Kilsin said:We have spoken about his already and our CTO, Daniel, has said that we can make a soft collision system for certain areas but can you imagine a group or guild of people up to no good entering Amberfaet and all jumping and hanging off the first rock climb, anyone following would not be able to progress due to the slightest collision, same goes for other areas that are narrow with a guild full of people lined up 5-10 characters deep, it has the potential to block people from content, progression and enjoying their time in-game due to the actions of others.
This is something we will still need to look into further and test befoe making a decision either way as there are good arguments from both sides.
In your example of people hanging off a rock and stopping others from progressing doesn't need no-player collision rather a limited time where you can hang off a rock before you fall off. Nothing more complicated than that. As for a guild blocking a hallway, if there is a raid target beyond and my guild is there setting up for the attack we might indeed want to block a hall to stop another guild from attempting to leap-frog our raid. That isn't griefing, that's being protective and minimizing a far more problematic situation where 2 guilds clash over a target and end up calling in GMs because of this or that.
Vandraad said:Kilsin said:We have spoken about his already and our CTO, Daniel, has said that we can make a soft collision system for certain areas but can you imagine a group or guild of people up to no good entering Amberfaet and all jumping and hanging off the first rock climb, anyone following would not be able to progress due to the slightest collision, same goes for other areas that are narrow with a guild full of people lined up 5-10 characters deep, it has the potential to block people from content, progression and enjoying their time in-game due to the actions of others.
This is something we will still need to look into further and test befoe making a decision either way as there are good arguments from both sides.In your example of people hanging off a rock and stopping others from progressing doesn't need no-player collision rather a limited time where you can hang off a rock before you fall off. Nothing more complicated than that. As for a guild blocking a hallway, if there is a raid target beyond and my guild is there setting up for the attack we might indeed want to block a hall to stop another guild from attempting to leap-frog our raid. That isn't griefing, that's being protective and minimizing a far more problematic situation where 2 guilds clash over a target and end up calling in GMs because of this or that.
In my example, though, I could just stand and wait for someone to make the jump and just as they are about to launch from the other side, I can jump and grab on, using the short timeframe of "hang" to bump them off. Dullahan spoke about turning it off in certain areas but then that goes against immersion and other things, it also requires different code sets for different areas etc.
I was just playing devils advocate and showing a situation where it could be exploited, there are other ways as well but we have already said we are looking into a soft collision system, we had this discussion in another thread and I spoke to our CTO and passed on his message, the team has not decided if we will implement collision or not at this stage, we will have to wait and see but once we decide we will be able to speak more to the point and in more detail.
Kilsin said:In my example, though, I could just stand and wait for someone to make the jump and just as they are about to launch from the other side, I can jump and grab on, using the short timeframe of "hang" to bump them off. Dullahan spoke about turning it off in certain areas but then that goes against immersion and other things, it also requires different code sets for different areas etc.
I was just playing devils advocate and showing a situation where it could be exploited, there are other ways as well but we have already said we are looking into a soft collision system, we had this discussion in another thread and I spoke to our CTO and passed on his message, the team has not decided if we will implement collision or not at this stage, we will have to wait and see but once we decide we will be able to speak more to the point and in more detail.
When
player.animation = climbing
player.collision = false
I know this is a slight oversimplification, but really only slightly.
More a fan of an endurance system tied to the climbing skill. The way I'd do it is climbing would take endurance. The higher the skill, the less endurance it takes. The steeper or more problematic the precipice, the faster endurance is drained.
It would be a two birds, one stone type of system because not only would it prevent players from hanging forever, it also wouldn't artificially prevent them from mounting a wall (stop right there, this is the immersion police). Anyone would be able to grab a wall, but not everyone would be able to scale it depending on the skill level/rate of endrance drain.
Dullahan said:Kilsin said:In my example, though, I could just stand and wait for someone to make the jump and just as they are about to launch from the other side, I can jump and grab on, using the short timeframe of "hang" to bump them off. Dullahan spoke about turning it off in certain areas but then that goes against immersion and other things, it also requires different code sets for different areas etc.
I was just playing devils advocate and showing a situation where it could be exploited, there are other ways as well but we have already said we are looking into a soft collision system, we had this discussion in another thread and I spoke to our CTO and passed on his message, the team has not decided if we will implement collision or not at this stage, we will have to wait and see but once we decide we will be able to speak more to the point and in more detail.When
player.animation = climbing
player.collision = false
I know this is a slight oversimplification, but really only slightly.
