Question: If you are raised, flee into an NPC area and rest and then run around through non-NPC areas to return to the area and the fight is still going on... is that a break in the rules? Or if the fight is still occurring, it's still the same scene? Or is it still abusing the NPCs?

Even case precedent (in the legal sense) is all still written down somewhere. It's not just a mental construct in the memories of the people involved; you can go to the internet or a law library and find all the various precedents clearly preserved for posterity. Amia has no such function.

A rule that is not written is not a rule. It's an opinion.

In the case of resting, though, there doesn't need to be a rule, if resting is WYSIWYG. It's just a general assumption that everything is what it seems to be, unless there's a rule or overriding RP that says otherwise. If resting looks like a character just sat down for thirty seconds, then that's what happened.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

I understand that too. And it's mostly recorded DM-side, and every now and then we're prompted to explain it. I understand that it's not ideal for players. But even as its recorded, it's haphazardly done. We're not a law firm, or a government body. We're a forum for a video game. We simply can't realistically be asked to write down every single ruling on all of our cases, and in every scenario. That's why we frequently take questions, and try to explain. We also have the search bar.

And I touched on that example earlier, Estara. If you flee to an NPC guarded location, rest, buff, and return out to fight without a DM supervising, it's metagaming of guards. Because you're using guard protection against another player, and your opponent's cant realistically pursue only because there's no DM's supervising.

There's this growing trend in which the DM team is being expected to act and uphold principles of actual government or legislative precision. A lot of these current rules are from a time when people were more contented with common sense rulings. Nowadays, everything is picked apart to the letter. We're asked to explain to broad audiences, which ends up becoming page after page of circular discussion.

At the end of the day, you've got to choose how you want the staff to administrate this game. We have a slim roster, and a constrained amount of time. If players want us to administer the forums to this level of extent, to crunch out every inch of ruling, to enforce with absolute clarity, to be bound 100% to the letter of the rules (And in response, of course, the rules will become pages upon pages long with technicalities, circumstances, etc), we're simply not going to have time to deal with actually making the game run.

I often wonder when people decided, or maybe when we even gave off the idea, that ours was a system that demanded such an expectation. Even now, I've already given what was admittedly an abrasive original post far too much credibility by responding to it and diving into it as far as I have. What I can say that it's a vicious, exhausting cycle.

I'm gonna step back from the forums for a few days. Maybe someone else can solve this problem.

I know I added it to my post via edit, Hackums, so maybe you missed it, but I didn't mean to hold you to that overblown standard you describe (though I can see how you'd read me that way). I'm arguing the opposite, actually: that in this case (and probably in most cases), a rule isn't necessary. Just the general standard assumption that "things are what they are" is sufficient.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

I can understand wanting to avoid intense amounts of rules lawyering and critical discussion in general, but I think things like this come up because the players are being judged based on X amount of conflicting opinions. It makes approaching PVP very difficult when you can't be sure how any given DM is going to view it because you don't know which one is watching. Most of the time it isn't an issue, I'm sure, but the chance that it can turn into a real shitstorm is why I generally run screaming from PVP and do everything I can IC to avoid it like the plague.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

That sounds like a great suggestion for the Improving Amia forum. I'd support a temporary stat hit after raises.



Well, here's the thing.

Let's say you have a situation where two ranger groups are bouncing off each other like pinballs in the forest, leaving a corpse here and there, the fighting stopping everywhere in between. I'd call that a single scene, yet there's been distinct pauses in the fighting. I think that's what Hackums means- an end to the fight is different than a pause in the fight.

I can keep thinking up examples that thwart all but the most exhaustively-worded rule, but it spins off into ridiculousness so soon. If the rules were really as cut-and-dried as some want them to be, so ready and able to handle every possible annoyance that might crop up, they'd be the size of an Apple contract (except online, if we printed Malandria would kill us).

To some extent the players need to relax and trust the DMs to do their jobs and referee it instead of demanding the rules get parsed to a finer and finer degree in an attempt to cover all the squirrely little ins and outs. Rules that are that exhaustive are usually called Nondisclosure Agreements. We're not attorneys, we're a bunch of cheeto-munchers playing D&D on the computer.

On the other hand, players do need a good way to define PvP encounters so that they have a good idea of when something's actually wrong, and it does end up being less of a headache for DMs to sort out later on. I do think the PvP rules should probably get a tweak (if not an overhaul) to better describe what the stance is.

