As has been mentioned, we're working on the revision of the PvP rules that should hopefully lay things out in an approachable, comprehensive, and easy to understand and reference manner. We're tweaking, updating, reassessing, and getting it arranged.

In the mean time, I wanted to bring up some things from my own paradigm, and offer them to the rest of the community in the hope that is of some benefit. This is my own personal voice here.

I make it no secret that I'm very pro player-empowerment. I think that things generally run a lot smoother when players have the confidence to fairly police themselves; things are dealt with more immediately, people tend to have a much stronger grasp of the rules as a result, and it tends to result in players looking at each other more as fellow players in a cooperative, co-authored story common to all, rather than a game meant to win or lose.

To that end, I'd like to propose players communicating with each other more frequently when OOC matters or mechanical limitations are involved, and especially in PvP. If you are uncertain of something, ask. If a summon attacks and that wouldn't have ICly happened, say so, unsummon, reset. I've always felt congruent story is ultimate; if there needs to be some OOC to achieve that, it's better than a bunch of players upset because things happened in an irrational way because of NWN mechanical limitations. If someone would rather emote-fight and manually roll things than just click to attack each other, why not just confirm that with those involved? To me, it's the gamer equivalent to good sportsmanship. People who want to embellish the fight shouldn't be punished for the limitation of taking the time to type amidst the combat any more that people who use tactics or mobility should be.

Our PvP rules are in place primarily to protect people from griefers, and to address the awkwardness of certain OOC issues/mechanical limitations, such as Area Transition hopping. This has the unfortunate side effect of hampering certain kinds of characters and PvP they would be involved with; especially characters with high stealth, mobility, or those using guerrilla hit-and-run tactics. How can you tell when someone is escaping the PvP scene, or just getting out of the hottest part of the fray so they can strike again strategically? At present, there is a lot of confusion and anxiety about what constitutes good tactics, and abuse or PvP rule breaking.

It's not ideal, but I think at least some of this can be solved with simple questions, like "Are you alright with this PvP spanning across different Areas? Are you alright with ambushes?" Does it break some immersion? I honestly don't think so, because we always need to have a degree of separation from our characters anyway, keeping OOC rules in mind, keeping IC separate from OOC. Personally, I long for PvP that is more interesting than a straight up melee, and I know that I'm not alone in this. But there is a lot of bad history with PvP that has made us all sore about the subject, I believe.

And I also believe the only way to really move on from that bad history is to try something new - to ease barriers that have been built up between "good guys" and "bad guys", between "RP builds" and "power builds" and approach the entire topic from a more open, courteous, and communicative angle.

I double-dog dare all of Amia to try it out for a while and see how it goes.

Chasing someone through transition is the matter of who has a better PC. Some people load faster, some people load slower.

_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Login: Narkudauman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ╬ Join the Magisterium Mortis ╬

C'mon, Dead, this is too The Hand of Tymora and The Game of Chance!
IMHO, I am quite content with ambushes, trappings, stealing, mugging, multi-area fights and so on. Life is hard, after all. And, moreover, "your own safety - IS your own responsibility", right? Still, it have to be wrapped in IC/RPG -- because Amia is RPG server.

_________________
Evolution by any means!

Yep, which is why the rules!

Ambushes can be absolutely awesome. I remember an ambush laid by myself and MrHydeJackyl that created enough RP for three weeks, and led to a schism in Kohlingen. If executed correctly, and if people are willing to keep rolling with the consequences, it can produce awesome outcomes.

LetumLux I'd like to hear your opinion on Rule Waivers.

_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Login: Narkudauman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ╬ Join the Magisterium Mortis ╬

Technically, these "gentlemen's agreements" are against the rules, because of the waiving of them - because players don't have the authority to decide which rules they will or won't follow. Personally, as long as they aren't violating core server rules, I think they're fine and them not being considered fine (as long as they are done respectfully, etc) is more damaging in its restriction than condoning them. I know this opinion isn't universally shared; but I don't see the harm in allowing people who are on the same page about wanting more brutal PvP arrange their terms as it affects those directly involved. Like waiving the need for initiating RP interaction immediately before a fight, or being offered an 'out'.

I would much rather someone send me a tell or talk with me on Skype about a mutual aggression pact, wherein they could just hunt down my character and attack out of the blue, without having to provide any kind of prior warning or the like before each instance of combat, because my character wronged theirs, or something. It's not not about removing RP and making it an Unreal Tournament, it's about accommodating for more kinds of RP - and all it really takes to settle the confusion of bystanders is a quick "// It's alright, he's not breaking the rules, we have an arrangement" and from there on, normal rules would still apply anyway, and allow people to join in the combat begun or not.

Yay for updating PvP rules I've never liked!

