|
|
|
Nekhy
|
 Posted: Fri, Aug 01 2008, 17:17 PM |
|
|
Player
|
|
OK, it has come to my attention that there are some misconceptions about the PvP rule update, where you no longer need OOC permission for PvP. I will now attempt to explain a few things in idiot-proof manner.
Firstly. The rule is aimed to curb down escaping from IC situations where a character would need to face IC consequences. This used to be a BIG problem, and it needed something done about it.
The rule change is NOT a free card to PvP, and it does NOT mean everything must be solved with PvP.
Secondly. You are absolutely NOT ALLOWED to liberally PvP others with weak IC reasons, even if OOC permission is not required. PvP still requires PLENTY of preceding role-play, and you absolutely MUST give others both a way out AND time to react to your threats.
A good rule of thumb for estimating how much time the other person needs is to continue the role-play for at least a few emotes or comments from ALL participants. "Few" does not mean one, it means "three or more, less than ten" but it can by all means be even more than that. It absolutely MUST be enough for all participants to react in character, in text.
Exception being an agreed hostility situation and assassinations, read more about that in the actual PvP rules.
Now, I will personally keep my ban-finger more alert than usual for PvP rule breakings until this rule has sunk into everyone's skulls. Likely, I am not the only DM with a loose ban-finger for PvP rulebreakings.
If you understand and follow the new rules and play fairly and respect your fellow players, you have my deepest thanks and this message does not concern you. Except, please do report people who do not have such respect for their fellow players.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
BlackDahlya
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 6:19 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Location: Land of the Scorching Sun, Empowered by Global Warming
|
|
*bumps*
_________________
BlackDahlya
Once Upon A Time Played
Adr'ael Ken'rahel, Auron Teken’ath, Aurora Mesodias, 'Daniel' Daoskinaxarijikkym, Eilin'ira, Helena Rios, Layla Faircurrent, May'Une Do'Ndar, Mellinda Tellus, Michael of Cliffside, Rizzen of Twilight, Valkirya d'Claddath
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 6:25 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
|
Do note, however, that in addition to this - performing an outright hostile action will likely trigger any incident. If you're Evil and you walk to Kohlingen, sparkling in buffs and preparing for battle, don't expect to be having tea.
To steal Ruce's analogy. Buffing is akin to setting up your favourite gun. Your friend's not likely to care a great deal, but anyone who doesn't know you or is outright an enemy is likely to treat that as a pretty hostile act that needs to be stopped.
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 7:05 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Uberuce wrote: Yurell wrote: Does this mean that if there's hostile RP and they start buffing, we can just attack without setting them to hostile? No. Don't just attack them; kill them. And get ready to dust their friends too, if they don't run away. Is this still true, even if there is weak preceding RP? e.g. you start with rudeness etc.and they start buffing?
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 7:10 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
|
I believe so, escept to the Hostiling part. You should be hostiling just before you attack.
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 7:46 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
|
In my opinion, someone who buffs in front of a potential enemy without first setting them to Hostile is the worst kind of metagaming cheat: the incompetent kind. They are cynically exploiting your fear of banning in the hope you'll either waste time trying to set Hostile before attacking, or won't attack at all because they don't know that you've just given them licence to act.
Since I know the rules perfectly well, I've already got a Knockdown lined up as soon as the RP turns nasty. I'll drop it immediately if they cast, drink, read or activate anything, and half of the stupid lying cheating bastard's special attacks won't work. Knockdown'n'Devcrit? They're colourblind.
What I'd like cleared up is whether HiPSing counts as reason to act. In my opinion, walking away is walking away( and is the 100% foolproof method of surviving an encounter with any of my characters, even Va). HiPSing is a precursor to an attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
xdrone561x
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 7:50 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Location: in the factories and mills, in the shipyards and mines
|
|
what is the dm approved method of enough rp before pvp? im curious as myself and others have had bad pvp in the past. I myself dont mind pvp in the slightest but what is enough rp before one might attack?
_________________ 
siggy by qualiz<3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Magiros
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 8:06 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
|
Well, I got one question. Lets think: I have a char who really isnt fond of undead.. and I met this mage who has the epic summon pharaos guard, or whatever it was.
I say, after some rp to make sure it is undead :p : " Remove that summon please"
He refuses.
I say: " Remove it or I will"
He refuses.
I start pvp.
Now my point is did I give him good enough way to get out of situation or did I force my rp on him, I find these kind of situation very hard.. And in the end of this scene I ended up dead 
1. So should I give him/her more ways out of it or?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 8:09 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
WonWon wrote: I believe so, escept to the Hostiling part. You should be hostiling just before you attack. 7. If you do not give the other party time to observe the usual protocol, you can't expect them to stick to the protocol. This means that by resting, buffing or other such preperations to hostility, you forfeit your right to a warning: The other party may attack you immediately to stop you. If you have not set them to Hostile before, you can't blame them for having to act without it. Both parties should strive to set eachother to Hostile after the immediate reaction, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 8:11 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
Uberuce wrote: WonWon wrote: I believe so, escept to the Hostiling part. You should be hostiling just before you attack. 7. If you do not give the other party time to observe the usual protocol, you can't expect them to stick to the protocol. This means that by resting, buffing or other such preperations to hostility, you forfeit your right to a warning: The other party may attack you immediately to stop you. If you have not set them to Hostile before, you can't blame them for having to act without it. Both parties should strive to set eachother to Hostile after the immediate reaction, however. Yush. Hence the 'Should' and not 'Must'. Their own fault for signing a death warrent.
