|
|
|
IronAngel
|
 Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 20:37 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
I personally think that, given the vast differences of opinion and interpretation on what's "fair", "cool", "meaningful enough" or "good RP", the fairest, simplest and most transparent rule is to stick to the game we've got. NWN isn't perfect and it isn't always balanced, but the sooner we accept we're playing a game with set rules, the sooner we can stop disagreeing and whining over what's expected or fair above and beyond those rules.
I absolutely suck at PvP because I can't be bothered to learn the ins and outs of it. But I have never had any trouble with it either; my influential PCs have not suffered unreasonably because someone plays the game better than me. But I have to accept that no matter how much I'd like to be the biggest, baddest weaponmaster in the Underdark or the most skilled elven swordsman in Winya, I'm just not that good at the mechanical side of the game. So I choose to play to other strengths. That is fair; it would be unfair if my inferior build and my inferior PvP prowess were made up for by PvP rules that made me equal with someone stronger/better.
So to answer Letum: the transition rule should be minimal: you may use transitions normally without special considerations, as long as you 1) don't stop and camp on top of it, 2) don't transition back and forth. Obvious abuse is obvious, but you can't expect to account for loading speed. That's just a reality of online play that we need to accept. Even competitive PvP games like CS or LoL have players with different framerates and ping, and they manage without special rules. Why then should we be so worried about some infrequent PvP that isn't even such a big deal?
Transition-hopping to cancel targeted spells is not cool, but I don't think you can reasonably make it the target's responsibility to account for it. If a mage is dumb enough to waste his Bigby on someone just running towards a transition, that's his bad. It's not reasonable to expect someone to pause just to make sure they aren't being targeted, before running on. The exception would be a case of an archer camping on top of a transition peppering a mage only to intentionally dodge out of the area when fired back at. Obvious abuse is obvious.
I would also do away with IC warnings and indications as long as there is RP reason, and the chance to back down from mechanical PvP. If you've had real conflict with someone before, you should be prepared to get ambushed on the road any time you go out. Griefing does not exist on Amia, and if it ever happens the DMs can deal with it case by case.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mr. Hackums
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 21:21 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 22 May 2008
|
|
I like that.
Transitions are a messy subject, but it's a limitation of the game. They're unfair, at times-- but I believe that policing them creates more problems than it solves.
On an abstract level, one might think its easy to police. But in reality, it's a mess. Even with only 1v1, you have people disappearing in stealth, invisibility, buffs running out, hasting. And that's just one other person. If there are more people involved, policing a 'waiting period' can get even worse. Or if the person's friends are dying on the other transition, and he has to wait to see if he was followed before hiding again and enchanting-- who knows. But the scenarios are ridiculously complex.
So then the gut reaction would be to make it so that you can't transition in PvP, or that if you do it's a 'new scene.' But that's still just as messy. There are some areas where it's not feasible, and it's more of an unnatural burden than the alternative. Then if there are others involved (2v2, 2v1) and they're in the other area, re-entering the scene after transitioning would allow you to continue anyway.
You see how it starts to get confusing?
The best solution, in my mind, is in line with IronAngel. Just pull back, and make it so that blatant transition hopping is abuse. Anything else creates more complications than its value, unfortunately.
I also agree about the displayed intention and the potential to back down. I'd rather have, personally, that the only stipulation to engage in PvP is that it has to have an RP justification for it. We're almost all of us adults, here. Griefers can and should get handled on a case-by-case basis, and we should encourage players that feel as if they are being simply killed without any reason to report it. But I think that we're well-beyond that stage as a server where we need to worry about heavy griefing. If we dress up PvP in so much OOC caveat rules with the intention to catch griefers, people are going to find griefers where there are actually none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Hackums
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 21:34 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 22 May 2008
|
|
People also have just as many problems in large-scale fighting with lag that can cause unfair results. It's something unfortunate, but something we shouldn't bother policing. Using transitions without abusing them should fit into that same category, for the same logic.
Abuse would be:
1.) Hopping back and forth to avoid blows/spells while still immediately engaging (Enchanting, fighting, shooting, healing).