But still, relax. Really. Some of us (myself included at times) get hotheaded when PvP is involved. 98% of the stupid crap players do is because they're worked up about PvP. We're just playin' D&D. We're not gonna kill ya. At the worst you'll have a story to share, and if people really are being dicks then we have rules and DMs for that.



If he was never raised in an IC manner, it was naughty because it was blatantly OOC. If they returned buffed and went through the little 'chance to back down' routine (we shall call it the Chance Dance), then PvPed you I think it was within the rules. In that case, don't OOC raise people in the future. If people abuse your kindness, don't extend that kindness anymore. If they came back and just started beating on you then that sounds like they escaped the scene and returned, the 'scene' being the extent of the initial fight and death. Again, you can think up scenarios with exceptions to this- wars, bounties, assassinations, so on. Don't legislate the rules to death trying to cover it all.



PvP in NWN is like this Japanese cube watermelon:

*This is absolutely real.
It's grown to fill the container it's in. The container happens to contain area transitions. Complaining about area transitions breaking up the flow of combat in NWN is like complaining about a bad taste in your mouth after visiting the water park. It's a fact of life in either context, may as well get used to it. It has its own peculiarities and dynamics, and too often we players ape the rulebooks, pointing eagerly at some snippet or other from a multitude of splatbooks containing more contradictions than a Jihadist Catholic. Anyone can find some rule somewhere in some published material that they can interpret to say "this is how things should be". But that's all it is- pointing at something that is not NWN and saying "Make NWN like this".

NWN is NWN, it's its own little bugbear of messy PvP that flows according to the system it's in. Just because something in another medium related to this says something doesn't mean it's law in this game- the rules should work with the natural shape of NWN's PvP and I think the way Hackums has interpreted it does that very well, allowing the rules to cover a broad array of dynamic encounter types so long as we don't lawyer it to hell and back.

TL:DR; DMs: If we can get some clear guidelines in the rules themselves, that'd be great. Keep them simple if possible. While you're doing miracles, cure cancer. Everyone else: Chill out, fellow swivel-chairioteers. 'S a game, and the other side's probably a pretty cool guy, too.
Eh kills yuo and doesn't afraid of anything.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

We can't make rules to cover everything but we can and should clarify the rules where we can when there is need for it. That seems to be the case here.

I hope to discuss this with the team to see if and how the rule can be clarified. Feel free to (constructively) comment here on the issue and if you have a good proposal for how to touch up the rule please share it.

(Own oppinion!) Transitions are entirely ooc and ussually break line of sight and proximity where normally that wouldn't be case. An exemple is the transit between Cordor South and East. If you transit from pvp in south and hit rest on the transit in east you can rest whereas you should be in full view of those fighting and too close to rest mechanicly.

Yes, someone can follow you but if they didn't see transitioning (and that is hard to see mid-fight with multiple people involved as you just vanish) then you just got an unfair advantage as your opponents don't see you and don't know where you went while they should be able to still see you. You also would still be in range of spells and missile weapons.

So that should be considered.

_________________
Characters played:

Harold Kendry (Illusionist) -> see avatar
Elloanore (Travelling bard)

MAKING RULEZ IS HARD! HALP!

But seriously though, Thanks for looking into this. In my fantasy dream land, I imagine the rule for pvp being well-defined, simple, and easy to enforce.

As of now, there are still very old players running around that think they can "opt out" of pvp situations, jump into pvp situations without IC reasons, and utilize "cheesy" game mechanics to gain the upper hand in pvp. I say we add the following rule:

"Cooperate with and be polite to other players OOC."

of course... that rule would only work in my fantasy dream land...

If you want people to not rely on transitions and leaving the immediate fight area, then classes like clerics, mages, and druids will need a quicker and more reliable way to buff.

I'm not opposed to quicker buffing, if it means less area ducking.

But I'm sure I'm going to hear about how that's overpowered, so I will continue running into my corner and buffing for 3 minutes if I ever get into a PvP.

Also, please don't mention haven, because even with 30 cleric levels, nobody has the spell slots required to make that risk better than just corner buffing, and the spell cannot be extended so it only lasts for 6? buffs.