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 8:50 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
WonWon wrote: Yush. Hence the 'Should' and not 'Must'. Their own fault for signing a death warrent. Rule 7 explicitly says there can be no blame assigned to someone who's interrupting a non-Hostiled buffer. It's not even a 'Should'.
What I would like(and have said before) is for the culture surrounding Hostile to be radically changed; at the minute if you set someone red, then they often assume PvP is the only option you will accept, panic and then open fire prematurely.
I currently get around this by typing out "//With luck we'll be able to talk this out without fisticuffs, but let's set Hostile now just in case things go nasty in a hurry" but I'd rather it was just the done thing to set strangers to Hostile.
Occasional server shouts, journal notes, a sign in Entry etc, which basically say "Hullo new person! You may notice you're getting set to Hostile all the time when you meet new people. Don't worry about it; you've not stumbled onto an Arena server by mistake. It's to make the PvP rules easier to follow, and it's to simulate the suspicion that your character would realistically have of heavily armed strangers out in the wilderness."
With the new portal system not working in the presence of Hostiles, I'd suggest then as a good to introduce this, if it's not too barking mad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dwagin
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 8:55 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Location: The Land of Nod
|
|
I agree wholeheartedly.
_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.
-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Layil
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 9:01 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 31 May 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
|
|
I want a clarification. What is the definition of "potential enemy"?
Seems to me you can justify killing anyone you want if they do anything you don't like in front of you, as they were a "potential enemy" and you were just stopping them from becoming a threat.
A second clarification I would like is whether or not OOC permission still plays a factor in PVP. I know that it is no longer required. However, what if one player OOC requests to -not- PVP? Does the other player have to abide by that preference? And if so, under what circumstances would that no longer apply?
_________________
Characters:
Ilphdiira - Arch Priestess of Lolth
Nad'olil d'Tinnerai - Drow Assassin
Izzmyr Tinnerai - Drow Illusionist
Gul'dax Kil'ani - House Archmage of Kil'ani
Fil'uth - Drow Warrior
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dwagin
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 9:19 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Location: The Land of Nod
|
|
If someone asks me OOCly for no PvP I do just that.
If they say, 'OMG DONT PVP me111' and are continue an arse in character, I'll walk away and ignore them. I've had it happen once.
I don't think there hasn't been a time when someone oocly has said no and I've done anything other than tried to find a way out of pvp for them.
Sometimes they've been pretty silly, everything from kissing an icon, to making a really weird or hilarious oath.
_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.
-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dakotaen
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 9:22 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Location: Denmark
|
|
If I'm asked OOCly not to PvP a person's character, I'll grand 'em their wish... If their RP fits. If the person's character continues being an arse, I'll clap their heads off, or they'll do the same to me. What I can guarantee is, they'll get their PvP.
If -you- want out of a situation -your- character caused, then it's -your- job to RP your way out of it, the way I see it.
And also, I'm pretty sure that only an IC "warning" is needed now?
_________________
Profiles: DakoDako & ElWacko
Characters: Currently trying my best to stick to Beridoc Brushgale
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 9:31 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
Layil wrote: I want a clarification. What is the definition of "potential enemy"?
Seems to me you can justify killing anyone you want if they do anything you don't like in front of you, as they were a "potential enemy" and you were just stopping them from becoming a threat. Obvious racials, classes (palemasters with bonearms out, uncloaked RDDs, etc), names, recognizable affiliations, etc could all be used to determine who a potential enemy is. Even 'Anyone Other Than You" counts. It's an IC thing for determining how your character will interact with others to that extent. However, that's not enough to PvP them outright. You must give them a reasonable IC Out (Telling a Necromancer to unsummon their beast until you leave = OK. Telling an obvious Paladin to pray to an evil deity = Not so much) PvP will occur after that on two situations. A - You prompt it (being a pompous ass or pissing people off in an already tense situation. Or, you cast a spell), B - You fail to take the out. Layil wrote: A second clarification I would like is whether or not OOC permission still plays a factor in PVP. I know that it is no longer required. However, what if one player OOC requests to -not- PVP? Does the other player have to abide by that preference? And if so, under what circumstances would that no longer apply?
Common courtesy and that's it. If you don't want PvP; take the out or don't be a tard, is what I tell people these days. If there is no out, tell a DM.
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herra Tutteri
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 10:12 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Location: Vaasa, Finland
|
|
Hunie: A'ight, darkie, remove yer helmet or I'll chop off yer head!
Drow: Yada yada *emotes something*
Hunie: *is angry*
Hunie: *has a weapon*
Hunie: *attacks*
**--PvP--**
Gotcha!