.. And that's all I can think of. Retreating through a transition, moving ahead (Away from the transition) to buff, return, and resume fighting is perfectly fair. If the person wants to stop you from buffing so, they can follow you through the transition. If they follow you through the transition, catch you buffing, start to attack you, and you dive back into the transition, that would be abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shadowfiend
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 21:39 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: The Hall of the Mountain King
|
Zykritch wrote: Shadowfiend wrote: I am going to skim through all those lengthy walls of text at some point, but up till then: I am not going to reward players that engage in pvp just because they know their character is invincible with awesome death scenes or lasting consequences. But if one plays with an equal chance of winning and losing, I'd be very up for a rivalry, and allow consequences on my character. On the matter of people that hide behind the rules, I think equally much of those that hide behind their builds. For an interesting conflict there has to be room for both victories and defeats Hackums basically slammed this with exactly almost every point I wanted to personally make. I'm not sure why you think you don't have the right to powerbuild too, but there is -always- (from the very beginning) an 'equal chance' of winning (and I'm talking about from character creation onwards, till 30) .. No one is sitting there preventing you from making a good build too, and no one is 'hiding' behind their own. What they accomplish, and how strong they get IC'ly -is- how strong they get IC'ly. You can't claim to just disregard and ignore that because you think "Oh well he's powerbuilt, he has an unfair advantage over me." .. Because in reality, it's not him having an 'advantage' (or even giving himself one) .. the fact that you chose to deliberately build something weak and mediocre while expecting to have no consequences for that is -your- fault, and it's -you- giving yourself a disadvantage. It's as simple as this: If you want to roleplay a big, tough macho guy, design a build that fits it. Don't get all angry and pouty because someone beats you, and you attribute it to powerbuilding. No one is stopping you from doing the very same thing. And no one is doing anything to gain an advantage over you, if in reality you're only putting 1/10th of the effort into building that you could have. Your own shortcomings aren't the fault of anyone else, and you can't hold it against them that they just built a better character than you and say "Oh, I'm going to ignore your roleplay and/or give shitty reciprocation on purpose." .. And for the record, there is -always- both victories and defeats, lol. You can't have victory without someone getting defeated, and nor someone defeated without a victor. Just saying. To start with your end first, if the balance of power favors one side too much it will be the same person losing or winning most or all of the time. Simply, to have your character killed every time a certain character logs on doesn't add much to a story, or a conflict. When it comes to building my characters I prefer experimenting myself, using things I know work each on their own, and try to put them together in a good mix, or tweak existing builds or find new twists on them. I could always find a powerbuild somewhere, make a character out of those premises and hope that character does not get dull. Also, there will always be someone better than me. I don't build to win all the time either, but to not get kicked all the time as a result would be nice. On a side note there's also experience and knowledge, but that doesn't matter as much as the right build for the situation.
_________________
I am not weird, I am limited edition
|
|
|
|
|
|
666WaysToHell
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 21:58 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Location: Western Australia
|
Quote: Why is it that someone being physically weaker isn't also awesome in the same way that other character flaws are? Because when your decisively weaker build loses in PvP for the umpteenth time and people start to hold it over you like a knife, it starts to become less 'awesome' and simply becomes tedious to play at all.
_________________
Aoth Nathandem - Wizard of house Tholaunt and chosen of Ma'at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yossarin
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 22:10 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
|
|
I have a decisively weaker PvP build and have never had that problem. So it isn't an objective condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grymia
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 22:17 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Location: Kohlingen, and a Basement in Canada
|
|
I'll admit, I have been in PvP where I was at a severe disadvantage and I was boned, but it was only partly cause of the actual builds involved, I was also facing people who did deliberately plan to take my character down (and had a good reason for doing it, so I didn't mind near as much as I do in some of the cases of PvP I face.).
But, in general I do concur with 666WaysToHell on being beaten around consistantly. Now.. that frustration is also admittedly something that biases me on my perspective regarding this topic but still..
|
|
|
|
|
|
666WaysToHell
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 22:25 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Location: Western Australia
|
|
I'd say it varies from player to player, but it doesn't make it any less of an issue simply because other people don't go through it.
_________________
Aoth Nathandem - Wizard of house Tholaunt and chosen of Ma'at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 22:36 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
If you already have that experience, though, how do you expect streamlined/minimalistic PvP rules to aggravate that further? That is a serious question. I can imagine a few ways, perhaps, but what is your exact concern?
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yossarin
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 22:37 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
|
I see. I just lead a charmed life, then.  On a more serious note, I think there is more to it than happy accident and just claiming I am fortunate sidesteps something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
666WaysToHell
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 22:41 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Location: Western Australia
|
IronAngel wrote: If you already have that experience, though, how do you expect streamlined/minimalistic PvP rules to aggravate that further? That is a serious question. I can imagine a few ways, perhaps, but what is your exact concern? Pretty much no idea! Just pointing out that not everyone is cozy-cozy with PvP.
_________________
Aoth Nathandem - Wizard of house Tholaunt and chosen of Ma'at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Hackums
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 17 2015, 23:51 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 22 May 2008
|
|
I would say that Yossarin, as a character, is precisely the kind of example I was hinting at of someone who has a weaker build, but an incredible amount of influence. If you look at the types of posts here, Yoss and Iron both have come to understand that their characters aren't PvP monsters. Bookworms, scholars, fingers-in-many-pies. In the end, they also have far fewer negative experiences with PvP. I think there's something to be said about that.
Most of the problems I've seen as a moderator have been players who want to be mechanically strong, believe that they are mechanically strong, then get into combat, perish, and become frustrated.
In truth (I can be more frank these days), I think it's unfair to be upset at the stronger character/player when a large part is this has to do with your own perception of your character's strength. There are a few non-rule changes that you can undertake personally to avoid becoming frustrated by this-- and it will be not only healthier for the server, but for you as well.
1.) Like Yoss or Iron, you can seek other avenues of RP outside of badassery that can be actually more rewarding.