More a fan of an endurance system tied to the climbing skill. The way I'd do it is climbing would take endurance. The higher the skill, the less endurance it takes. The steeper or more problematic the precipice, the faster endurance is drained.
It would be a two birds, one stone type of system because not only would it prevent players from hanging forever, it also wouldn't artificially prevent them from mounting a wall (stop right there, this is the immersion police). Anyone would be able to grab a wall, but not everyone would be able to scale it depending on the skill level/rate of endrance drain.
It isn't that simple man, and I can't give any other examples without breaking NDA, so as I have said, we will have to wait until we make a decision and release the details before we can know for sure and discuss it properly, there are pros and cons for anything we do, this included, once we weigh them up and make a decision I will be able to speak of more details. ;)
Dullahan said:Liav said:That said, your second paragraph is exactly why I find it useless. EQ has had collision for all 17 years it has been a game and never once has it had a positive influence on the game.
You forgot to say, in your opinion as I found almost entirely positive. We didn't have to shrink when I played EQ. If it became necessary, that was a design flaw.
I'd be more than happy to look through a list of positive things you feel that collision had on EQ.
In my entire raiding history in EQ, shrinking has been mandatory because of the benefits it provides to a raid and the issues it avoids. Having a full raid and trying to get your 30+ melee DPS and tanks to crowd around a single mob unshrunk is actually aneurysm inducingly frustrating.
Liav said:Dullahan said:Liav said:That said, your second paragraph is exactly why I find it useless. EQ has had collision for all 17 years it has been a game and never once has it had a positive influence on the game.
You forgot to say, in your opinion as I found almost entirely positive. We didn't have to shrink when I played EQ. If it became necessary, that was a design flaw.
I'd be more than happy to look through a list of positive things you feel that collision had on EQ.
In my entire raiding history in EQ, shrinking has been mandatory because of the benefits it provides to a raid and the issues it avoids. Having a full raid and trying to get your 30+ melee DPS and tanks to crowd around a single mob unshrunk is actually aneurysm inducingly frustrating.
Mob hitboxes were pretty huge on raid mobs, and that was one of the uses for the shrink spell. Having you use the mechanics you were given to overcome such challenges was part of what made it great. I don't see how allowing 30 players to standing inside of each other's bodys could ever be considered a reasonable argument. Especially when they provided us with tools to overcome it.
That said, I was in raiding guilds for the first three years of EQ. Never once was shrink mandatory to achieve our goals.
Dullahan said:Mob hitboxes were pretty huge on raid mobs, and that was one of the uses for the shrink spell. Having you use the mechanics you were given to overcome such challenges was part of what made it great. I don't see how allowing 30 players to standing inside of each other's bodys could ever be considered a reasonable argument. Especially when they provided us with tools to overcome it.
That said, I was in raiding guilds for the first three years of EQ. Never once was shrink mandatory to achieve our goals.
We're talking past eachother. I asked you, nicely, to list the positives that you feel collision had on EQ. I implore you to do so.
Shrink isn't mandatory to "achieve goals". It is, however, used copiously to avoid the negative impact of collision, which is the extreme level of annoyance it causes when it comes to positioning melee on a mob's back. Or having characters block narrow hallways. Or having tons of characters stacked around an NPC or object so you can't access it. Or circumventing the inability to move after zoning in to the Nexus because of all the players who AFK as soon as they zone in there.
In my entire history of EQ I've never heard anyone say anything positive about collision. That doesn't mean that there aren't positives, necessarily, but I have yet to see these alleged positives.
Liav said:Dullahan said:Mob hitboxes were pretty huge on raid mobs, and that was one of the uses for the shrink spell. Having you use the mechanics you were given to overcome such challenges was part of what made it great. I don't see how allowing 30 players to standing inside of each other's bodys could ever be considered a reasonable argument. Especially when they provided us with tools to overcome it.
That said, I was in raiding guilds for the first three years of EQ. Never once was shrink mandatory to achieve our goals.
We're talking past eachother. I asked you, nicely, to list the positives that you feel collision had on EQ. I implore you to do so.