_________________ Characters: Hunar Iroff, The red-bearded, grumpy dwarf with a bastard sword. Chair of Military Issues Daren Sten, High Inquisitor of the Eternal Order of Kelemvor on Amia 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 11:19 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
Quote: However, that's not enough to PvP them outright. You must give them a reasonable IC Out (Telling a Necromancer to unsummon their beast until you leave = OK. Telling an obvious Paladin to pray to an evil deity = Not so much)
PvP will occur after that on two situations. So....if you play an X and your spells have expired and you see an X-Hater wandering towards you, can you stand and buff right up in front of them as long as you get them cast before they finish typing the threat'n'out? Likewise, if you play a Y-hater can you buff without a word when you see a Y then wander over and begin hassling them? More accurately: can you cry griefing if they stomp you for it?
See, at the minute if my stumpster Bard's not got her Song'n'Haste'n'Cry'ImpInvis groove on and bumps into any of the many IC enemies a dwarf has, I think "Aww, I'm dead...okay, let's get this over with."
That's the way it should be; the price to pay for buffertank godliness is that you get totally schooled by pure tanks if you're caught without the lights on.
If I can chuck those four on under the OOC safety of the rules, then the one IC advantage a pure tank has over me is gone. I call shenanigans.
A culture of automatic Hostiling would fix this; it's a very quick way of saying "my character doesn't know you well enough to let you buff" and the timescale on PvP can be equally fast.
Oh, and the HiPS thing is still hanging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kilrauko
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 12:01 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Dec 2005
Location: Tampere, Finland
|
Uberuce wrote: Oh, and the HiPS thing is still hanging. You know full well it is not; Quote: 8. The above goes for fleeing from hostile situations: If you turn tail and run without a word to avoid IC consequence, you can expect to be stopped by any means possible. Always give others reasonable time to react with RP!
HIPS/any hide action/all out running = attempt to get away from the guy looking at you = fleeing, even if it would be followed by attack. To me hips/flee/attempt to corner sneak = "Please shoot me here I wish pvp."
However if before the hips action person has said oocly they wish not to pvp and use hips/whatever to flee I wont take action. _________________ "Collan" the Skald; Where the Wild Roses Grow
-Tribute to all you beauties that met your fate by his hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 12:15 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
Uberuce wrote: Quote: However, that's not enough to PvP them outright. You must give them a reasonable IC Out (Telling a Necromancer to unsummon their beast until you leave = OK. Telling an obvious Paladin to pray to an evil deity = Not so much)
PvP will occur after that on two situations. So....if you play an X and your spells have expired and you see an X-Hater wandering towards you, can you stand and buff right up in front of them as long as you get them cast before they finish typing the threat'n'out? Likewise, if you play a Y-hater can you buff without a word when you see a Y then wander over and begin hassling them? More accurately: can you cry griefing if they stomp you for it? After probably wasn't the right word, I'll admit. You'll notice in that same line, however, I mention casting spells. IMHO, casting anything in what could be a hostile situation is saying "Hit me!"
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
HellScourge
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 14:47 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Location: GMT+1
|
Kilrauko wrote: HIPS/any hide action/all out running = attempt to get away from the guy looking at you = fleeing, even if it would be followed by attack. To me hips/flee/attempt to corner sneak = "Please shoot me here I wish pvp."
biggest problem with that is that spells, like wail, don't work on not hostile set PC's, hence they can get away with it eaven if one could stop them.
It is really very annoying, although there are alternatives to wail. _________________ "Most assume that all the followers of Lathander are great morning people. They're very wrong." "I think we are the only group where AD&D stands for Attention Deficit Disorder." TeroSNS wrote: Hello Everyone [...] I like tentacles [...] 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didi
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 15:36 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Location: UK - GMT
|
|
Here's my main problem with the "buffing = giving permission to PvP":
Quite often you encounter people whilst you're in a hunting zone. In some of these zones, if you're not buffed and the critters respawn, you're dead.
_________________ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kilrauko
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 15:49 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Dec 2005
Location: Tampere, Finland
|
HellScourge wrote: biggest problem with that is that spells, like wail, don't work on not hostile set PC's, hence they can get away with it eaven if one could stop them.
It is really very annoying, although there are alternatives to wail.
If you're playing mage and your first spell in pvp is not timestop, you're doing something horribly wrong and deserve whatever you get if you fail. _________________ "Collan" the Skald; Where the Wild Roses Grow
-Tribute to all you beauties that met your fate by his hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silvarus
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 15:57 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland, Europe
|
Kilrauko wrote: HellScourge wrote: biggest problem with that is that spells, like wail, don't work on not hostile set PC's, hence they can get away with it eaven if one could stop them.
It is really very annoying, although there are alternatives to wail. If you're playing mage and your first spell in pvp is not timestop, you're doing something horribly wrong and deserve whatever you get if you fail. The majority of Sorcerers apparently fail horribly.