Boo for the OOC communication, at least where it applies to me. The moment someone has to send me a tell or a PM or a skype message asking if it is okay to rape, torture and kill me is the moment I am a milksop. I am sure it will cut down on headaches where other people are concerned, though, so semi-yay for that.

See, and that's why I like the waivers. No need to interject it during the RP, because it's all been sorted out before hand. But it's still communication. Sorry, Yoss.

Pretty much this.

There have been occasions which have definitely mounted to PvP both on my behalf and on an attacker's, but the one thing which breaks it is having to go OOC to confirm it's ok. I know the reason, I'm not fighting against the reason, but if there was a way of implementing these waivers in-game (perhaps with different coloured names or something to signify waivers?) I'd be all for that.

But personally, anything PvP ends up being more stress than it's worth. I've had my fair share of griefer attacks on my characters, mutual duels/scuffles and PvP wars, I just think PvP has either be governed in one way or another or waivers are given some DM support so you don't need to scour the forums for a thread where people say what they want for each individual character and player.

_________________

At this point i would like to remind then that rape is an absolute no, even if all sides agree.

_________________

No worries. More of a personal hangup than anything, really.

This has been something that has always been in the back of my mind for as long as I've been a player, and a DM-- and even now, as an absent member of Amia who on occasion checks the forums for juicy material and progress. (I've done it. I have evolved into an IronAngel! )

I'll start by suggesting an abstract root to the issue:
Amian PvP is actually Player versus Player. Because the rules are so explicit in some areas, and so vague in others; because the combat mechanics are so fast, and leave no room for emotes; and because of prior negative experiences attributed to the previous reasons-- Amian players often snap out of their character for the duration of PvP. It's not Character vs Character, it's Player vs Player. And in some sense, it kind of had to be. If I messed up in my PvP and misused a transition, I could get banned. I could piss off fellow players. Nobody wants to be upset, nobody wants to upset others.

So the solutions, in my mind, involve simplifying the rules and empowering players to deal with issues. Make it so that immersion can still remain in a PvP event.

Simultaneously, and this is what sparked my post, I suggest that the staff, or an interested player, create an easy-to-read, comprehensive guide to Emoted PvP. Some of the absolute best conflict roleplay I've had has been via Emoted Rp. But currently, it's an unfeasible request to ask another player to engage in it. Currently, without a guide, you would have to expect or clarify a number of rulings.

This guide should:
1.) Explain which dice represent what.
2.) How to fairly engage against multiple targets
3.) Emote etiquette (Reminders against god-gaming)
4.) Allow for Emoted PvP to remain optional.


Emoted PvP is phenomenal. But it -absolutely- relies on standardization. Create a guide to Emoted PvP roleplay, and enjoy. I personally challenge players to try it out. You won't regret it.

I like Hackum's idea. In theory, this is a great tool, but he's right, the rules and guidelines need to be made clear.

In my time on Amia, I think I've been involved in say... 8, maybe 9 PvP incidents, and that's over about 4 years. I'd say 5 of those were as a member of the Bendir Dale militia. Let me just say those were not RP, they were someone coming into the Dale, being an idiot, and getting killed for it. Yeah, really wonderful situation. I hated it. Had they come there and done an emote style PvP? Sure, that would have been more interesting, but... it's the motivation for it that bothered me. I mean... "I'm an evil necromancer, I OOCly know that if I go to the dale and summon undead, they will attack me and I get to try to slaughter everyone present... bwahahaha!". That pretty much sums up most of the PvP I dealt with as a militia man.

The others were a random attack in the Brog mountains for really no apparent reason other than, "You're on my mountain". Again, no real rp, just that, and attack. I won, but, who gives a crap? The player got angry. More recently, Chance PvP'd someone defending a female character's honor. It was all done IC, properly rp'd out (on my end anyway), and afterward, OOC'ly the player accused me of twinking and muling.... *eyeroll*. A day later they were banned, so... instant karma.

I don't think adjusting the rules is what we need. I think adjusting player's mindsets is what we need. Sure, there's no real consequences for losing in PvP, other than a bruised ego. In all honesty? We could use a few more of those. Your character is a person, a feeling, breathing person. That means they can't ALWAYS be the biggest, baddest, most confident, most beautiful, strongest, toughest, most brooding person on the planet. That's boring. Sadly, it also promotes building for PvP, which is another topic altogether. I'd much rather see a person actually react, maybe a little bit of nerves? Maybe a shaky hand? Once the fight is over, how about some real emotions? Not just stomping and spitting on the corpse? Sure, this is a fantasy world, and we're all playing near demi-God characters, but, in that realm, amongst each other, we're equal, with slight differences. I would think there would be some amount of trepidation, some cognitive thought of, "Hmm, this might not be a good idea. Do I really want to hurt them? Do I really want to get hurt?". What I've seen is just, "Raaaaarg, me kill you.". Then when it's over, cutting off heads, dumping bodies in an effort to prevent resurrection, disfiguring.... It's all very silly.

