Actually I think thats the one thing that everyone in this discussion agrees on 
There absolutely will be people that do this.
For some reason, no one (if I’m not mistaken) has yet said one more thing: with locked WBs the leveling of thralls will turn into…[censored] 
Yes, that was the whole freaking point of what I wrote. There’s a rule against that. Why is there a rule against that? Those of you who are defending the change in the rules about world bosses, why aren’t you challenging this rule?
Why does “strategically denying access” to one thing not make you a jerk, but “strategically denying access” to another thing does?
To me, it looks like an arbitrary line in the sand to rationalize your behavior.
Why not? Aren’t you supposed to seek advantage over your enemies by any means you can? Isn’t the end goal to “dominate the server” and to “get rid of other players”?
And that says something. We, all, are…
I even tried to empathize and put myself in their shoes and I can’t think a positive thing that is going to come out of this long term.
Or Unnamed city in this case.
True- however i do turn off chat and remarkably i get ALOT done when i dont see it.
The only real time i do turn it on is to see what the latest complaint about the game is and there is always someone doing that.
Then i try to reproduce the problem or dispel it.
That seems to me to be almost exactly what you are saying.
To my mind official PvP is basically a 2-6 week Battle Royale where you either get wiped and quit or you fight it out to become “alpha” of the server, at which point you prep for as long as you can keep your group motivated toward a not yet present threat or quit due to boredom. That a “win at any costs” mentality has seeped into the bones of the PvP community seems natural to me given the conditions of the game.
That weeks/months of effort can be erased by a singular family dinner plan raises the stakes to the nth degree. What’s worse is that logging in naked in the desert has to be most unfun and anticlimactic ending to the investment that is an official run. Worst still is that in a server full of upstanding gamers patting themselves on the back for their sportsmanship, the first individual to sink to the “scummy” tactics is at a massive advantage to their peers.
@Taemien is 100% right about a server being as toxic as its inhabitants, respect only works when it goes both ways. If you aren’t prepared to get in the mud you will not last when the pigs show up on your server. Competitive players willing to push any advantage aren’t going anywhere and they can arrive on any server at anytime. So long as that is the case those that cant abide will filter themselves out and those that can will err on the side of barbarism to the degree they are comfortable with.
CE is a unique and brutal PvP experience. It’s a result of the design, not just the players.
Edit:
I now see you two have agreed to drop this subject for the sake of thread trajectory, everyone feel free to ignore this post.
Indeed, Ive argued for alot more lax rules on PvP servers for land claim due to the fact that you can quite simply remove it yourself. Walling off noob zone I would equate to spiderwebbing grid after grid which I dont agree with.
I could ask why blocking one resource is frowned upon but blocking other resources is ok. These rules are clearly not written good enough, as we all agree.
Yes.
No.
How does that make sense in this context?
So we allow worldboss blocking on PVE so innocent people aren’t banned and to lessen the amount of tickets.
So we disallow world boss blocking on PVP… because why?
No, other way around. PvE need to have no blocking, but you could on PvP, solely because you can simply destroy it.
That isn’t what they chose. And I heavily doubt the decision was made with PVP in mind due to the numbers of players on PVP servers. I guarantee the majority of tickets comes from PVE. So they decided to make it not an issue anymore.
I posed this question, and will do so again and thus put a PVE focus on it for the sake of argument:
Funcom chose the latter. Why is the former better?
Oh I know. But Im using this debate as a point as to why we should have separate rules.
And how many players can simultaneously use UC for this purpose?
enough to ensure mortal combat.
Ok. In PVE they are free to build on world boss spawns. Why should that be different in PVP?
I get your argument about different rules, but it doesn’t apply here in this context.
The argument would be that the former affects a fewer number of people. People who failed to read or comprehend the rules, now stuck in your face whenever you load into the server. One person breaks the rule, one person is banned.
The latter encourages community behavior that results in a lesser quality of play for all participants. One person builds on a WB, entire server population has one less WB.
I get entirely setup in 3 days on PVP, I don’t care if I am wiped.
I know because I just did it on an official in the last 3 days and today I am quitting.
Why?
did I get raided?
Nope that would be all good fun, speedhacker arrived on the server and started wiping some people, bragged how the game costs like 4 euros and takes funcom a month to ban them “funcom only cares about building infractions”.
I had some fun, did some cat burglary got in a few small scraps but its my lack of faith in funcom that sinks it, the hacker is right, the game is too cheap, funcom does too little to enforce their bans (could do hardware) and they are too slow to act on serious cases.
Population has halved on that server already, if there is no one to fight, there is no fun for me.
So that is my age of war run, glad I actually documented it might compile it into a fun video.
I agree, before you could ever address problems created by design philosophy there are more present issues to address. One of the few reasons to be glad I’m on console. Personally, I’d be fine with FC only banning cheaters and people that cause server lag with overbuilding (this is biased by my only playing PvP to be transparent). The absurdity of these little rule nuisances consistently frustrate me as they do little but cloud our understanding of what is and isn’t bannable.
niether.
Per the Guidelines, if this were an offense, a suspension would occur, not a ban, hopefully educating the Player in the process.
So play favorites instead? That was the perception before. As well as flooding the ticket system with reports that they couldn’t reliably act on.
Its a damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation. While I don’t agree with how it might have been handled (obligatory virtue signal), at least they made a decision that isn’t open to interpretation.
They should consider ripping off the bandaid and apply that to everything else.