Shrink isn't mandatory to "achieve goals". It is, however, used copiously to avoid the negative impact of collision, which is the extreme level of annoyance it causes when it comes to positioning melee on a mob's back. Or having characters block narrow hallways. Or having tons of characters stacked around an NPC or object so you can't access it. Or circumventing the inability to move after zoning in to the Nexus because of all the players who AFK as soon as they zone in there.
In my entire history of EQ I've never heard anyone say anything positive about collision. That doesn't mean that there aren't positives, necessarily, but I have yet to see these alleged positives.
You already asked this, and I already gave you some reasons.
This is the only reason I need: collision is real. I like real in my virtual world. I don't like seeing 30 melee characters standing inside of each other. If there is collision and a mob is designed to be attacked by 30 melees, it should be up to players to find a way to make that happen, just like it would be up to a bunch of cavemen with spears to kill a dinosaur. If such a way doesn't exist, then the developers should create a way. If they cannot create a way, then and only then should collision be removed.
Really your inquiry is a trap though. I could produce an exhaustive list based on my preferences being a real-to-life virtual world, and you will go through my list critiquing and finding fault according to your your convenience first video game preferences.
Then I will respond by saying I don't like that.
You will respond by telling me how my reasons are unreasonable.
I will say they worked before.
You will tell me Pantheon isn't EQ and stuff in EQ won't work in 2018.
I will disagree.
You will disagree.
10 posts later we will probably be down to insults and Kilsin will step in threatening to close the thread if we don't keep it civil.
So no, I won't post a list. Use your imagination.
My inquiry isn't a trap. You answered the question, in the most insulting way possible. So I'm going to say maybe we can bridge the gap and be civil here, because I don't like your well poisoning assertion that I am a "convenience first" player. I won't reciprocate in kind.
I'll just say that I reject realism as a sole justification. We can either agree to disagree, or you can answer my next question, honestly. What is the endpoint of the realism argument? Red Dead Redemption has horses that poop. I feel bad for whoever had to animate that.
Liav said:My inquiry isn't a trap. You answered the question, in the most insulting way possible. So I'm going to say maybe we can bridge the gap and be civil here, because I don't like your well poisoning assertion that I am a "convenience first" player. I won't reciprocate in kind.
I'll just say that I reject realism as a sole justification. We can either agree to disagree, or you can answer my next question, honestly. What is the endpoint of the realism argument? Red Dead Redemption has horses that poop. I feel bad for whoever had to animate that.
Slipping in the poop and having it visually appear on my armor wouldn't be going too far, if that answers your question.
And when does that realism end for you? If the justification for collision is realism, what about magic? Or how they fight, for I can tell you with certainty that fighting does not look like it does in rea life in this or MANY other games or be unable to carry those 7 two-handed swords in your bag. Why would collision be in because it is realistic but not something else, where is the line drawn? The term realism in the context of a fantasy mmorpg is not something we should use imo.
//Voices of Terminus' Youmu Svartie
Youmu said:And when does that realism end for you? If the justification for collision is realism, what about magic? Or how they fight, for I can tell you with certainty that fighting does not look like it does in rea life in this or MANY other games or be unable to carry those 7 two-handed swords in your bag. Why would collision be in because it is realistic but not something else, where is the line drawn? The term realism in the context of a fantasy mmorpg is not something we should use imo.
//Voices of Terminus' Youmu Svartie
Almost every topic on these forums boils down to immersion vs. practicality. The keyword to use is "believability." In order for a game to be immersive, it has to be believable. But that doesn't mean it has to be just like real life. That would defeat the purpose of "fantasy." As long as there is some sort of explanation for why something is the way it is, we begin to accept the rules of an imaginary world. For example, in another thread, I talked about how from what we know of Wizards, it is believable that they would be able to conjure fireballs and such. But from what we know of Halflings, it is not believable that they would be able to carry 300 pounds of armor without being crushed. You can create any made-up rules in a fantasy world - you just have to be consistent with those rules to make it believable.
Bazgrim said:Almost every topic on these forums boils down to immersion vs. practicality. The keyword to use is "believability." In order for a game to be immersive, it has to be believable. But that doesn't mean it has to be just like real life. That would defeat the purpose of "fantasy." As long as there is some sort of explanation for why something is the way it is, we begin to accept the rules of an imaginary world. For example, in another thread, I talked about how from what we know of Wizards, it is believable that they would be able to conjure fireballs and such. But from what we know of Halflings, it is not believable that they would be able to carry 300 pounds of armor without being crushed. You can create any made-up rules in a fantasy world - you just have to be consistent with those rules to make it believable.