Hmm, guess I got off track, but... hopefully I at least made some sense?
Thanks for reading....

PvP is a big deal because the rules make it a big deal, with their labyrinthine subclauses preventing all possible causes of butthurt. When they were made, the DM team was split on the issue of OOC protection; I think a majority might have been in favor of minimalist, "roll with it" rules but due to adamant demand for a guaranteed exit from unwanted PvP by some DMs the "reasonable chance to back down" clause with all the necessary caveats was introduced (in place of the old, even worse, "ask OOC permission").

This protection has its upsides and its staunch supporters, but it is probably also the biggest cause for PvP butthurt: people feel entitled to avoid PvP if they so please, to solve every conflict through emotes, and to fair play because the Amian PvP rules enshrine such rights. If instead you opted for more minimal and strictly gameplay-based PvP rules that players simply had to deal with, the tension around PvP would probably also dissipate. Haters wouldn't like PvP any better, but they'd adapt.

Servers with simpler, more insensitive PvP rules of "deal with it, roll with the punches" seem to also have a culture that doesn't encourage OOC dispute over PvP. When everyone knows shit happens and the world is a free-for-all, there just isn't much reason to complain.

While That Guy's post above contains a fair sentiment, it isn't realistic: people's mindsets, or server culture, are inseparably entwined with the server's rules. People have a tendency to feel entitled and act butthurt over PvP because the rules do entitle them to a lot of protection and imply that PvP is something dangerous, to be handled with care.

_________________

That feeling has nothing to do with the rules. That's how people are in general and that's why many pvp based games (GW2, heartstone) with no rules of engagement whatsoever these days prohibit all communications between players on opposing sides save for limited pre-set emotes.

_________________
Characters played:

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

Ok... one more thought before I get back to work:

A server that has a "get over it" attitude and minimal rules for PvP, and allows a "free for all" type arena environment is not a place that I'd like to play and certainly not a place that can claim to be a "Roleplay Server".

In short, PvP sucks. I hate it. It's normally just dumb, serves no purpose and results in more trouble than it's ever been worth.

Ok.... end rant!

DM's, thanks for looking into making things better for all involved!

PvP is fun, but keep it in one area. Transitions should only be used if you are fleeing or decide to leave the fight because of other reasons.

I remember back in the TK times, when we actually had pretty good mass-pvps for Guldorand with the banites, when we agreed on the rules with Gurth and the others, prior the fight. Eventually it turned out very enjoyable for both sides, even for the DMs who took epic screenies about the fight.

The reason it results in more trouble is for the reasons they've been discussing. While you say it serves no purpose, think if PvP was more harshly limited. There'd be little to no consequence for characters mouthing off or what have you.

I wholeheartedly agree with Iron.

There's an often danced fine line between griefing and forcibly applying consequences to another character. In my experience as a player and DM both observing and taking part in PvP, the losing player most often reacts with OOC retaliation when, as That Guy hinted at, the motivation for PvP is absent, obscure, or simply dull. That's why I'm putting a large emphasis on emote/dice-based PvP. When players can interact with one another in conflict and are all able to enjoy the experience as a literary event, they are far, far less willing to take it to the OOC level of disputes.

While I enjoy the NWN mechanics immensely, there are undoubtedly features within it that inhibit the ability to RP and create a compelling scene. For example, the speed in which lethal and decisive combat takes place denies any ability for a player to roleplay via emotes if he has any desire to win. Occasionally, you'll see a "*Cuts off head.*" But that's more an emote to enact a mechanical consequence, rather than quality RP (And even so, often becomes another source of contention!). Then consider the death scene! When a character dies through NWN mechanics, the actual scene of dying is rushed in almost every case I can recall. Mechanically, the character falls dead, and any click brings up the respawn menu. The only way for a player to engage in good 'dying' RP is for the victor to OOCly revive him, which often takes place well after conflict, and after the immersion for that moment has passed. If there are any onlookers, their speed of RP will almost always hasten the event even further. This hastened death scene often breaks immersion, and leaves players with the usually dull endeavor of describing their dead body for a long time, or limiting them only to the post-death RP.

In a quality example of literary play, the actual scene of dying should be intimate, surreal, well-emoted. The more RP flavor you can add onto it, the better it becomes-- and when the quality of RP improves, so too does the attitudes of all players involved.