The whole buffing aspect has always made PvP awkward, and I think removing that element from being a factor would make the situation much less awkward.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata

I haven't even considered faster buffing an option before... is that possible?





I agree with this. Role-playing a pvp encounter looks, and feels, goofy when people start drinking gallons of potions and casting lots of spells at the same time their are giving their mega awesome speech of "Prepare to die, ebil doers!" grandeur. But how can we fix it?

That was the view of the old DM team so it was delt with that way.



Because as the DMs have come and gone, the idea of common sense changed so what we used as a base line no longer works. so in truth I find the newer DMs have in fact made it this way because I feel the older DM team often had the same way of enforcing the rules.... where now its all on who you get at the time and it scares people.

Years ago a DM explained to me a way to interpret the rules in a very simple way and it was something along the lines of "If it cant really be argued that what you did will effect anyone in a negative way, its fine."


Resting in 10sec hunting monsters=fine------Resting 10 sec in PVP= not
Uses transitions as a OOC way to flee monsters because they cant follow you=fine------using transitions to break up PVP because of loading times and breaking line of sight to prevent them from being able to follow you because its not seamless= not fine
claiming you sent a sending/familiar/ animal companion what ever to send a message(PM in game) to inform someone of a meeting about to start, going hunting...etc.=fine------claiming you did the same but informed someone PVP is about to happen or is happening so they will come help you= not fine.

I assume you all get the idea on how that can be used as guidance on the rules, that's the way it was explained to me so that's the way I viewed the rules and I believe a lot of older players are the same and in truth I found that very simple.

_________________
================-<Cory ShadowFlame>-================
Risenlord-Shifter(OMG a Non-Dragon Shifter that can hold his own in PvE)

You interrupt their speech by a generous serving of SMITE SMITE SMITE. Risking hostilities while being insufficiently prepared is a MASSIVE tactical mistake, and there is no reason not to take advantage of that. It is goofy only because people chivalrously wait for each other to gain all the edges and advantages they can before engaging.

Buffing times should definitely not be shortened. That would make clerics even better than they already are, and clerics are the best class there is, when they are prepared.

_________________
Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips
Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar
Silwe, the elf

During my relatively short time on the server, I've been consistently told that once someone exits through a transition during a fight, you aren't allowed to follow them through it and continue the fight. One would only assume that this is them 'fleeing the scene', and therefore it would be a dick move to keep following them when they want their 'out'. If that's the case, this means that them coming back through the transition would mean they negated this rule. However, seeing as from what I read here, I guess the ruled have changed...I'm really not too sure. A little more DM input would be appreciated to clarify all this! Thanks to Hackums for consistently replying though, it's cleared a few things up. So at the end of the day, if someone runs through a transition during PVP, am I allowed to follow and continue the fight then? Is that rule no longer a thing? If it ever was.

_________________

Thats the way it crumbles ... cookie-wise!

If they didn't take their PvP out prior to it being initiated, then the attacking PC(s) are free to chase them through transitions. However if the fleeing PC takes the PvP out, then decided to return after buffing, they'd need to give the other PCs their out now since the original scenario ended with the fleeing PC taking his out and leaving.

I'm pretty sure that's the gist of it.

So long as the out is not taken you could always chase people. However if you lost track of the person for some reason the PvP was over.

Keep in mind an out can be 'surrender or die'. The out then is basically 'don't flee and let us capture you, or else PvP'. Outs don't have to mean there's no conflict :>

_________________
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

The point of my question wasn't whether or not Amia was classified one way or another. It was whether we're going to accept terrible conduct toward one another on a level that no longer qualifies as in character when you introduce mechanics that have an OOC purpose such as rest on death and transitions to escape combat to do so.

When I said the attitude toward a lot of these things taken by our player base bothered me I meant it. I took two months off because I got tired of all of the negative things I was seeing and hearing and this thread was half cocked attempt to try to get some perspective on that or perhaps my way of saying "keep that attitude away from me." The fact that you and another DM in this thread alone contradicted each other and you wrote it off as "one other person's opinion" is bothersome as well because that means what you are saying is non concrete and universally accepted or understood by the staff. Either the rule needs to change or the staff needs to universally be behind it and understand it.