_________________
Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips
Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar
Silwe, the elf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brown Blur
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 16:03 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Location: Anywhere but Amia.
|
Didi wrote: Quite often you encounter people whilst you're in a hunting zone. In some of these zones, if you're not buffed and the critters respawn, you're dead.
Very true, & in an ideal world, it would be possible to 'negotiate' OOCly around that, but it seems quite a lot of players don't want to even acknowledge the other person(s) OOCly in a potential PvP situation, apparently. I've noticed that since the 'OOC permission' thing changed there is a lot less willingness to engage OOCly....even when you might be trying to point out that they are overmatched. Their loss, of course, in that situation, though of course it can go the other way too.
_________________
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence"
~ Napoleon Bonaparte.
- Clearly, Napoleon never envisioned the Internet......where I'd judge it about 50/50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Layil
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 16:35 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 31 May 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
|
|
Here is my point: There has been very little OOC consideration shown by those who are PVP inclined. And that is reinforced by the aggressive parties using such words as "incompetent cheats" and "tards" to describe those who are not wanting to engage in instant PVP. This is what bothers me.
Devcritting Baddass A does not absolutely have to dev crit Person B who when encounted uses one spell or item (possibly in an attempt to escape and avoid the confrontation). Yes, casting a spell or using an item COULD be a precursor to attack, and by these PVP happy rules, is justified. However, it is up to the player in question whether they want to take advantage of that or not. They COULD wait a moment and see if Person B is going to retreat or not before switching into automatic pwnage mode. I have not seen this happen yet, as everyone on this server seems to want to forgo the opportunity to RP and get straight to the PVP fest to the death.
Has it ever occurred to you aggressive types that a PC might not be set hostiled to yours because they simply aren't looking to engage in PVP to the death? Do you even care?
_________________
Characters:
Ilphdiira - Arch Priestess of Lolth
Nad'olil d'Tinnerai - Drow Assassin
Izzmyr Tinnerai - Drow Illusionist
Gul'dax Kil'ani - House Archmage of Kil'ani
Fil'uth - Drow Warrior
Last edited by Layil on Thu, Sep 25 2008, 16:39 PM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brown Blur
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 16:38 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Location: Anywhere but Amia.
|
Layil wrote: Here is my point: There has been very little OOC consideration shown by those who are PVP inclined. And that is reinforced by the aggressive parties using such words as "incompetent cheats" and "tards" to describe those who are not wanting to engage in instant PVP. This is what bothers me.
Devcritting Baddass A does not absolutely have to dev crit Person B who when encounted uses one spell or item (possible in an attempt to escape). Yes, casting a spell or using an item COULD be a precursor to attack, and by these PVP happy rules, is justified. However, it is up to the player in question whether they want to take advantage of that or not. They COULD wait a moment and see if Person B is going to retreat or not before switching into automatic pwnage mode. I have not seen this happen yet, as everyone on this server seems to want to forgo the opportunity to RP and get straight to the PVP fest to the death.
Has it ever occurred to you aggressive types that a PC might not be set hostiled to yours because they simply aren't looking to engage in PVP to the death? Do you even care?
QFE.
_________________
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence"
~ Napoleon Bonaparte.
- Clearly, Napoleon never envisioned the Internet......where I'd judge it about 50/50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zante
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 16:45 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
|
|
Agree with above. As this sounds, casting see invisibility so you can see who you are talking to is reason enough to start pvp. Might be according to rules, but is it really necessary?
Just use common sense. I would think in most cases, it should be easy to tell who uses the rules as an easy out or is just being an ass.
_________________ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kilrauko
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 16:56 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Dec 2005
Location: Tampere, Finland
|
Layil wrote: They COULD wait a moment and see if Person B is going to retreat or not before switching into automatic pwnage mode. I have not seen this happen yet, as everyone on this server seems to want to forgot the opportunity to RP and get straight to the PVP fest to the death.
You might forget that for certain characters pvp and aggressive behavior is part of their rp? Not all characters hug each other in cordor rain and watch calmy as eldrich magic is casted in front of their eyes.
But to be honest, most of the trigger-happy acting can be thanked by those who have done exactly as in said in examples here. If one wizard out of 10 is going to buff "just for looks" and "will not attack" after finishing buffing aka preparing his own win over you, is your character willing to risk it on the other 9/10 times when it ends badly?
Best way to rp the invis/hips/whatnot is *communicate* on ooc level with the other guy. The less your opponent has to make quesses what you're icly doing the less likely "sudden" pvp is. Always remember that pvp *is* two player dance. It takes both participants to communicate to be good. _________________ "Collan" the Skald; Where the Wild Roses Grow
-Tribute to all you beauties that met your fate by his hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dakotaen
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 16:56 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Location: Denmark
|
Layil wrote: Here is my point: There has been very little OOC consideration shown by those who are PVP inclined. And that is reinforced by the aggressive parties using such words as "incompetent cheats" and "tards" to describe those who are not wanting to engage in instant PVP. This is what bothers me.