2.) If you still want to pursue combat effectiveness, seek the build topic. What really separates powerbuilders from griefers is our willingness to help other people become as mechanically effective as we are. Some people are uncertain about the length of the build thread, but I'm actually proud of it. Yes, we like our powerful characters-- no, we aren't trying to horde that knowledge.
The only people who should be scorned are griefers. And we've weeded quite a few of those out over the years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zykritch
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 18 2015, 0:43 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
|
Quote: To start with your end first, if the balance of power favors one side too much it will be the same person losing or winning most or all of the time. Simply, to have your character killed every time a certain character logs on doesn't add much to a story, or a conflict.
When it comes to building my characters I prefer experimenting myself, using things I know work each on their own, and try to put them together in a good mix, or tweak existing builds or find new twists on them. I could always find a powerbuild somewhere, make a character out of those premises and hope that character does not get dull. Also, there will always be someone better than me. I don't build to win all the time either, but to not get kicked all the time as a result would be nice.
On a side note there's also experience and knowledge, but that doesn't matter as much as the right build for the situation. A) "Having your character killed every time a certain character logs on" .. -will- not happen. Not without your explicit consent. The rules make sure of that. B) This game has been out for 13 years. There's a detailed wiki and extensive building documentation littered throughout the internet, no one here has an excuse for not knowing to build aside from not making the effort. Those of us who have this supposed 'advantage' over other players worked -hard- for it. We did our research, we set time aside to design what we did, and we really put the effort into actually creating the characters and building their storylines. Anyone who seeks to be on par with us can do so quite competently if they only try. The thing is, most people don't try, firstly, and then get angry when they lose a fight that they put no real effort into preparing for. That's simple cause and effect. People can't hold it against the 'victors' and say "Oh, well, that's unfair 'cause you're just a powerbuilder." C) .. I think it's safe to assume that in general it's evil characters that are instigating conflict-based RP/PVP (for the better of the server, I might add), and as much as everyone may act like they're the victims, or that evil is this massive, overbearing, overwhelming power taking a dump on everyone like a bunch of bullies with these 'massive' advantages, evil is the minority here. Almost every time I've seen extensive RP motivated PVP, good has outnumbered evil 3 to 1. If anyone has an advantage, it's the other side. -- .. In general Amia's PVP rules are pretty solid. They're not that bad at all. They just need tweaking to better pinpoint -actual- abuse, and eliminate room for extensive interpretation. All it takes for mature, competent, peaceful PVP & RP is: A) Maturity on the end of -all- involved. B) A willingness to solve problems like adults first and foremost before getting higher-ups involved or resorting to anger-incited drama. C) A willingness to -accept- deaths had in PVP without getting OOC'ly angry and sour about it. D) Adherence to the rules. ^ It's very, very simple. This isn't the end of Amia as you guys know it. The solution isn't to 'avoid one' and leave things as they are. The solution to is improve and build upon what we have, retain open minds, and to try giving civil, mature attitudes & mutual support for RP based PVP a chance. Because to be quite frank, the conflict RP is what -gives- this server life. To quote myself from earlier, and to hopefully open a few eyes: Quote: Without the conflicting sides, roleplay really does tend to sink into a dark, endless state of bland mediocrity. How many movies do you see in which there is no bad guy? .. In which there is no problem? I'd say very few. And there's a reason for that. It isn't entertaining without a definitive, dramatic plot. It isn't -enjoyable- without conflict, or without a problem that needs solving. It's just.. there. And who, exactly, wants to just watch the life story of someone who has no problems, no quarrels, and just.. is used to the idea of everything running perfect in life? .. It's the same concept with roleplay. .. If you guys really want plot-less, mediocre, shallow, 'social only' roleplay, why not just go to Sinfar? Don't turn Amia into it's child.
_________________
Inkheart
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murex
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 18 2015, 0:54 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
|
|
I think there should be rules restricting when a fight ends, as long as it's within reason. Running into a city with NPC guards would stop the battle for sure, and porting somewhere else is always an option too. We don't really need special rules to determine when a PvP battle ends.