I respect that you're taking the hard line stance to the interpretation of the rules that has not proven favorable to you in the past, I really do. And I respect you a lot as a person as a staff member. And perhaps I should have worded that question differently but I'm trying to reflect the attitude that sort of ruling encourages as opposed to the other.

I'd say you're writing off my concerns, but you clearly weren't with the length and detail of your reply, and I'd like to just make that statement clear to anyone whom seems to think that's what your reply was. I appreciate your concern in the matter which is why I'm even responding at all after having mostly forgotten about this thread (as I usually do when I say something controversial that I think needs to be given dialogue). The attitude the server and player base takes just sort of matters I suppose. I've been to a much smaller server with a more open and welcoming player base and it kind of hooked me in really quickly. I wasn't worried that if I gave someone an OOC rez so they didn't have to burn xp on a respawn that they'd be RPing their regeneration (I've had some do that), having people raise them when they'd logically still be on their five minute timer and abuse my courtesy to them by running off to hit rest and rebuff, or start entering pvp without any role playing.

It was a pleasure to be there and I was there for a couple of months. But I have made to many connections on amia and can't really fight the urge to return. The server has something none of these other places have and that's why I keep returning. I just think that as a collective we could frankly be better to one another, and it would help us a lot at the end of the day.

Sorry for the long-windiness of my response, I just had a lot to say very suddenly. I'm not one of those guys who thinks that a statement made by the staff should be taken in spite so if I don't like something posted I generally don't respond to it without good reason. In this case I think we're just having an important discussion and I'm using the wrong topic to discuss it. I may make an entire thread to address player attitudes and such to each other on something of an OOC level if I can be bothered, but I'm not sure it's a battle that either needs fighting or is worth fighting if it does on a certain level. I just tend to have bad experiences that perhaps other people don't.

_________________

Gerald Edmund
Discord: Metal Viking Guy #5433

DC taxation is theft!

With all due respect this is just wrong.

My first and main concern is that transitions are OOC. There are plenty of examples where relatively solid ideas were beaten to death by, in my opinion, sad arguments from DM side about hardware difference of the community, lag and so on and how you want to avoid OOC mechanics affect the IC happenings, and yet here you approve of something that's probably the biggest pain for anyone with slightly shitty (Wi-Fi) connection or obsolete hardware.

Putting ground between the combatants is possible in almost every zone of the module, given the size of each and every zone. Please, for the sake of sane conversation do not argue with the slim percentage of a few interiors and dungeons. Fleeing the scene via transition and then returning back rested and re-buffed, ready to fight again, is considered as transition abuse on all servers I have ever played on. It seems, yet again, that Amia has a new "new".

I am not even touching the subject of raising a dead person to slap a Heal or GR on them and they're good as new, ready to fight. It's a bitter chew to swallow in case of PvE, in case of PvP it's beyond any constructive argument.

_________________
Daegan Van'Straaten - Duty to Helm is above all!

No helmite. You are wrong.

Transitions are only a game mechanic, IC"ly they don't exist.

_________________
NWN Damage Calculator: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/dnd/
NWN Build Calculator: http://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/other/tool/characterbuildcalculator-nwn2-cbc2

You should be allowed to run away and buff and come back, I don't think any argument is going to persuade me otherwise.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata

I don't think your interpretation of the situation is entirely fair, Hackums. I think DMs of the past had very clear principles of government. If anything, things have gotten more lax and arbitrary in recent years. Much of the team's collective memory has been lost and you have introduced a lot of new rules and new, restrictive interpretations of old rules. I feel that things that are unacceptable or require DM permission/supervision have at least doubled over the last, say, four years. Perhaps what you're seeing, Hackums, is backlash against that development. If you give rulings on things that don't actually have a rule about them, or contradict decade-old practice, of course someone gets annoyed. I don't think it's all justified or reasonable, but it's understandable and based on a real need. It's not a new phenomenon, but you haven't exactly made public efforts to resist the natural development.

That said, nobody expects you to run like a government or a court of law. But that means you can't expect to have as thorough control, either. It means, essentially, what Liz said: if it isn't written down, it's not a rule. And if it's not a rule, it's not something you need to fret about interpreting according to precedent; you just ignore it. Not everything that happens on Amia needs to be governed by a rule or by DM interpretation. If you just took that line and ran with it, much of your stress would disappear: If it's not written, it's not a rule.