Devcritting Baddass A does not absolutely have to dev crit Person B who when encounted uses one spell or item (possibly in an attempt to escape and avoid the confrontation). Yes, casting a spell or using an item COULD be a precursor to attack, and by these PVP happy rules, is justified. However, it is up to the player in question whether they want to take advantage of that or not. They COULD wait a moment and see if Person B is going to retreat or not before switching into automatic pwnage mode. I have not seen this happen yet, as everyone on this server seems to want to forgo the opportunity to RP and get straight to the PVP fest to the death.
Has it ever occurred to you aggressive types that a PC might not be set hostiled to yours because they simply aren't looking to engage in PVP to the death? Do you even care?
While I agree to some extent, and certainly wouldn't attack someone casting True Seeing, for examply, it really all depends on the spell. As Zante says, use common sense. If someone, who my character is in a hostile conversation with, suddenly casts Death Shield, Acid Sheath, or some other spell of the kind, or just generally starts buffing up with spells more than the neutral/non-hostile seeing spells, etc... I won't feel bad attacking, not the least bit. And I don't think I should, either.
Mind you, I'm not particularly PvP-happy, but I don't back down from it, either, unless I have an -IC- reason to do so. If your character calls mine (censored) (censored) (censored), there'll be some beggin' to do, to not get your head removed, and that'll happen even if the only spell you cast is True Seeing.
As always, IC actions = IC response, and that counts in the spellcasting, too.
_________________
Profiles: DakoDako & ElWacko
Characters: Currently trying my best to stick to Beridoc Brushgale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Layil
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 17:02 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 31 May 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
|
|
Please do not turn my point into a Straw Man and blow it down.
I said ONE spell or item use. Possibly an invisibility or Greater Sanctuary or whatever in an attempt to get away. Or perhaps a neutral spell or use such as See Invisibility. In cases such as this is it really necessary to kill someone as soon as they do it?
Obviously if you cast a chain of buffs or any offensive stuff, PVP is more certain to happen.
Edit to add: I do agree that communication is a good thing. But sometimes there isn't time for that. Should the default be pwn first and ask questions later? Or more likely as I have seen happen and is represented by many in this thread: pwn first and don't ask questions later.
_________________
Characters:
Ilphdiira - Arch Priestess of Lolth
Nad'olil d'Tinnerai - Drow Assassin
Izzmyr Tinnerai - Drow Illusionist
Gul'dax Kil'ani - House Archmage of Kil'ani
Fil'uth - Drow Warrior
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kilrauko
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 17:15 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Dec 2005
Location: Tampere, Finland
|
Layil wrote: Please do not turn my point into a Straw Man and blow it down.
I said ONE spell or item use. Possibly an invisibility or GS or whatever in an attempt to get away. Or perhaps a neutral spell or use such as See Invisibility.
Obviously if you cast a chain of buffs or any offensive stuff, PVP is more certain to happen.
The difference is, that chain of buffs might start with TS to reveal the bunch you're running with along with next spell being stop/wail/whatnot, which the character could have stopped if he would be attacking other pc... not to mention like said here, some characters dont allow icly even the first spell fly, or activation or whatever.
I would imagine in ambush situation where bandit says move and die, if someone reaches for amulet they get shot.
Non ooc communication way;
"Player A) uses amulet of invis, player b) whirlwinds with devcrit."
Where in ooc communication way;
"Player a; "I would not like pvp, is it alright that my char falls on knees from fear of you and as he does in the motion touches the amulet on his neck while seemingly raising his hands in the air, at the same time activating invis."
Player b; "is forced by server rules to allow this escape without pvp, insert some whiny comment here"
Player a) uses amulet of invis
player b) yells shouts to his comrades to find the cowardly dog before that escapes
See the difference? For tanks every seemingly move for casting should be taken as attempt to cast stop, if they let that first casting pass, they're giving it to caster to decide what happens in the conflict. The pro-casting and non-straight-out-pvp people should remember that if you do your emotes/other via typing, you wont face "sudden" pvp. _________________ "Collan" the Skald; Where the Wild Roses Grow
-Tribute to all you beauties that met your fate by his hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Incognitos
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 17:31 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
|
|
ON the HIPS/GS/sneak etc. thing; does it make sense that casting a spell like wail or fireball in the middle of a town or city should get you an instant arrest warrant?
I don't think anyones is going to be too concerned about catching and cuffing about the head a foul mouthed twerp who insulted you if a great swath of friendly locals just got burned or had their souls torn out or something.
Getting your paws on someone who has legged it should have restrictions and considering the new portal system i don't think there is any excuse for letting off pyrotechnic death rays at the local pub anymore. The restrictions now apply to both parties after all.
Oh and get a wand of light; worried about someone HIPSing, blast them or something beside them with it.
edit: preemptive smack in the chops for anyone that says it's ok to cast fireball on locals because they're evil. Thats stupid and would get you banned from all civilized areas.