I also Agree with IronAngel about a minimal transition rule- it's better to just deal with load speeds differing than having a bunch of rules for entering and exiting areas. Obvious Abuse IS obvious, so minimal rules are needed only for the obvious abuse of transitions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terallis
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 18 2015, 0:58 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 30 Oct 2014
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Grymia wrote: There's some cases though where it really is hard to let roleplay finish out before combat begins.. especially if any of the individuals involved are either known to be dangerous combatants, or if there's cause to believe that they might try to sneak attack. There's actions in PnP which are hard to emulate save by players being ready and trying to declare them *Readying an action to do something if the person does X* I'll offer a scenario based on on an older Sierra Game, Police Quest II.. some of you might not have played it but it might help provide perspective (the link I'll attach is to the portion of the game.. if it doesn't autowind to about 7:30 in the video you'll want to manually wind it there.. spolier incidentally but this game's so old I doubt it wholly relevant) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ1C7pFbhW0--- Detective Bonds (the main character) pursued his nemesis Jesse Bains into the sewers of a city where Bains had Bonds' girlfriend kidnapped. Bains has already in previous matters escaped jail, murdered a guard at the jail, killed several of his old associates who turned states evidence against him and then kidnapped Det. Bonds' girlfriend to lure him into a trap. Sonny finds his girlfriend in the sewers and if played properly, calms her down and manages to notice Bains coming back, getting her re-tied enough to appear as though nothing is wrong. Bains comes back after Sonny hides, and has come in with a weapon drawn. At that point, Sonny's forced to gun him down after Bains fires first. ---- Applying Amia's rules.. how would you folks see that scenario? Bit past this post, but I figure I'd make a response to it. Personally, if this sort of situation happened on Amia, I feel it would be perfectly valid for Sonny to do what he did. While he could have given the "out" to Bains, it was also proven time and time again that Bains was a very dangerous person who was going to kill Sonny's girlfriend. In a situation where there was countless prior RP to show that someone has proven to be too dangerous or similar. Where they've put themselves in a situation where PvP just shouldn't be avoided. I personally feel like people in those situations should be past a point of being given an "out". If that situation were a first occurance, or even a second, an "out" would still make sense. But a notorious, dangerous criminal, who's dedicated themselves to focus on nothing by conflict of that sort, shouldn't be permitted an "out" anymore. In terms of rules, something like "Don't expect to get a way out of PvP if you're own actions would realistically lead to a situation where it's completely unavoidable. Actions aren't without consequences, and the greater the action, the worse the consequences will be." _________________ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murex
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 18 2015, 1:10 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
|
|
Good point, Terallis. We shouldn't have to give an IC out of PvP when it doesn't make sense in the situation. If one character says: "Next time I see you around here, I'm going to kill you.", I think there doesn't need to be an IC out given next time that character runs into the one that was threatened. I don't like my role-play forced to go in an odd direction when it doesn't fit with what a character would/should do. Of course, in the above situation, I would screenshot my character saying "Next time I see you around here, I'm going to kill you.", so that I have some proof if I need it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q't'ulu
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 19 2015, 12:03 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
|
Ah, as I wrote before, all is come to personal vendetta vs RP.  Let's say, PC.A was killed by PC.B. Meanwhile, Player.A wanted revenge over Player.B (it is out of question, why). So, Player.A may pull some OOC strings -- cry for DM, whine here or leave at all. Or, with other side, Player.A may: ... set a PCs personal vendetta covert plot in action, ... hire personal bodyguards, ... ask for protection by dedicated group, ... hire bunch of assassins, ... built army and wipe offender(s), So, IMHO, if Player.A miss those funny opportunities, he is just lazy (and worthless uncreative jerk). Dixi. p.s. this works well against powerbuilders, too. p.p.s. Quote: (Dnyarri ``last'' words)
So! You probably thought I was dead... DIDN'T YOU!?
Well I'm not! I got away from the ship at the last second
and now I'm REALLY going to cause some trouble!
In fact, that's what the sequel is going to be about!
Yeah, that's the ticket! Me and my exciting adventures
as I conquer the galaxy for the greater glory of... ME!
It will have action! It will have drama!
It will have gratuitous alien sex scenes!
It's gonna be great! (all got a point, right? )
_________________
Evolution by any means!
|
|
|
|
|
|
LetumLux
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 19 2015, 13:09 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 31 May 2007
Location: Amia IKEA
|
This is a teaser with the current format I've been playing around with. Nothing set in stone yet. Short and sweet rule, followed by explanation, examples, further information: - The short version:
Don't set to Hostile until you intend to attack, or unless you suspect that an attack is imminent upon you.
Don't Hostile the entire server and keep it Hostile as your standard state.
- Would you like to know more?:
When it is appropriate to set everyone to Hostile if you expect it to be needed:
- When you do not know who is intending to attack you in a situation that is coming close to being PvP.
It is not appropriate to do a server-wide Hostile setting as a default state. This causes issues with NPC AIs, such as with Familiars, Summons, and Animal Companions, and is an exploit commonly used by people to bait PvP, by claiming the PC possessing an NPC attacked first, due to the NPC's AI being triggered by the Hostile setting, and then engaging the PCs and everyone nearby when the chaos ensues. This is abusing the Hostile mechanics, unfair play, confusion-creating, and hence against the rules.
* - The short version:
It is the responsibility of the attacker, not the defender, to set Hostile.
Anyone may set Hostile if they think PvP is about the occur.
Maintain control of your summon-able NPCs.
- Would you like to know more?:
People in Stealth, Invisibility, or otherwise attempting to be undetected from PCs you may become Hostile toward or become involved in PvP with: It is your responsibility to activate Hostile mode. Hostiling the entire server comes with the potential for awkward and OOC issues, as mentioned above; in effort to help reduce the need for it, if you are about to attack someone, you need to set Hostile on them. If someone is lurking nearby who is intending to get involved in the fight, they also need to set Hostile on you. This helps assure that all are set to the correct mode without including people not involved in the PvP.