I would argue that having supernatural buffs placed on a Halfling that gives them 300 Strength is just as believable as them being able to carry 300 pounds of armor as a result of that buff. Sounds perfectly consistent to me.
Halfling Warriors in EQ can already wear the heaviest armor in the game (plate). Every single character in the game can also carry 8 backpacks at the same time, which is also impractical, but is not something that I've seen anyone complain about.
The amount of concessions we make for the sake of practicality are a lot more extreme than a lot of people seem to realize when it comes to games. The performance ramifications of realism are bad enough, let alone the coding effort.
Bazgrim said:Almost every topic on these forums boils down to immersion vs. practicality. The keyword to use is "believability." In order for a game to be immersive, it has to be believable. But that doesn't mean it has to be just like real life. That would defeat the purpose of "fantasy." As long as there is some sort of explanation for why something is the way it is, we begin to accept the rules of an imaginary world. For example, in another thread, I talked about how from what we know of Wizards, it is believable that they would be able to conjure fireballs and such. But from what we know of Halflings, it is not believable that they would be able to carry 300 pounds of armor without being crushed. You can create any made-up rules in a fantasy world - you just have to be consistent with those rules to make it believable.
//Voices of Terminus' Youmu Svartie
Youmu said:
I totally agree with the part of believable (the reason I question the continueos use of the term realistic) belivability and authenticity are words I think are much better suited for such discussions.
On the topic of practicality vs immersion when it comes to character collision I would like to argue it has nothing to do with immersion (even though people seem and want to argue that).
The reason character collision has nothing to do with immersion is as follows. It does nothing to improve or set up mood or atmosphere. Immersion has everything to do with those things such as the music, the enviorment the ambient sounds and lore. Unit collision never does anything to impove on that immersion for when you are running through the woods with your friends the collision does nothing for you are not engaging in it and whenever you are engaging with such a system it is I would argue detremental to the immersion, for when you notice it it is always because it is in the way and annoying/frustrating you. Tell me how times when you are trying to get past that damn pet blocking the doorway and you are standing there spamming the jump button in hope that will help you to get past it is good for the immersion. The only times you notice the system of character collision is when it is in the way and every other time is is "good" it might as well not had been there.
//Voices of Terminus' Youmu Svartie
You just described ambience, not immersion. Immersion is suspension of disbelief. Standing around in world chatting up 3 elvish ladies in the same spot looking like some sort of 3 headed chimera abomination does affect my perception of the world and my ability to maintain that suspension of disbelief.
Immersion should be dealt with as believably as possible, as stated above. If it's too problematic, it should be sacrificed. It's really that simple.
Yes, too many weapons should make you run slower. Yes, arrows and magical bolts should be subject to collision (as they were in EQ). Yes, when you walk around you should bump into people. If that is an issue, make the collision area smaller. If that's still an issue, make it so you pass through the player collision object after being in contact with it for over 2 seconds. Lots of solutions out there.
The subjectivity of "too problematic" is exactly what we should be debating about, as opposed to these semantics.
On an infinite timeline with infinite resources, any immersion issue could be resolved. However, time and resources are not infinite. The question being asked is: Where is the line drawn?
A small collision area would likely lead to character models clipping into eachother in part but not in whole. How is that not immersion breaking? How is walking through someone after 2 seconds of contact not immersion breaking? Seemingly, immersion has nothing to do with it.
This conversation is really interesting to me, and I've refrained from posting for a bit because I'm not particularly passionate on this topic, and I don't want to interfere with those that may be.
If I had to pick my side, however, it would be with collision. I think it adds a layer of immersion, yes, but not just that. It adds a layer of depth and intrigue. As one person mentioned above (I forgot who! I sowwie!), it's actually interesting that a guild can physically block off the route to the boss they're camping. If they have the manpower to sit there and literally block the path, and can camp it until the boss spawns, I think that guild deserves it. They've put in the time.
We're talking so much about community policing (in other threads), so why could it not apply to collision as well? If someone is intentionally, continuously trolling via collision by blocking small paths, I'm pretty sure that person is going to be passed over for parties, guilds, and everything else, until they ammend their ways. I honestly don't see how someone using collision to troll is worse than any number of other ways someone could troll in the game.