Last edited by The Incognitos on Thu, Sep 25 2008, 17:38 PM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
krytellan
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 17:33 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
|
Layil wrote: Devcritting Baddass A does not absolutely have to dev crit Person B who when encounted uses one spell or item (possibly in an attempt to escape and avoid the confrontation). Yes, casting a spell or using an item COULD be a precursor to attack, and by these PVP happy rules, is justified. However, it is up to the player in question whether they want to take advantage of that or not. They COULD wait a moment and see if Person B is going to retreat or not before switching into automatic pwnage mode. I have not seen this happen yet, as everyone on this server seems to want to forgo the opportunity to RP and get straight to the PVP fest to the death.
Yes, I would attack at any spell or potion. If this is a concern, then the person in question should emote something about what he about to do and how he is doing it. Perhaps stating the the person is backing up, is in a nonaggressive stance, holds his free hand up in the air... anything that would fairly suggest to the pissed off person facing you that it is not an overtly hostile action.
But I would also say if you're wanting to get "away", why do you need to buff with anything? Wouldn't walking away neatly fix that problem?
_________________
Direct Connect spamming champion two years running.
"The pointer fingers are insured"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arissa_Nightblade
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 17:45 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: SEGA!
|
|
I didn't realize the PVP rules changed till this thread was bumped. I'm really disappointed that no consent is needed now. This is just an extra door opened for powergamers/griefers/etc. and more drama to be had.
Case in point: You are playing a Drow and hunting on the surface in a dungeon or some place away from towns and minding your own business and a surfacer comes up and suddenly kills you. Their 'RP reason' is "that person is a Drow and my character hates Drow so he kills any Drow he finds." then the surfacer ends up pretty much stealing your hunting grounds or whatever the case may be.
It's just one of many scenarios that can (and probably already has) happen.
Similarly, these roles can be reversed and it's the Drow that kills the surfacer for this very same 'RP reason' - "because he's a surfacer and my Drow hates all surfacers so they are KoS." then that is when all the whining and complaining to the DMs happens about "y do all the Drow keep PKing ppl." It's just more unneeded drama.
Don't even get me started on the HiPSers....
Sorry, but I am going to ignore these rules. If someone wants to PVP me, then they will have to RP it out using dice rolls and all that. Likewise, I will do the same. Otherwise, I'm going to ignore if someone walks up and kills me outright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kilrauko
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 17:50 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Dec 2005
Location: Tampere, Finland
|
Arissa_Nightblade wrote: Case in point: You are playing a Drow and hunting on the surface in a dungeon or some place away from towns and minding your own business and a surfacer comes up and suddenly kills you. Their 'RP reason' is "that person is a Drow and my character hates Drow so he kills any Drow he finds." then the surfacer ends up pretty much stealing your hunting grounds or whatever the case may be.
No, no and no.
First of all, if the guy goes straight out to pvp "because you're xyz" they're breaking the rp req part of the rule. However you need not to give them change by your own actions, aka running or whatever. If you start the rp with them, they cannot attack without your content unless the rp clearly leads to conflict. (They calling your mom fat, you calling their mom fat, they slapping you, you slapping back and so forth...)
Even more importantly, when talking about the hunting grounds, you can never, ever, lose your hunting ground unless you want it as a result from pvp. Nobody can toss you trough portal, carry you away or whatnot. Or they def can rp icly carrying your body away but you're entitled to return to the hunting ground *right after* the conflict has gone trough. _________________ "Collan" the Skald; Where the Wild Roses Grow
-Tribute to all you beauties that met your fate by his hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 18:11 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
Didi wrote: Quite often you encounter people whilst you're in a hunting zone. In some of these zones, if you're not buffed and the critters respawn, you're dead. Favourite Machine Gun; if your best friend starts assembling a machine gun in front of you, you just say "Hullo Fred, I see you're putting ol' Mary together?" If it's some stranger who meets you in the street and starts putting barrels and tripods together, you shoot him first. If, however, you are out in the sticks and there's a stampede of buffalo thundering towards you, you'd let him get on with it. I certainly don't kill people for buffing when there's a respawn. Zante wrote: As this sounds, casting see invisibility so you can see who you are talking to is reason enough to start pvp. Might be according to rules, but is it really necessary? It's the Favourite Machine Gun thing again. See Invis is kinda the equivalent of turning on the lights in a dark room, as opposed to something like Haste or Bardsong, which is like feeding the ammo belt in. Unless things are already very tense it's okay. If they are... Layil wrote: I said ONE spell or item use. Possibly an invisibility or Greater Sanctuary or whatever in an attempt to get away. Or perhaps a neutral spell or use such as See Invisibility. In cases such as this is it really necessary to kill someone as soon as they do it? ....in Mortal Enemy RP when someone does anything engine-y I've already dropped the Knockdown before I know what the effect is; my trigger is hand movement animations and/or chanting SFX. The timescale on PvP is that tight. If you're not into it I guess you'd not know how fatal delay is. Fights are won and lost in the first six seconds.
I've already said at least twice what the 100% foolproof method of avoiding PvP is: walk away. You don't need to activate, read, drink or cast anything to escape. Just walk away with your mouth shut and your hands still.
For Flaggers/Bloodfangs/etc you emote or actually hand the cash over and then walk away. For the stumps or treehuggers patrolling Brog or the Grove, you show them your face, either by real dehelming or an emote, then walk away.