Setting all to Hostile is best used when everyone in the vicinity will be participating in the PvP, or is suspected to, and it is more than a few PCs.
If your PC has an Animal Companion / Familiar / Summon NPC present and the RP is leading toward PvP or Hostile setting, pay attention to your commands of the NPC. If your NPC initiates attack and there has been RP or other warning of being set to Hostile, then you have initiated PvP via your NPC companion. If it is difficult for you to maintain the Stand Your Ground command of the NPC, set to Neutral until you are ready to have it attack.
* - The short version:
Don't PvP next to Area Transitions.
Don't set traps or ambushes immediately next to Area Transitions.
- Would you like to know more?:
...
... Focusing more on the actual presentation of the information than the content shown there at the moment, gut reactions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q't'ulu
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 19 2015, 13:23 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
|
|
Personally to set things stright, I prefer to exactly know, how close we are allowed to set traps next to area transition. To prevent haggling and abuse of rules.
_________________
Evolution by any means!
|
|
|
|
|
|
LetumLux
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 19 2015, 13:40 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 31 May 2007
Location: Amia IKEA
|
We'll get to that. LetumLux wrote: Focusing more on the actual presentation of the information than the content shown there at the moment, gut reactions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yossarin
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 19 2015, 14:05 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
|
Sidenote: thanks for getting on top of this, Letum. It's been in my craw since I wrote all the rules for the entryway and it just didn't seem to be set up in a way that was as good as it could be. But unlike other things I contribute, I couldn't just make up rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zykritch
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 19 2015, 18:55 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
|
LetumLux wrote: Focusing more on the actual presentation of the information than the content shown there at the moment, gut reactions? .. I like it so far. Good format too. I'm hoping that it'll be considered, but in the end (obviously) it's up to the DMs, but.. I think there should be some kind of enforcement/incentive for players to at least 'attempt' handling things themselves (regarding disagreements in PVP) before requesting DM involvement.
_________________
Inkheart
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hell-billy
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 19 2015, 19:42 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 13 May 2011
|
|
Love it!
_________________
Ciroc Kilgrave: The patriarch of a family of covetors.
Mournal the Guardian: A loyal killer for a mad mistress.
Kuurg the Vandal: An inspiration to savage glory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grymia
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 19 2015, 21:03 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Location: Kohlingen, and a Basement in Canada
|
|
I'm liking the format so far Letum, and look forward to seeing the actual rules when they come down the pipeline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LetumLux
|
Posted: Sat, Jan 24 2015, 10:28 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 31 May 2007
Location: Amia IKEA
|
|
I wanted to take a moment to make a kind of general address:
There has been a lot of finger pointing in the past few weeks as the latest rekindling of concerns about the way PvP is or is not on Amia, whether from a rules perspective or an RP one. Some people are assholes, some people are whiners, carebears, griefers, whatever. We're very fond of drawing lines and if not owning our labels then covering others in them.
One of the things that has always been the case on Amia is that all kinds of RP styles are accepted. Some people thrive on the conflict and the PvP that has returned like a tide, some hate it and have been avoiding the places they know the PvP-instigators hang out so they don't have to deal with it. Neither of these "sides" or any of the gradient between are wrong. It's preferential. So why are we going out of our way to make the game less fun for people who clearly don't play with the same preferences, when all of that energy could instead be funneled toward finding the people who do share those preferences? Everyone would be more happy; the people who aren't big on PvP could do whatever else they do, the people who love it could be getting more of it, there would be less bitching, stress, rule disputes, and DM time to do other things.
I want people to seriously consider this. It's not a restraining order, saying that never the two "sides" shall interact - it's both courtesy to other players, and a beneficial selfishness to get the type of RP you're after without hours of fuss. If you know a player isn't in to being jumped or pressed into PvP day after day - don't do it to them. Communicate. There are plenty of people who DO want to fight and thrive on it. There are plenty who don't, and there is room for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
PassionateShadow
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 16:31 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jun 2014
|
|
No one should -ever- be forced in to pvp.
_________________ ❤ Amia is Fun Again! ❤
#GreenisNotACreativeColour "It's easy to feel like a hero. It's a little harder to be one."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raua
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 17:17 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 09 Jul 2014
Location: The Land of >9000 Lakes (GMT -6)
|
LetumLux wrote: I wanted to take a moment to make a kind of general address:
There has been a lot of finger pointing in the past few weeks as the latest rekindling of concerns about the way PvP is or is not on Amia, whether from a rules perspective or an RP one. Some people are assholes, some people are whiners, carebears, griefers, whatever. We're very fond of drawing lines and if not owning our labels then covering others in them.
