who don't. It's caused me to...
My bad...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm sick of people acting like RP'ing, crafting, PvE'ing, etc are somehow more valid and meaningful than PvP.
I could care less if you're sick of it and this game isn't being made for you. This game is based off a an IP called Pathfinder. It's the site you're currently on. Pick up the core rule book and have a read. They have it real cheap.
The lore and story means something. People backed the kickstarter because they want that experience in the game. They are excited to see what Goblin Works does with it.
And one more thing, RPing/Lore IS more valid and meaningful. Because it's what will drive the crafting, PvE, AND PvP. These things are not mutually exclusive.
My understanding is that the game already has an opt in pvp flag.
Its called "logging into the game"...
I think you'd benefit from reading my clarifications, especially when I wrote:
"OK, I get it. People are getting confused because of the word "Opt-In". The system I am proposing is IN ADDITION to the system of reputation already in place.
The people who don't "Opt-In" will still be just as vulnerable to PvP, but, will simply be LESS likely to be attacked simply because the attacker would lose Reputation. I AM NOT SAYING that people should be allowed to "Opt-out" of PvP entirely.
The Opt-Ins would be no different from anyone else, except that they could attack eachother without Reputation losses or Alignment shifts."
I'm sick of people acting like RP'ing, crafting, PvE'ing, etc are somehow more valid and meaningful than PvP.I could care less if you're sick of it and this game isn't being made for you. This game is based off a an IP called Pathfinder. It's the site you're currently on. Pick up the core rule book and have a read. They have it real cheap.
The lore and story means something. People backed the kickstarter because they want that experience in the game. They are excited to see what Goblin Works does with it.
And one more thing, RPing/Lore IS more valid and meaningful. Because it's what will drive the crafting, PvE, AND PvP. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Actually the crafting, PvE, and PvP will drive the overall player wars that serve as the base for this game. I'd recommend checking out the blog and giving it a read...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What very small group?I'm not going to sit here and name names. I was asked a question so I gave my honest opinion. If more needs to be said if be glad to discuss it through PMs or on Teamspeak during one of my days off.
Yeah sure.
I wasn't meaning to be aggressive. PM incoming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually the crafting, PvE, and PvP will drive the overall player wars that serve as the base for this game. I'd recommend checking out the blog and giving it a read...
Let me give you a specific example of what I'm talking about...
"Factional conflict is driven by narrative as much as player action. The relationships between factions are determined by the lore of Golarion and may shift over time, influencing individual PvP opportunities."
That's just one and I didn't even have to try that hard...
Go ahead and find one where they say the lore of Pathfinder isn't important in this game.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is the original suggestion different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?How are pandas different from alligators? They're both animals afterall...
Panda's nurse their young, have hair, and maintain a fairly constant internal temperature. Alligators lay eggs, have leathery skin, and are cold-blooded.
How is the original suggestion meaningfully different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?
How is the original suggestion different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?How are pandas different from alligators? They're both animals afterall...Panda's nurse their young, have hair, and maintain a fairly constant internal temperature. Alligators lay eggs, have leathery skin, and are cold-blooded.
How is the original suggestion meaningfully different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?
They're so different, there's really no reason to compare the two. The only thing they have in common, is that they're both PvP systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're so different, there's really no reason to compare the two. The only thing they have in common, is that they're both PvP systems.How is the original suggestion different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?How are pandas different from alligators? They're both animals afterall...Panda's nurse their young, have hair, and maintain a fairly constant internal temperature. Alligators lay eggs, have leathery skin, and are cold-blooded.
How is the original suggestion meaningfully different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?
Then explain the difference, don't just state that there is one and imply that everyone should see the point already.