I think that Iron has the right of it, in that due to the staff trying to protect players from griefers, we've created a sense of entitlement to avoid PvP. Sometimes (These are the problem cases, usually) this gets molded into both an IC and OOC idea that the character is also protected from consequences. This is when you'll see players react OOCly instead of ICly. Far too often, I've watched players react to losing OOCly (Even if the fight was fair, and rule-abiding) rather than entertaining an IC, personal reaction for their character. A losing character's ego is often less-affected than the player's, and this often leads to trouble. I think that ultimately, the two main reasons for this is that: 1.) The PvP mechanics have become separated from RP; 2.) Entitlement clauses, uncertainty over rules, and the amount of OOC considerations that every player has to always maintain during PvP in order to stay within the rules.

With this in mind, I'd like you imagine something with me. Imagine if conflict between characters and NPC's alike was as rich in detail as a beautifully described atmosphere. Imagine a scene with two thugs crawling out of the shadows in a shambled, run-down street as they mug and humiliate an unarmed foreigner with dirty tactics-- a brutal welcome! Envision a pair of nemesis warriors clashing in the frigid winds of the Frozen Wastes, fighting on the edge of a great, crackling chasm of ice. Imagine a mage's duel at a carnival event, with responsive and snapped counterspells, or spell mantle magic forming a bright, crystalline blue wall just as missiles pound against its barrier, only barely sheltering the duelist within.