One of the things that has always been the case on Amia is that all kinds of RP styles are accepted. Some people thrive on the conflict and the PvP that has returned like a tide, some hate it and have been avoiding the places they know the PvP-instigators hang out so they don't have to deal with it. Neither of these "sides" or any of the gradient between are wrong. It's preferential. So why are we going out of our way to make the game less fun for people who clearly don't play with the same preferences, when all of that energy could instead be funneled toward finding the people who do share those preferences? Everyone would be more happy; the people who aren't big on PvP could do whatever else they do, the people who love it could be getting more of it, there would be less bitching, stress, rule disputes, and DM time to do other things.
I want people to seriously consider this. It's not a restraining order, saying that never the two "sides" shall interact - it's both courtesy to other players, and a beneficial selfishness to get the type of RP you're after without hours of fuss. If you know a player isn't in to being jumped or pressed into PvP day after day - don't do it to them. Communicate. There are plenty of people who DO want to fight and thrive on it. There are plenty who don't, and there is room for everyone. +>9000 Preference is preference, and neither side should be forced to deal with the other, because events that lead up to the need of this thread to be created happens. I think a large issue is it can be sometimes hard to get out of PvP in some situations. Sometimes you "took the out too slow" and got attacked while trying to leave to avoid the conflict. Sometimes its pretty random. Sometimes its fun And sometimes it sucks, win orlose.Personally, I don't like PvP especially on characters where I've let RP influence their build. Why? Because you kinda need to do that here to appease some of the DMs >.> Could I powerbuild? Hell yes. Have I? Also hell yes. Those characters never really held my interest or lasted long because they kinda left a lot to be desired (I.E. Engaging and Interesting Roleplay) But then again, that's my opinion, and I typically don't like to play characters who only have brute force going for them, but that's also my opinion. Am I right? Nope. Am I wrong? Nope. All in All, PvP handled well IC and OOC is good PvP, But the last.. Let me see, three encounters I've had in PvP have had DM intervention because of rule breaches. It gets off-putting after a while. I'm all for letting people PvP, but I'm even more for harsher punishment on rule breaches, it gets irritating to deal with, which is why there's a flood of threads tangentially related to it floating around lately. _________________ Occasionally seen as [DM] Raua, or playerside as...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard_Edmund
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 17:32 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Sep 2012
Location: Western Australia (+8 GMT)
|
|
What about those people who force their preference to PvP on others who prefer to avoid PvP?
_________________
Elwyn Sabel - Laura Jarshall - Mordoc Ebonhand
Discord: Bhaalorian#5715
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yossarin
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 17:40 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
|
|
What about them? What exactly are you asking about them? Do you mean "what is to be done about them?" Just saying you may want to elaborate on that question!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raua
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 17:43 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 09 Jul 2014
Location: The Land of >9000 Lakes (GMT -6)
|
|
I think both sides of people who force their preference of PvP or No-PvP deserve a good slap on the wrist, it's not fair to dictate what others get to do.
That said, the slap on the wrist should come from the DM team rather than the other player(s)
I guess the best way to put this is: Always give an out, and always respect the choice of the other player to take it, or not to. However, this is a blanket statement, and I feel special circumstances can void this. I.E. Kill on sight orders- Then the only out that would be fair (In my opinion!) is "Run like the wind, bullseye!"
_________________ Occasionally seen as [DM] Raua, or playerside as...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sleep Forever
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 17:46 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 10 Jan 2015
|
PassionateShadow wrote: No one should -ever- be forced in to pvp. Richard_Edmund wrote: What about those people who force their preference to PvP on others who prefer to avoid PvP? By the rules they can surrender instead of pvp. But people prefer to write their novels with their infallible protagonists rather than play a multiplayer game where they can and will lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
666WaysToHell
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 17:54 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Location: Western Australia
|
That sounded like snark.
_________________
Aoth Nathandem - Wizard of house Tholaunt and chosen of Ma'at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ice
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 17:58 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Location: Usa
|
|
It's not about winning or losing, my friends.
PvP should be considered a tool for RP progression. Nothing else.
If you want to compete against other players for the stronkest build, there's bound to be some arena server hanging around somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
PassionateShadow
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 18:01 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jun 2014
|
Sleep Forever wrote: PassionateShadow wrote: No one should -ever- be forced in to pvp. Richard_Edmund wrote: What about those people who force their preference to PvP on others who prefer to avoid PvP? By the rules they can surrender instead of pvp. But people prefer to write their novels with their infallible protagonists rather than play a multiplayer game where they can and will lose. Almost every time, 9/10 I have been forced in to un wanted pvp and not given an rp out. I have started to keep logs on this. Edit: I don't find it fun to be forced in to pvp and killed with out warning. Even when explicitly stated I do not wish to pvp I have been 'forced' in to it. I don't like having others preferences in play style forced on to me. It's just ot fun and ruins roleplay and my want to even play when this happens. _________________ ❤ Amia is Fun Again! ❤
#GreenisNotACreativeColour"It's easy to feel like a hero. It's a little harder to be one."
Last edited by PassionateShadow on Sun, Jan 25 2015, 18:04 PM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rigela
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 18:04 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Location: Grimy Old England
|
|
If you are not being given an out, then report it. Mind, an out doesn't mean an avoidance of consequences or have to be fair ICly. Or, if you start assisting in PvP already occuring, you are committing yourself to being involved.