For a Pally or Kellie or treehugger, you unsummon your undead, then walk away.
If it is your decision to play a character for whom complying and walking away is a not RPly valid course of action, you're going to have OOC conflicts. I think it's unreasonable to ask people to do have their characters stop being true to themselves and become inexplicably forgiving and naive for your benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 18:23 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Kilrauko wrote: Uberuce wrote: Oh, and the HiPS thing is still hanging. You know full well it is not; Quote: 8. The above goes for fleeing from hostile situations: If you turn tail and run without a word to avoid IC consequence, you can expect to be stopped by any means possible. Always give others reasonable time to react with RP! HIPS/any hide action/all out running = attempt to get away from the guy looking at you = fleeing, even if it would be followed by attack. To me hips/flee/attempt to corner sneak = "Please shoot me here I wish pvp." However if before the hips action person has said oocly they wish not to pvp and use hips/whatever to flee I wont take action. How is HiPS fleeing? As soon as they use that, they're like a mage casting GS or Improved Invis - you have no way of knowing what they're doing. I'd treat HiPS as a hostile action. A VERY hostile action, and act accordingly (whirlwind spam, wail (hostile first), etc.)
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyjyn
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 18:43 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
|
I agree really strongly with uberuce, overall. No one forced you to play some uber bad drow. What I find funny is that you actually think 'amia' has pvp favouring rules. My last server there were none, you could literally pvp on sight. for no reason whatsoever. In fact, drow and surfacers were automatically hostile to each other. Oh, and you lost xp and gold for dying in pvp. You are an evil drow, you are 'going' to get pvp'd - get over it. People shouldnt be stealing your area, fair enough, but even so there are a lot of good UD areas.
A lot of my pvp as qirlan goes like this:
Qirlan: You there! Remove your helm and show your face
Tell://you can just roleplay removing it if your helm as stats
Enemy: Who made you boss?
Qirlan: Disarm yourself, remove your helm and lay upon the ground in preparation for a search.
Enemy: *removes helm, then promptly spits straight in qirlan's face*
PVP
If enemy wins: Good roleplay man.
If enemy loses: Where was the roleplay!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 18:48 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
I always prefer "Remove your helm or leave" giving them an IC out.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Layil
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 18:49 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 31 May 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
|
|
Way to miss my point entirely, Wyjyn. I was not speaking about Drow, never were they mentioned. My arguments were based in a general sense as I want clarification on the rules.
Stating obvious cases in which PVP should occur is pointless and unnecessary for the purposes of this discussion.
OBVIOUSLY, if you spit in someone's face they might fight back. Thanks for clarifying that for everyone.
_________________
Characters:
Ilphdiira - Arch Priestess of Lolth
Nad'olil d'Tinnerai - Drow Assassin
Izzmyr Tinnerai - Drow Illusionist
Gul'dax Kil'ani - House Archmage of Kil'ani
Fil'uth - Drow Warrior
|
|
|
|
|
|
xdrone561x
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 18:49 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Location: in the factories and mills, in the shipyards and mines
|
Wyjyn wrote: I agree really strongly with uberuce, overall. No one forced you to play some uber bad drow. What I find funny is that you actually think 'amia' has pvp favouring rules. My last server there were none, you could literally pvp on sight. for no reason whatsoever. In fact, drow and surfacers were automatically hostile to each other. Oh, and you lost xp and gold for dying in pvp. You are an evil drow, you are 'going' to get pvp'd - get over it. People shouldnt be stealing your area, fair enough, but even so there are a lot of good UD areas.
ok fair enough, so when surfacers come down into tunnels caves anywhere near drow we have the right to treat them the same right? I can pvp humans, hins, elves, dwarves, etc with little to no reason based on a racial skin..
And i suppose we wont have to worry about any of said races complaining and whining when this and will most likely happen? You ask any drow player they expect pvp on sight, and enjoy it just like the next guy
what most dont agree with is this typical gun ho attitude to skirt the rules and bend them towards your own will. You want to pvp on sight thats perfectly fine for me, it just shows a lack of respect and imagination to stretch whats usually a 2-5 minute fight into something thats fun for everyone. ANd you can call it drow players crying their eyes out all you want, the fact of the matter is this. Its lame, its cheap, and its a poor excuse on ROLEPLAY server _________________
siggy by qualiz<3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyjyn
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 18:54 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
|
Yurell wrote: I always prefer "Remove your helm or leave" giving them an IC out.
Well, I guess if my character was to say that it would be 'leave the surface'. I am pretty relaxed about it, if people walk away I will generally let them provided they dont have like undead or demons with them, etc. One of the things that really irritates me with the drow is how they pick and choose their fights in an OOC manner.
For instance, I 'never' had problems with pvp when I was a lowbie. People just want to win, that is the real topic of these sorts of threads. "I didnt win, and I dont like pvp in which i wont win so i want the rules changed". It really irritates me when I hear of some drow player that refuses pvp then pvps some elf lowbie about 5 mins later.