Imagine conflict that you could walk away from, and even in the event of a loss, feel proud and inspired that you were even a part of it.

~~~
I will admit to enjoying the mechanics of NWN PvP. I remember being locked in a mechanical duel with Sion all throughout the Nexus Falls that lasted for a number of heart-pounding minutes. I remember a number of epic mage duels. But I can't say truly that the mechanics of NWN PvP really ever inspired me in the same way that quality emoted Rp can. So in the end, I'm left asking myself why we've separated the two?

Gone are the days of the old Church of Bane. Best times.

_________________
Aoth Nathandem - Wizard of house Tholaunt and chosen of Ma'at.

Love this, Hackums!

I am not suggesting some fix-all rule to apply, mind you. It is a difficult question beyond my imagination to fully account for. But I do think we need to acknowledge the dynamic: the more rights and duties you enshrine in the PvP rules, the more cause for dispute. The more you carefully tip-toe around the topic, the greater its significance appears. While you're partially right, Hudson, that competitive PvP games often involve trash talk, they usually don't involve long discussions on whether something was fair or respectful or good enough. You can only accuse the other party of not giving you a reasonable chance to back down if such a requirement is part of the rules in the first place. Every rule is a rule to dispute over, so logically less rules means less dispute. In my (somewhat limited) experience on NWN servers, Amia's carebear culture is fairly unique, for better or worse. On no other forums have I seen disputes over whether someone should be allowed to walk away from a fight or not respect the mechanics if they don't feel like it.

I am not at all opposed to dice-and-text conflict, either. And I am not even saying that you should go for minimal rules; you just need to realize the consequence of your decision and live with it. Whatever the solution, it ought to apply across the board, not require any OOC communication (I believe OOC communication, contrary to Letum's OP, is the necessary prerequisite for OOC conflict), and the rule should be simple enough for a baby to understand.

_________________

The problem of making PvP more emote-able is that it's slow compared to the outright combat, and emoting during that combat will often just keep you from that combat. This dilemma may be impossible to overcome, and rolling dice for combat doesn't factor in a lot of strategy like movement speed and location.

I think players need to remove their own ego from the results of a PvP conflict as much as possible, because a very high percentage of PvP conflict seems to result in OOC butthurt and getting DMs involved with the arduous task of sorting things out, and I want that to be avoided. A simplification of the rules would be best for avoiding this I think.

Maybe before any PvP occurs, there should be a rule for a OOC pause for pre-PvP emotes and to allow players time to adjust to what is to come by addressing all OOC concerns before PvP begins, followed by an unpause OOC message. This would save a lot of headache in my opinion, and reduce far more OOC post PVP.

_________________

So many posts reminiscing when evil could use PvP as a tool to instigate the server and cause conflict. PvP rules have systematically banned/disheartened the players who could / enjoyed actively playing the "bad guy role". Evil never wins on Amia, not IC, not in PvP. We try so hard to network and create a story here, but all stories need conflict. And the rules have certainly historically favored those who do not want to play the harder half of the story.

People care too much about winning, try losing and actually RPing it rather than viewing the spontaneity as a boring waste of time you could've spent doing whatever. There is much more growth in loss than victory. Things don't always go our way, and that gives Amia life. But it's not just a matter of winning and losing, rules and the good/evil paradigm. Being able to sit back and unset our minds from the mechanical power of the server "i just had a brush with death, sat on some scales to be judged and travelled to the Wall and lost everything I had in life" vs "read a pennies costed scroll, popped back chugged a potion GOOD TO GO!" I think would also give more depth to all sides of the equation. It's not /just pvp/ it's going to involve someone dying. Death means what we make of it on Amia. Death could have such great gravity if we wanted, and it doesn't require any mechanical ruling to do so. But watching people brush it off certainly gives merit to the crowd who wants severe penalties. And I understand that the culture saying "it's fine we'll just yank 'em from the dead and brush 'em off with a few bandages.. voila!" really does have valid reason to think that way, but again we have the liberty to decide how we return to life. Be it severe, nonchalant (reserved imo for PvM) or not at all! We can change this faulty mentality which detracts from the depth of our server and pulls us away the world we're trying to breath life into.


In short, if ya ban all the people trying to shake up the world you're going to resign evil to DM events. I mean, just look at all the reminiscing of when evil players could/wanted to play here. (IE Banites)

_________________
bad man

QFE. None of my characters have actually been in PvP for at least a year. I miss the Baneites.

I hate to say it, but this server always seemed to coddle the crybabies and defended them when it's often just players getting their egos bruised. Also, I rarely see a fair fight where two characters meet, exchange words, and allow for that time before the fight begins. I have only seen one instance where one character challenged another knowing the odds were against them.

Also, I've seen characters unfairly use the 'out' as a way to verbally offend another character as much as possible and get away with whatever without any real IC consequences. This causes problems.

_________________

Within reason, I don't mind pursuit ... there should be a realistic point where it comes down to 'Okay, they've likely gotten clear of the fighting and are intent on running away.. ' for whatever reason.

I think one of the big issues needs to be, leaving the immediate PvP fray, RESTING, and then coming back into the fray. That's a no no in my eyes for most skirmishes...

Aside from this, I'll need a while but we might be able to get better PvP in the more major skirmishes from pre-communication if it's reasonable. It should be handled with a DM's overwatch however.

Who here has actually engaged regularly in emote based combat? I mean, my freeform rp roots like the idea, but it seems to chop out a whole function of the game: the built-in combat and auto-dice rolling. To those who have engaged in it regularly, is the sacrifice worth it?