_________________  Signature by Maryn! <3 I am also seen as DM Snuffles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard_Edmund
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 18:16 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Sep 2012
Location: Western Australia (+8 GMT)
|
|
What if that out forces you to take the PvP option anyway? It isn't really an out then, is it?
_________________
Elwyn Sabel - Laura Jarshall - Mordoc Ebonhand
Discord: Bhaalorian#5715
|
|
|
|
|
|
PassionateShadow
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 18:30 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jun 2014
|
Sleep Forever wrote: By the rules they can surrender instead of pvp. But people prefer to write their novels with their infallible protagonists rather than play a multiplayer game where they can and will lose. I'm fine with rping surrender but near no one has given me a chance to roleplay in this direction. Some times it's better for the story and more fitting of the character to surrender willingly then to defiantly fight to the death. I vehemently do not support pointless pvp / death. There's no reason for it on an rp server. PassionateShadow wrote: Sleep Forever wrote: PassionateShadow wrote: No one should -ever- be forced in to pvp. Richard_Edmund wrote: What about those people who force their preference to PvP on others who prefer to avoid PvP? By the rules they can surrender instead of pvp. But people prefer to write their novels with their infallible protagonists rather than play a multiplayer game where they can and will lose. Almost every time, 9/10 I have been forced in to un wanted pvp and not given an rp out. I have started to keep logs on this. Edit: I don't find it fun to be forced in to pvp and killed with out warning. Even when explicitly stated I do not wish to pvp I have been 'forced' in to it. I don't like having others preferences in play style forced on to me. It's just ot fun and ruins roleplay and my want to even play when this happens. That's fine but if I'm on a search and rescue mission I'm not there to pvp/ kill I'm there to get bodies and leave. Offer me a chance to role play do not just kill my character. There is endless possibilities and directions a scene can go in with out killing. Or if I walk in to a scene some explanation of what's going on- and a chance to rp a response in the LEAST- not auto kill. I cannot stress how much these sorts of things make playing not fun. Sure if there' valid reason for pvp and both parties are up for it. Go for it. But just like how some people are uncomfortable by dismemberment or gore for no reason, I'm not comfortable with this kind of roleplay and do not like being forced in to it. Richard_Edmund wrote: What if that out forces you to take the PvP option anyway? It isn't really an out then, is it? Even if it's 'Fight or die' still at least give me some roleplay before hand first and do not force me in to pvp mechanics. Being forced in to some one Else's play style of pvp: It's not fun, It turns me off of the game as whole, It ruins the chance of Roleplay More times then not, It ruins the chance of any real or meaningful developmeant. In opposition- there are those who want to pvp - any one who plays just to rack up a kill count should seek others out who wish to do the same and be respectful for those who are uncomfortable by such and do not wish to partake. This is a roleplay server; I'm here for plot and development of characters and plausible reasoning. If pvp is used it should be a tool for RP progression. _________________ ❤ Amia is Fun Again! ❤
#GreenisNotACreativeColour"It's easy to feel like a hero. It's a little harder to be one."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yossarin
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 18:51 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
|
Richard_Edmund wrote: What if that out forces you to take the PvP option anyway? It isn't really an out then, is it? I was tempted to ask for elaboration on this, too, because I am trying to imagine what such a scenario would be. But I might advise letting me remain curious, because the alternative could be referring to a specific incident, so...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard_Edmund
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 18:58 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Sep 2012
Location: Western Australia (+8 GMT)
|
|
Not really, just a hypothetical scenario where the out is so ridiculous that it forces you into the PvP option.
_________________
Elwyn Sabel - Laura Jarshall - Mordoc Ebonhand
Discord: Bhaalorian#5715
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sphinx
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 19:14 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
|
|
You're always entitled to avoid mechanical PvP if you should wish it. However, you can always be captured or stricken down via roleplay. There is no perfect escape from consequences, unless you're mechanically capable of doing so. If you want to avoid violence almost entirely, you need to stay in the safety of towns.
_________________
Sion of Nimlith
Shadow Disciple
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naivatkal
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 19:23 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 26 May 2010
|
Yossarin wrote: Richard_Edmund wrote: What if that out forces you to take the PvP option anyway? It isn't really an out then, is it? I was tempted to ask for elaboration on this, too, because I am trying to imagine what such a scenario would be. But I might advise letting me remain curious, because the alternative could be referring to a specific incident, so... Richard_Edmund wrote: Not really, just a hypothetical scenario where the out is so ridiculous that it forces you into the PvP option. The out can be 'come with us or die'. If you don't want to PvP, guess what? You're getting taken. Or else you are going to get killed and then taken. It's not favorable, but they gave you an out. Perfectly fair, even if you don't like it. Heck, I wouldn't like it either haha.
_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shadowfiend
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 19:26 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: The Hall of the Mountain King
|
|
Hey, I am pretty sure some DM at some point said that the out needs to be reasonable. To have the option of fighting or getting sacrificed is not a reasonable out, captured can be if you're not going to just kill them anyway.