Beyond the depth I personally feel collision adds and the community policing aspect, I think there are a few quick ways to largely nullify collision trolling.
1) AFK players have no collision. This is working under the assumption that after 5-10 minutes of no action, a player will be quietly tagged as "afk". When that tag happens, reduce their collision to zero. This would mean that in the example above, with a trolly person hanging on a cliff/ladder to block other people, that player would have to actually be there the whole time, sitting there, wasting his time trolling and blocking this path. You know what, if that troll is that dedicated... okay. He can win temporarily. I'll get this guy added to a blacklist and go hunt spiders somewhere else.
2) Very little or no "shoving" or "death to Newton's Third Law!" This would make moving someone around very difficult and slow, and I'm also assuming that the person who is trying to be moved is afk, which means... (assuming #1 is also implemented) the trolls aren't gonna push the player very far before the afk person's collision is reduced to zero due to the afk tag. Of course, if there's some giant dragon who does a tail swipe, they can do special codey things to give him lots of pushing power, but as far as player vs. player inertia, it can stay super low.
3) Warned/punished users have no collision. I'm assuming here that there will be some kind of "report" function, for those spare few times when the community can't take care of business. If someone has gotten reported for trolling and being nasty with collision (or anything else, really) their collision is reduced to zero.
I think the three things above would help a lot with the problems people are presenting, while keeping the good things about collision (realism, competition) in place. Just offering some potential solutions for brain food for the developers to ponder over when they discuss this topic more officially. :)
How is ambience not part of immersion and the suspension of disbelief? Things are believable because of the lore, you belief is suspended by the help of ambience. The fact you persive those 3 elvish ladies as elvish ladies and not just people in a game is because of the visuals and sounds. My argument is that immersion is just as broken by collision as it is when clipping through someone if not more so for when you clip through someone it is much harder to notice than getting stopped and standing there and trying to figure out how to get unstuck. If you are standing there talking with people having a good time being immersed, what is worse? Having someone standing there running into you being stuck for they have auto-run on or him just running through you and being gone? In some cases the collision can be worse for the immersion imo and putting in loads of small rules and fixes to all these things leads to bugs, glitches and inconsistent behaviour from the system.
//Voices of Terminus' Youmu Svartie
Liav said:Zorkon said:I'm in favor of Character Collision, and I was a victem of being locked in a bank by a guy standing in the doorway in EQ so I understandt the trolling possabilitys. I just feel eliminating it compleatly is not the right solution. I like the suggestion of being able to Push the blocker, or knock them on there bum, possably a /playercollision off on a 15 secound timer allowing you to get through. There must be a better solution than just no collision.
No Collision seems the easy way out, not the right way
Why is collision valuable in the first place? I haven't seen that answered yet. Instead, I've only seen proposals on how to add workarounds for bypassing the collision system. The logical choice seems to be to just avoid the system altogether if no reasonable justification can be found to include it.
Player collision, AI Collision are not always the same thing, but both can be equally important.
1. Walking through walls, exploiting systems.
2. character push system,
3. feel of enviroment being as realistic as possible.
It really is more for pvp, and some pve enviroments, but not always as important to normal PVE gameplay. So the blocking of a tunnel to another zone was a griefing - trolling behaivour adapted by those that liked to AFK, or cause problems for the community.
I wish we had a spell sometimes, go invis and it allowed you to walk through players. This could have stopped so many enviroment issues we had upon day 1.
No exp, No rewards just a PVE enviroment spell to walk through players. High traffic areas etc... Mainly safezone uses. The rest can be simply trainned on if someone goes afk for a length of time at entrances.
I don't mind collision, but if it is in game, I'd like to see that with each bump, the non-moving character would be slightly moved, thereby being able to move someone AFK out of the way, and or the ability for some caster clases to cast shrink on out of party PC (possibility for trolling there as well).
If it's there for immersion, then immersion rules interpret that one running at a stationary player, would knock them out of the way or t least budge them slightly. Well except maybe a gnome hitting an ogre LOL.
BUT, with that said, I see the scenario of a PC blocking mobs in a doorway, to have possible unintended consequences. Since friendly fire will not exist, and we can presume that attacking an enemy from behind someone will also work. Then there is the possibility of an exploit by sacrificing someone with the most xp and armor to blocks mobs while the rest of the team just attacks from safety with ranged attacks.