Came from an environment where that was the /only/ way to do things. It's much more indepth and engaging, the only difficult part is powergaming which can be mitigated by dice rolls. It does take time and I can't see it working with large groups.

_________________
bad man

Nah, that's not what I meant. Dice-rolled PvP is meant to be slow-- and it's also not a half-and-half style. Players roll initiative to determine turn orders, make emotes-- and fight with emotes. Their success becomes determined by dice rolls, and the Rp continues from there. If a mage, for example, successfully managed to cast a spell, he would mechanically cast the spell and then let the turn pass to the others.

You specifically don't emote during the middle of actual fighting. That's the problem with the current mechanics, is that by doing so you basically lose. The dice-pvp style is more like just an emoted battle entirely. Or rather, more like old-school DnD.

You're also right in that dice for combat doesn't factor in a lot of strategy. That's what emotes are for. The Rogue managing to slip out of a grapple and positioning himself behind a tree. Anything, really. That's the glory of emoted fighting-- you can represent most of anything with emotes and the right dice rolls.

I think you had a different perception of what emoted PvP is-- but that also proves my point. It's an amazing available option that people really don't know a whole lot about. They haven't experienced it (yet!), and there's no standard guides for it to help understand. I've purposefully not explained Emoted PvP in full, because I don't want to sound official in any capacity. But it'll make much more sense when a guide is made, and if there's enough interest for it.

~~

Though yes, OpenTheRift, the dice-rolling combat falls apart with anyone more than a handful. It can encompass about what you would find at a D&D table. Mass-PvP would be unfeasible through dice systems, and I wouldn't dare attempt it!

The only PvP I have ever enjoyed was dice rolled. And I enjoyed every single one like that. It would be great if more people wanted to do it that way.

I am all for trying this out. Being an old school PnP D&D'r, I'm used to turn based combat, and I think it's great. And I think it will also help alleviate one of my biggest gripes about PvP. Which is when someone hostiles and attacks, when you are reading their response and typing your own response.

I actually tried this to some degree, the past two times I was involved in PvP, just this week. I purposely did not attack, when the opponent was buffing to the nines, and tried to emote better, what was going on. It made for a much better experience. My character even died due to some known bug, in one of the two conflicts, but so what, there was genuine RP beforehand, and afterwards.

I fully support RP combat, on an RP server.
Keeping in mind of course, the limitations of it in larger groups.

I was involved in this type of combat on another server once, before Amia. My opponent and I were one step ahead, in Tells, of the actual emotes of combat, to make for an interesting battle for the people watching. That was a blast!

_________________

I'd try it. The PvP I have done on my characters has been mixed... latest time was a disaster with my character being attacked while trying to typing out a sentence to, ironically IC coordinate together with the person she was with. Since then I don't really like "real-time" combat because it doesn't allow me to RP appropriately.

I, personally, do not care. if im attacked for true RP reasons and no random slaughter, then i am fine with it, but certain things i feel should still need rules. One i seriously stress need one is cross area PVP. if someone is in pvp and booby trap a friggen transition and auto slaughter you with three others before you have a chance to even load in properly then that's plain abuse.
I see this oh so much lately, specially from certain groups who for some reason are very into PVP.

how about this; If you are in PVP with a -group- of people then everyone in that group must first load into the new transition before PVP can continue.

Even that simple rule would help.

A question for all who have been active in the discussion thus far:

What do you think would be a succinct, fair rule about using Area Transitions, in a paragraph or less? Give me your suggestion - but it needs to include an actual rule, so "no special consideration" is not a valid answer for this particular homework assignment.

I'm curious if there is much of a consensus or popular opinion about this one in particular.

Keep it civil as you guys have been, I'll catch you again after work.

Thanks for the PM, OpenTheRift! Reading it over made me heavily nostalgic for the old days when I actually got to describe Yossarin's "wicked sissy" fighting style of scratching with diamond-filed press-on nails, utilizing pressure points and wielding colorful sashes and scarves to try to tie combatants up in a very self-defense, oh god get me outta this fight kinda way.

I personally think it would be a lot of fun for those who are interested in it...and have the patience, of course.

Before combat may continue after a transition all present must post a minimum of 2 texts. One IC, and another OOC confirming they received the other party's message.

_________________
bad man

.. ^ I could not agree more with this. Unfortunately a lot of people lack the humility to accept an IC death without getting all sour and angry about it on an OOC level and seeking revenge by means of manipulating the hearts of close friends or DMs. They're very quick to be all angry and try and get everyone else to jump on the "I'm mad and looking for justice" bandwagon, when in reality the 'basis' for such justice is often fabricated if not even -forced- .. A death is a death, it's no big deal. It happens.



And this is something I could not disagree with more. PVP very much so has a purpose. And especially on Amia, of all places. It creates conflict, it adds depth to roleplay, and it gives plot to a server that very much so at times lacks it entirely. I've unfortunately had to make this rant multiple times this week, but if you seek to eliminate conflict RP by restricting IC possibilities to a ridiculous level through OOC rules, you are going to be left with a server so bland, generic, dull and boring that 'small talk' social (peaceful-only) roleplay is the only thing you will ever see. And if that's what you want to turn Amia into, why not go to Sinfar? They have far less restrictions there, and you can get as 'social' as you want without getting banned for it.