_________________
I am not weird, I am limited edition
|
|
|
|
|
|
PassionateShadow
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 19:37 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jun 2014
|
Naivatkal wrote: The out can be 'come with us or die'. If you don't want to PvP, guess what? You're getting taken. Or else you are going to get killed and then taken. It's not favorable, but they gave you an out. Perfectly fair, even if you don't like it. Heck, I wouldn't like it either haha. I would much rather be taken instead of forced in to pvp- unfortunately I'm never offered the chance. Sphinx wrote: You're always entitled to avoid mechanical PvP if you should wish it. However, you can always be captured or stricken down via roleplay. There is no perfect escape from consequences, unless you're mechanically capable of doing so. If you want to avoid violence almost entirely, you need to stay in the safety of towns. Staying in towns doesn't always work. I have been killed in towns. My intent for rp is not to escape iwth out consequences- My intent if for legitimate rp not to become part of a kill count board. I feel that players shouldn't be forced in to pvp and I feel that there should be penalties given to players who force others in to pvp pointlessly with out offering some form of 'protocol'. So far I really haven't seen much aside from may be the Thayans or a Drow who have offered me roleplay, and or an out before pvp. _________________ ❤ Amia is Fun Again! ❤
#GreenisNotACreativeColour"It's easy to feel like a hero. It's a little harder to be one."
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 19:50 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Shadowfiend wrote: Hey, I am pretty sure some DM at some point said that the out needs to be reasonable. To have the option of fighting or getting sacrificed is not a reasonable out, captured can be if you're not going to just kill them anyway. "PvP or get sacrificed" was certainly the intended interpretation of the rule. DMs may have changed their minds since then (though it doesn't look like it), but that may have been the exact example I had in mind when the rule was written (I want to say "when I wrote the rule" but I'm not 100% sure if the final version came from my keyboard; the discussion was nonetheless a team effort and the example of drow sacrifice was on the table). Some DMs were adamant that they not be forced to PvP mechanically because it's apparently just so terrible (though I would argue that you need to embrace every aspect of the game), but we wanted to find a formulation that would prevent someone getting out of a kidnapping by appealing to no-PvP. _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naivatkal
|
Posted: Sun, Jan 25 2015, 19:55 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 26 May 2010
|
PassionateShadow wrote: Naivatkal wrote: The out can be 'come with us or die'. If you don't want to PvP, guess what? You're getting taken. Or else you are going to get killed and then taken. It's not favorable, but they gave you an out. Perfectly fair, even if you don't like it. Heck, I wouldn't like it either haha. I would much rather be taken instead of forced in to pvp- unfortunately I'm never offered the chance. I'd totally do it  But, then, that would likely be with my drow and we know how that will end DD LOLTH TLU MALLA!
_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming
|
|
|
|
|
|
2star
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 26 2015, 3:51 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2014
|
Quote: That's fine but if I'm on a search and rescue mission I'm not there to pvp/ kill I'm there to get bodies and leave. Offer me a chance to role play do not just kill my character. There is endless possibilities and directions a scene can go in with out killing. Concerning this, if a given character enters an area where a fight is/was taking place and then uses a scroll or what have you on one of the bodies, they've then just pretty much voided their RP and out, just as if they had entered and began to buff/attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
kalcibone
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 26 2015, 6:54 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 18 Feb 2013
|
|
2star: not true, if the fight has ended then the fight did just that- ended. if you are puppy dogging the boddies then you are forcing PVP without an out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2star
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 26 2015, 7:02 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2014
|
|
If a character enters a scene, say the aftermath of a fight and finds a body or bodies they can then roleplay and of course the story will happen from there. If however, they enter and start raising people, that's as good as casting an offensive spell and should be treated as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kamina
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 26 2015, 7:04 AM |
|
|
DM
Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Location: Kent, England.
|
|
If someone is guarding the bodies of people they just killed, in my opinion, this is a smart and IC thing to do. Why would someone turn their backs immediately on bodies knowing someone will come and raise them soon after? I agree, by approaching the bodies and their killer, you should be given an out, but you should not be immune for being threatened by trying to raise the bodies of someone who just killed them.
_________________  "Operating in the border between light and darkness, shadowdancers are nimble artists of deception. They are mysterious and unknown, never completely trusted but always inducing wonder when met"
|
|
|
|
|
|
kalcibone
|
Posted: Mon, Jan 26 2015, 7:23 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 18 Feb 2013
|
|
Im sorry But I've been yelled at by both DM and player for doing that before, heck i've even had someone disintigrate then flood the bodies with dirt and water to make sure they didnt come back easily.
What happened? They got a DM's help and were true ressed less then 10 minutes later by having one switch to an alt. And I could do nothing about it.
Either 'puppy dogging' removes the body quickly like they would do normally with a DM, or they leave the bodies there and leave like any sane person would rather then wait for MORE issues. It isnt like the dead would know what happened or why they are there.
|
|
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Login