Fulton said:I don't mind collision, but if it is in game, I'd like to see that with each bump, the non-moving character would be slightly moved, thereby being able to move someone AFK out of the way, and or the ability for some caster clases to cast shrink on out of party PC (possibility for trolling there as well).
Said it before, I'll say it again. I'm going to have a great time pushing people I don't like off of cliffs if this is included. So much troll potential.
Liav said:Bazgrim said:Almost every topic on these forums boils down to immersion vs. practicality. The keyword to use is "believability." In order for a game to be immersive, it has to be believable. But that doesn't mean it has to be just like real life. That would defeat the purpose of "fantasy." As long as there is some sort of explanation for why something is the way it is, we begin to accept the rules of an imaginary world. For example, in another thread, I talked about how from what we know of Wizards, it is believable that they would be able to conjure fireballs and such. But from what we know of Halflings, it is not believable that they would be able to carry 300 pounds of armor without being crushed. You can create any made-up rules in a fantasy world - you just have to be consistent with those rules to make it believable.
I would argue that having supernatural buffs placed on a Halfling that gives them 300 Strength is just as believable as them being able to carry 300 pounds of armor as a result of that buff. Sounds perfectly consistent to me.
Halfling Warriors in EQ can already wear the heaviest armor in the game (plate). Every single character in the game can also carry 8 backpacks at the same time, which is also impractical, but is not something that I've seen anyone complain about.
The amount of concessions we make for the sake of practicality are a lot more extreme than a lot of people seem to realize when it comes to games. The performance ramifications of realism are bad enough, let alone the coding effort.
Yes, buffs would then make it more believable, but I never said anything about buffs.
I have in other threads actually pointed out the ridiculousness of a character being able to someone strap 10 full backpacks to their body without an issue. Games often sacrifice believability here in order to keep the game fun because constantly having to stop an adventure to run back to a merchant or bank is not very fun. And at the end of the day, if a game is not fun, people won't play it. Real life is hard enough. Being griefed is not fun so if a feature is included purely for the sake of immersion but also gives tools to griefers, the feature will almost always be removed. To look at it another way, one person suggested that our avatars' weight should be determined by the amount of food the character eats and how much time the character spends running. Is that realistic/believable? Yes. Is it fun? 99% of people are probably gonna say no. It will quickly become a chore that doesn't really add any sense of reward to the game. So the line has to be drawn when a "believability" feature makes the game less fun. But of course, most of the time, you just have to come up with a creative explanation. Going back to the bag space example, pack mules in Pantheon are a great way of making a large inventory more believable.
Youmu said:How is ambience not part of immersion and the suspension of disbelief?
Ambience is part of immersion, but there is a lot more to immersion than just ambience. They are not synonymous. Collision is part of that "more." If the physics in Terminus operate pretty much just like the real world, except people can walk through other people without explanation, that inconsistency is what is said to "break immersion."
Fulton said:I don't mind collision, but if it is in game, I'd like to see that with each bump, the non-moving character would be slightly moved, thereby being able to move someone AFK out of the way, and or the ability for some caster clases to cast shrink on out of party PC (possibility for trolling there as well).
If it's there for immersion, then immersion rules interpret that one running at a stationary player, would knock them out of the way or at least budge them slightly. Well except maybe a gnome hitting an ogre LOL.
This makes sense (momentum matters) and would therefore be a pretty good solution.
Liav said:The subjectivity of "too problematic" is exactly what we should be debating about, as opposed to these semantics.
On an infinite timeline with infinite resources, any immersion issue could be resolved. However, time and resources are not infinite. The question being asked is: Where is the line drawn?
A small collision area would likely lead to character models clipping into eachother in part but not in whole. How is that not immersion breaking? How is walking through someone after 2 seconds of contact not immersion breaking? Seemingly, immersion has nothing to do with it.
That's for people creating and coding it to decide based on the vision, available time and resources.
Youmu said:How is ambience not part of immersion and the suspension of disbelief? Things are believable because of the lore, you belief is suspended by the help of ambience.
Sure, that's part of it. It helps, but it's not the same thing. An orange is a fruit, but not all fruit is an orange.
I remember in EQ where in the old Luclin bazaar, people would push afk traders into the arena and kill them. Bad juju right there.
Edit: I have no clue how to quote people so I got rid of it when it didn't come out right.