As for the intent of the rule: a "scene" is something that has clear continuity. You've seen movies, you've read books - you know what a scene is. There can be a chase-scene. But if both parties disengage, one starts chatting with friends and the other goes to recruit friends or buy supplies, the scene changes. Stepping out to rest and buff might have been considered inappropriate when the rule was formulated, but there's probably a reasonable time limit to consider: if you come back within one or two minute's time, it might be the same scene. If you take 10, it obviously isn't. What I do know for a fact is that we did not consider merely changing transitions to break PvP when the rule was written. Therefore: if the rule does not mention transitions, then transitions are not relevant.

_________________

Exactly right. They do not exist ICly, so using them to illogically hit & run is abuse. For example, they can be used to escape spellcasters (exit whilst the spellcaster is casting), they can be used to escape henchmen, companions and summons and so on. Tons of examples to an obvious matter.

Therefore, they should not be allowed during pvp, ONLY as an escape route (aka. once you run away, you cannot return back to continue the fight) and only because Amia is a soft-mode. Why do you think many a game have disabled option to escape the zone whilst in combat? There are servers where transition zones are only useable via. dialogue menu = outside combat only. (a hint of it is even here, on Amia, in Frozenfar, I think).

You are killing yourself with your own arguments.

_________________
Daegan Van'Straaten - Duty to Helm is above all!

Transitions are a game mechanic, yes. But to expand on Svensk's comment, I add the following:

There is a difference between transition use and transition abuse. I thought that had been made clear above, but apparently that's been forgotten somewhere down the page. If someone goes through a transition in the course of combat, follow them through. It's been made clear that they cannot:

- Use the transition to jump you the moment you enter the area
- Use the transition to bounce back and forth between areas, taking advantage of a higher connection speed

These are some of the more significant concerns, and it's been clearly stated they're not allowed. As to casters, if the target vanishes then most of their spells will simply stop mid-cast when the target is lost. They don't burn the spell unless it's untargeted or AoE.

You can't restrict PvP to the area it begins in without shooting said PvP in the foot, so to speak- Most chase scenes are entirely out. Setting up an ambush (not on top of a transition mind you) and leading opponents to it? Forget it. Falling back to a reinforced position to continue fighting when your initial point of combat has been overwhelmed? Nope. Such a narrow interpretation serves only to hobble PvP possibilities and shows a profound lack of trust in both your fellow player and the DMs' ability to discern mechanic abuse (which is in the rules as a general catch-all).

Transitions are a NWN mechanic. You simply can't avoid having them. Between the two interpretations of the rule, the DMs' position as stated by Hackums is by far simpler and will require much less rules-lawyering because it simply ignores transitions altogether outside of abusing them (and abuse criteria have already been extensively detailed above by those with more authority than I). The other interpretation means that transitions always have an IC impact on PvP, thus causing IC effects from an OOC mechanic every time they're used instead of only when they're abused. For my part, I'll take the simpler option that doesn't turn transitions into an annoying pain in the ass.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

I see issues, but if it was a chase scene the 'runner' would stop on the other side of transition in sight and resume the chase when everyone loads in. I think keeping on running even when others are not loaded in, is kind of still abusing it :/ how are you supposed to chase someone that bolts off or goes invisible the moment they load in, then when the others load in, their just randomly gone? We could obviously see anything they did, and should be allowed to react to it, but i have had this happen to me and no Dm's were on to ask about it.

PVP will always be an issue without a very strict rule set for every possible issue, and while there are good rules set up so far, sadly only complaining or pointing out possible issues will 'evolve' the ruleset to make it better.

It doesn't matter if someone is right or wrong, simply say 'i agree' if you do or say nothing at all on the subject. Think of it as a 'collection of conflicted issues in pvp' rather then a argument.

Also on rules: I'd rather have a 40 page rule book to look at, then to get in trouble randomly because i didn't know it.

Good lord, I just slogged through all 2 pages of this and still have no idea what it is about.

All I could take away from this thread is if you have more than 3 rules on one topic, you've too many and people sure do complain a lot over an event that literally costs them nothing but 5 minutes of time if they lose.

All I want to do now is run away at 375% monk speed everytime a lvl 1 menaces me with a sword because I'm sure the 3 second beatdown they'd earn isn't worth the dumb drama llama sure to follow in tells and forum spam afterward.