Do you get what I mean? .. There's a thing Amia (the old Amia) had that Sinfar doesn't have and has never had. And that is REAL, tangible, in depth roleplay. And that's something that above all else comes through conflict and a respect for the repercussions of such. I'm sorry, but I don't exactly approve of the idea of turning Amia into a PG version of Sinfar, where it's all talk and no real excitement or drama. It just.. kills what made Amia so great in the past.

.. But I'll point out that no one is suggesting that Amia resorts to the most minimal amount of rules possible for PVP, they're just suggesting that people be more open to it; that they be more willing to solve conflicts and problems BY themselves, as opposed to crying to the DMs every time something they dislike happens, and that in general they have the courtesy to try and talk things out WITH those involved before taking it to a higher level and trying to throw bans out over mere misunderstandings and logical flaws.

Simply put, conflict roleplay adds a vibrance and brings a life to this server that is very often lacking nowdays, and a single.. 30 minute situation can create days if not WEEKS of follow-up RP. (Even months, in some cases) .. And it -does- have a purpose, whether you acknowledge that or not.

_________________
Inkheart

.. To be quite frank, I don't think it should even be considered or condemned unless -actual- abuse occurs. If people are waiting on the other side of a transition, -at- the door to blow you to bits the second you load up on another screen? .. I think that's abuse, and I agree that there should be rules against it. If they are going through a transition to break line of sight while someone is casting an offensive spell on them? .. I think that as well is abuse, and there should be rules against it. (Although that as well is actually debatable, given that even within the same map there are methods of legitimately and fairly breaking LoS for sake of combat-based advantage, and it's completely realistic and intelligent to do so) .. But if they are -not- physically in combat, and if they are not using it to an advantage that they could acquire within the same map anyway, then I don't think there's a problem with it.

In a real IC situation people wouldn't be confined to one 'area' for combat, even if traveling such distance in the midst of a fight is unorthodox. Forcing a blanket rule that overgeneralizes -any- area changing in a battle as 'abusive' is really just arrogant, and kind of silly too. Simply put, if there are to be any rules at all regarding the use of transitions in PVP, I think you guys should pinpoint those specific acts and ban/restrict them. But I don't think it's fair to just hand out bans to people for the mere fact that they used one (if even by accident) if they really had no ill intention, and really didn't use it to get an exploit-style (OOC-based) advantage.

_________________
Inkheart

Well i agree that breaking sight is possible and allowed, but once you 'run away' you are effectively outing from the fight. if you are chased and attacked then it is a new scene for the most part and should be treated as such, but if you run to get OOC reward in a fight then yes it is abuse.. Same goes for say... running into Bendir when your being attacked. no guard would let you in a city if you have a hoard of things or people chasing you.

.. In a real life situation, the previous circumstances that initiated the battle wouldn't suddenly disappear because you walked ten feet north from the current battle. They still happened, they still exist, and they can still influence future events. In such a scenario that would -still- be a part of the current event, hence no new roleplay should be necessary. <-- That's a touchy topic, and I'm aware of that. So I'd support a rule that gives a physical OOC window for how long people can break away from the engagement (and/or recover on other maps) before engaging in PVP again without new, hostile roleplay.

As far as guards not letting them in the city? .. With the fight that happened last night as reference (as I'm assuming this is the basis for your scenario) .. no one actually walked -into- the city. Something I feel people should consider when it comes to the whole concept of metagaming or ignoring the presence of guards, is the distance away from guards people actually are. The party that went through the transition was well away from Bendir's actual walls (and Bendir's guards) .. they were on a hill. And in reality, transitions do not exist IC'ly. Guards wouldn't have just left their posts to run up a hill and say "You can't go any further" .. Because no one was trying to go down the hill into Bendir's actual 'city' territory. Unless someone is deliberately saying and choosing to out from a fight, I don't think anyone should 'assume' that their strategically motivated actions should count as such.

.. But to further explain what people considered transition abuse last night, the people who went into Bendir actually autofollowed an enemy who fled in that direction. Now, with the fact in mind that 'transitions don't exist' IC'ly, you have to consider that in reality that means all they did was chase someone ten feet in a northern direction. Something that would have happened if he fled south on the frontier map where the fight actually happened. On a logical level, no OOC mechanic was used to gain an unfair advantage over other players IC'ly, and hence there was no -real- transition abuse (in my opinion). They could just have easily chased him ten feet in the opposite direction if he ran that way.

_________________
Inkheart

i wasn't talking about a specific fight, just flat out. I see it a lot; Cause pvp, run into city to hide from pvp even with fully buffed person chasing you.


And while yes IRL you would still be shooting at whoever you are fighting with, at the same time not everyone can automatically get into a new area, like myself. It takes a good 30 seconds for me to load an area and by that time someone is already halfway across the map. Not EVERYONE has a computer's good speed and as such needs to be taken into consideration. o you are stuck with a few choices, either keep a fight in one area, or if it is multi area that everyone be allowed to load in before it continues. Both with can be considered OOC choices but no matter what you do PVP needs heavy restictions so it is fair unless governed by a DM.

I do NOT trust players to be fair, as no matter what we will always think of ourselves first, that is how the human mind works unless its a very specific thing( such as saving a child from something.)

Once you're PC is through a transition they can't come back into the area they just left. (This is so PC's can take advantage of not having to engage in PVP by running away & keeps those who leave rest and come back from doing so.)

Question, who decides if the loser of the PVP is dead or just knocked out?

My PC isn't out for a kill. I think "waking up injured" RP is more fun than waiting around for someone to raise you or coming up with a realistic reason why you are running around 10mins after you've been dead.