The roleplay with me following that goes like this:
"Qirlan you saw that drow, why didnt you do anything!?"
"..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
krytellan
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 18:58 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
|
xdrone561x wrote: ok fair enough, so when surfacers come down into tunnels caves anywhere near drow we have the right to treat them the same right? I can pvp humans, hins, elves, dwarves, etc with little to no reason based on a racial skin..
You sure as hell do. Any surfacer going to the UD has to know they're in for it if they're caught. That's half the fun is not only do you have monsters to worry about, but also random patrols of Drow. The same should be true for any Drow on the surface. Why would you play an evil Drow if you can't embrace the major conflict it will create? Oh, that's right, the kickass racial bonuses 
You referenced Wyjyn. You'll notice he engaged in RP beforehand, didn't just lay a smackdown. Same should hold true in the UD.
I will add that last time I was with a surfacer party in the UD, we got a MAJOR smackdown. And I loved every minute of it. I think that's the point. Why are so many afraid to get beaten up on a video game? Your ability to win in PvP hopefully doesn't dictate your value in the world.
_________________
Direct Connect spamming champion two years running.
"The pointer fingers are insured"
Last edited by krytellan on Thu, Sep 25 2008, 19:00 PM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
xdrone561x
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 18:59 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Location: in the factories and mills, in the shipyards and mines
|
|
one bad apple ruins the bunch
now theres bad apples on both sides, people who constantly break rules or become rude morons with their playing.
Most drow players will not do this, and those that do should by all means be reported. But to hold the entire drow populace with this attitude and im not saying you wyjynn but its an attitude on this server ive seen time and again.
Many Drow hardly hold the actions of one elf, or one dwarf responsible for that races entire playing base nor should others.
_________________
siggy by qualiz<3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arissa_Nightblade
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 19:02 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: SEGA!
|
krytellan wrote: Why are so many afraid to get beaten up on a video game? Your ability to win in PvP hopefully doesn't dictate your value in the world.
People don't like to lose, plain and simple. But if everyone always won then it would never be fun. My preference for PVPing is PnP style with dice rolls and all that instead of straight out 'who has the more uber gear.' It makes it a bit more fair on both sides especially if you are a lowbie (because even lowbies have a chance of getting a lucky hit sometimes).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyjyn
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 19:03 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
|
xdrone561x wrote: ok fair enough, so when surfacers come down into tunnels caves anywhere near drow we have the right to treat them the same right? I can pvp humans, hins, elves, dwarves, etc with little to no reason based on a racial skin.. I think you have to make it clear that pvp is impending and give them a chance to escape. However, I see no problem with a drow saying "this is drow territory..leave now". If I respond to that with "shut up", then I think my fate has been somewhat sealed really hasnt it? xdrone561x wrote: You want to pvp on sight thats perfectly fine for me, it just shows a lack of respect and imagination to stretch whats usually a 2-5 minute fight into something thats fun for everyone. ANd you can call it drow players crying their eyes out all you want, the fact of the matter is this. Its lame, its cheap, and its a poor excuse on ROLEPLAY server
Not really, the correct roleplay is to pvp on sight without some much as a single word. That is standard FR roleplay. So its not lame or cheap, it is correct. I don't even play it correctly, I give drow way more chances then an FR sun elf ever would and I do not PvP on sight really. So the 'fact of the matter' is that you are just wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
krytellan
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 19:03 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
|
xdrone561x wrote: Most drow players will not do this, and those that do should by all means be reported. But to hold the entire drow populace with this attitude and im not saying you wyjynn but its an attitude on this server ive seen time and again.
Agreed. The problem is if I had a dollar for every time 2 or more epic Drows suddenly "appeared out of nowhere" while my lowbie character was in middle of a confrontation with one, I would be a rich man. This is where these reputations come from... repeated patterns. from all players, not just Drow.
_________________
Direct Connect spamming champion two years running.
"The pointer fingers are insured"
|
|
|
|
|
|
xdrone561x
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 19:15 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Location: in the factories and mills, in the shipyards and mines
|
|
I suggest this then, if people feel drow are oocly being abusive in anyway or rude, talk to some of your drow buddies about it. Im sure you have some, lurking in your msns somewhere.
I say tell some of us main players about it and hell well pwn em ourselves. No policing done best like that which is done by yourselves.
and no this isnt a joke, if its going to be fair to the entire server it needs to be addressed. And not with rude derogatory comments on what you think oocly of a player.
_________________
siggy by qualiz<3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Thu, Sep 25 2008, 19:40 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
krytellan wrote: xdrone561x wrote: Most drow players will not do this, and those that do should by all means be reported. But to hold the entire drow populace with this attitude and im not saying you wyjynn but its an attitude on this server ive seen time and again. Agreed. The problem is if I had a dollar for every time 2 or more epic Drows suddenly "appeared out of nowhere" while my lowbie character was in middle of a confrontation with one, I would be a rich man. This is where these reputations come from... repeated patterns. from all players, not just Drow. Get a DM to check party chat - if they have been using mobile phones they'll be in biiig trouble
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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