I don't see the point of whining about hardware at all. Guess what? The guy with the better link and rig still will have an edge on you. His reflexes will be sharper than yours, his button presses will go through faster. What are you gonna do about it? Run speedtests and rig up false latency for the faster guy? Short of sitting around emote-fighting with dice you can't remove the engine from the game. I'm of the mind of "if you can do it, it's legal" and "if you don't like being slow, get a job and upgrade" really. Nobody /makes you/ chase anyone but you and at that point it's your fault imo. SunTzu wasn't handicapped because his opponents were dumber than him.

PvP is the biggest thing I loathe here because it's by far the worst to deal with and understand and ironically enough utterly meaningless (the dead guy will just be not dead in 5 min anyways). I just pretend it doesn't exist.

And no to faster buffing. That's the balanced downside of being a spellcaster - being vulnerable if caught with your pants down.

_________________
Rashad the Azure, Zakharan Merchant-lord Most Fair and Master of the Desert Wind
Loremaster Tukson Devers, Oghmanyte Wrestler of Knowledge and Child of the Passive Voice

(No tells for Rashad while I'm playing other characters please.)

I agree with MightNMagic.

Also, keep in mind that the most important thing to remember when engaging in PvP is to not lose.

I only wonder why you did not use this down under charm in other cases where ideas (some of them great), with which you have personally agreed in your posts, were shot down by the staff, using the very same hardware / connection / lag or whatever argument. I mean, I THINK I DO know why, but I'm not about to jump into conclusions.

Oh, and it's Sun Tzu.



Yes, the difference between use and abuse is clear. However, does the abuse count only in PvP, or in PvE too? Because I have personally (and I bet not just me) witnessed transition jumping countless times against PvE mobs. If it is not allowed during PvE as well, then there is simply no chance of controlling if players are playing by the rules or not.

Which leads to the question of disabling the transition zones whilst in combat. I really don't see anything wrong with it. From the logical point of view - if you cannot run away from the enemy in the zone, why should you be allowed to do so via. transition zone? How you explain that someone suddenly vanish in front of you (enter the transition zone)?

I think it takes five seconds to leave the "combat mode" if you manage to hide from your enemies so they are not aware of you. If you manage to do that, you should be allowed to flee the scene (exit via. transition zone) because it clearly means that your enemies are not aware of where you are and are looking for you. If you are not able to do that, then it means you are unable to escape your enemies and therefore you should not be able to use the transition zone to vanish.

_________________
Daegan Van'Straaten - Duty to Helm is above all!

Re-read the tone in your post, Helmite. You come off as very pushy and hostile

_________________
NWN Damage Calculator: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/dnd/
NWN Build Calculator: http://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/other/tool/characterbuildcalculator-nwn2-cbc2

We need to remember that Amia is a game first and foremost. Any rules that prevent players from fairly gaming the system (like surviving against mobs by using transitions) in the name of realism would go wrong because they forget that we're a game rather than a reality simulator. You should never demand players ignore what's in front of them, readily available in game. It's kind of like expecting your enemy to pause their PvP for you to emote something - nope.

In any case, the word "transition" is not mentioned in the PvP rules; there should be no unclarity about whether the rules prohibit it, then.

_________________

As I said before, we're re-evaluating the pvp rules with a special focus on transitioning and resting in pvp.

It needs a bit of time though as we first need to discuss the matter with the team (What we are doing now) and then need to cobble the agreement into a comprehensive format.

Stay tuned!

_________________
Characters played:

Harold Kendry (Illusionist) -> see avatar
Elloanore (Travelling bard)

Svensk, leave the moderation to the staff since you indulge in the very same tone as well.

http://www.amiaworld.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=76745&start=150

Yeah, echoing Hudson, we're actively looking at this.

We've heard the concerns, but it's going in circles now. We'll open a new, more polite thread once we're finished with our modifications.

Even though this thread started off pretty poorly (Bob, I love ya, but this was a mess), we took the concerns and problems presented to us, and we're working diligently on explaining, modifying, and making these kinds of situations clear.

What we're looking to do is update the PvP rules as a whole, but in respects to this thread, we're going to help clearly define transition abuse, and make a decision on transitioning in PvP as well as resting in PvP.

Give us a few days, we'll have it ready. Then we can discuss it anew.