AND I'd like to thank all the Amians who have been in PVP with my characters. It's been intelligent and meaningful PVP.

_________________


2015 Mr. AMIA with the Fabulous Estara ~ 2015 Best Developed SOB Character: Rith'tar

The person that "downed" them, has always been the ruling in the past.

_________________

Iim'mur'ss - Grandmaster Shadowdancer / Aaralyn - Diplomat / Oleander - Toxic Desert Flower

I personally feel it should always been 'knocked out/wounded' unless it is assassination or openly known ;im killing you on sight'. to just go 'oh i killed you ha!' at any moment seems like crappy thing to do unless it has a good RP reason for it... that being said being evil isn't a good enough explanation either...

Any group that is PVP oriented or is obvious 'mega evil we mess with everything!' should have a DM's backing in my opinion so it doesn't end up with the obvious end of 'mob of goodguys being blamed for slaughtering evil.'

Well, regardless of the example(s) .. the fact of the matter is, unless OOC mechanics are used to gain an -IC- advantage, no abuse occurred. I think a large part of the reason for this post at all was to stress the fact that PVP actually -can- be handled rather maturely, easily and properly by the players. It doesn't require 'heavy' restrictions. And in fact, RP in general doesn't. The more you restrict roleplay (and yes, even PVP) with OOC rules, the less you can actually do IC'ly. It's as simple as that. It -kills- creativity, possibility, and the capacity for more in depth roleplay. Too much control is horrible, just like too little. PVP doesn't need either completely anarchy or complete dictator-style micromanagement, it just needs a balanced, base ruleset that avoids exploitation -without- killing possibility, unorthodox strategy, and unique approaches/styles.

As it is, Amia has enough rules regarding PVP. There's a few amendments that could be useful and necessary, but we don't need to add a ton more to create balance and avoid conflict. We just need people to learn to actually -talk- things out, show empathy, be humble about what happens IC'ly, and respect each other. If they have preferences of blunt notifications of the circumstances via tells, they should say so -before- the fight happens. A good 90% of this falls into the hands of the players. And given the general age of people here? .. Well, I do trust that if we stress the necessity for respect and maturity, that the people on Amia can meet the call. DMs shouldn't be needed to supervise every PVP engagement possible. In general, their involvement (aside from previously standing rules) shouldn't be needed at all, except to handle the unfortunate repercussions of various players' immaturity, a lack of desire to seek compromise, and a lack of will to actually communicate civilly.

_________________
Inkheart

.. Just saying, I don't think I've ever, in 5 years, seen the people on evil pull a whining rant of "dear god save us, we were wronged" for losing a battle against goodies. In general it's the other way around. But whatever. In an ideal situation, neither side should be resorting to namecalling, blaming, or pointing of the finger. RP should occur > PVP should follow suit > people should accept the results and move on. UNLESS there is an infraction. If there wasn't, and if there isn't, people shouldn't go looking for one or requesting DM involvement.

_________________
Inkheart

I would not be surprised if on the first day one of the 'evil' lvl 30 groups just slaughters everyone and you can't do shit to stop them from doing it, on the first day the 'rules' are gone. It is happening now already and that is with DM's and the heavy rules, now take into consideration the lack of rules and everything is 'up to the players'... all you'll get is absolute constant OOC bickering.

Yes im happy you have such faith in the playerbase but i've seen enough of them to know otherwise.

Not one person here is suggesting an elimination of the rules. No one wants anarchy, and if you read the post, that isn't what is going to happen. Having played exclusively evil characters (and having heavy involvement in PVP on Amia over the past 5 years, and being someone primarily involved in organizing a number of these confrontations) .. I can promise that the strong majority of us will be doing all that we can to make things run as cleanly, smoothly, and fairly as possible.

In general it takes a good 30 minutes to an hour (or more) to organize anything large, solely because of the fact that we go so very far out of our way to give outs, proper preceding roleplay, the necessary (mutual) verbal confrontations, and so on. In RARE cases it can be summed up in 5-10 minutes if the other player is both competent, intelligent, and mature (and above all, reasonable enough to actually speak with you plainly about their preferences) But no one wants OOC drama, and if people can be mature about things? .. There shouldn't be any.

All it takes is A) Communication .. B) Humility .. and C) An acceptance of the consequences, without pursuit of vengeance for sake of a burned ego due to a loss. That goes for good or evil, whoever loses the fight. It's pretty simple.

The unspoken 'D' would be an adherence to the rules, but all of us are aware of that, and the majority of us will be doing what we can to achieve such.

--

But anyway, Kalcibone, I get the feeling that in your perfect world, us 'evil' players/characters wouldn't exist at all. And to be honest that makes me kind of sad. Because 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, and I think you need to recognize that.

_________________
Inkheart

I have never once seen someone willingly perma their character even after they should have been. They just show up five minutes later ready to cause issues again. But enough of this its just back and forth at this point and its obvious neither of us will back down.

Onward to dinner!

Maybe because when we all have real lives, jobs, school.. and other things to attend to, and we've invested -tons- of time into developing, building and leveling our characters, we don't want to accept a perma a week after character creation just because a single player decided they wanted go for a beheading as opposed to the typical 'raisable' death that we normally give out for the sake of courtesy. Props to those who have the willpower to accept that end, especially after taking the risks of playing an evil character, but it's unrealistic to expect that everyone -every time- should accept a perma death whenever possible. I think you'll find that the player count on this server would diminish very fast if people repeatedly went through the cycle of taking weeks or months to develop a character only to have it perma'd a few days later. It just isn't cost/time efficient at all.

_________________
Inkheart