AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - Death Penalties (no permadeath talk here!)

Unfortunately my suggested system could not tell the difference, so anytime you'd use a raise dead scroll, you'd be subject to the chance of failing.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

PvP penalities are a bad idea. Period.

For the victim, yes. For the victor, no.

No, I don't know why on earth you would penalise someone who wins in combat. But they can stand to lose something since they're the ones walking away, while the victim is the one on the ground in need of a raise, or has to wait for a respawn.

Isn't that todays system? I'm quite content with the PvP battle system as it is. PvM well thats an entirely different matter really. But PvP, it's good the way it is IMO.

The easiest way is to remove raise dead and ressurection scrolls, and make it so ONLY a cleric can bring someone back without a respawn.

And remove Heal potions, so ONLY a cleric can heal someone to full HP

That would be all fine and dandy if a large percentage of the clerics on the server where healers and not self buff battle machines.

We don't want to make raising difficitult or tedious, IMO. You shouldn't need a cleric to hunt, that's just stupid. Mundane meleers already get the shaft badly, they certainly don't need to lose their heal potions, either.

PvM penalties aren't even my primary concern. OK, Boss fights need some tweaking. But the primary motivation behind my suggestion is PvP penalties. It's not a problem of my suggestion that it makes no difference between PvM and PvP deaths, it is very much intentional. We want to change the RP atmosphere, and important RP is connected to PvP more often than PvM.

Amia's players are whiny pussies because PvP penalties have always been negligible. On servers I've played with more consequences to PvP, there has been less controversy about it. Amians are just too used to nothing bothering their peaceful coexistance. We need the shock.

IronAngel wrote:

Amia's players are whiny pussies because PvP penalties have always been negligible. On servers I've played with more consequences to PvP, there has been less controversy about it. Amians are just too used to nothing bothering their peaceful coexistance. We need the shock.

And tin little altercations and misunderstandings that would have just flowed under the bridge before suddenly become massive arguments.

IronAngel wrote:

We don't want to make raising difficitult or tedious, IMO. You shouldn't need a cleric to hunt, that's just stupid. Mundane meleers already get the shaft badly, they certainly don't need to lose their heal potions, either.

PvM penalties aren't even my primary concern. OK, Boss fights need some tweaking. But the primary motivation behind my suggestion is PvP penalties. It's not a problem of my suggestion that it makes no difference between PvM and PvP deaths, it is very much intentional. We want to change the RP atmosphere, and important RP is connected to PvP more often than PvM.

Amia's players are whiny pussies because PvP penalties have always been negligible. On servers I've played with more consequences to PvP, there has been less controversy about it. Amians are just too used to nothing bothering their peaceful coexistance. We need the shock.

100% agree with this post.

Yurell wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

Amia's players are whiny pussies because PvP penalties have always been negligible. On servers I've played with more consequences to PvP, there has been less controversy about it. Amians are just too used to nothing bothering their peaceful coexistance. We need the shock.

And tin little altercations and misunderstandings that would have just flowed under the bridge before suddenly become massive arguments.

The severity of the argument is not proportional to the actual damage. If it was, there would be no arguments on Amia about PvP, because there are no consequences whatsoever. The biggest fights break out over something irrelevant, a percieved lack of sufficent RP, insufficent adherence to PvP protocol, or personal feuds. It's not because your PC got killed, because that has no mechanical effect. And on the contrary, servers with any more PvP consequences would be overrun by catfighting, but this is not the case.

I do not propose that other servers have no PvP problems and Amia is the sole exception. But the Amian PvP culture is irrationally explosive, and I suspect it has to do with the mentality of "my RP, my business." The playerbase in general is used to being in complete control of their PCs and choosing whether something bad will happen to them. This delusion is supported by the lack of any PvP penalties, even if PvP is actually optional.

This change might not go over well intitially, but I hope it would play part in a culture change over time.

IronAngel wrote:

The severity of the argument is not proportional to the actual damage. If it was, there would be no arguments on Amia about PvP, because there are no consequences whatsoever. The biggest fights break out over something irrelevant, a percieved lack of sufficent RP, insufficent adherence to PvP protocol, or personal feuds. It's not because your PC got killed, because that has no mechanical effect.

You make an excellent point here, Iron, and I think that the reluctance to discuss penalties even for PvM may stem from the same root - lack of willingness to take consequences. Yes, it's a game, and people want to come here and chop monsters into itty bitty pieces, but they want to do so with no repercussions. I'll bet that even having to save the game before you went into combat (if you could do that in multiplayer) would be too arduous for some.

I have a suggestion which I dont think will go over well, but before everyone blows up at me for suggesting we make Amia a haven for griefers and PvPers (something I would quite frankly hate), I'm essentially asking if there is some way PvP can be simplified so that it can take place under clear, unequivocal circumstances (to relieve the DMs of having to deal with OOC bitchfests) that dont favour griefers.

How about removing all requirements to initiate PvP except that an attacker must set the target to hostile at least one minute prior to attacking. You can only attack someone you've not set to hostile if they have launched an attack at you (or, possibly, at someone else in the same area while you are present). 'Hostile', then, becomes an IC thing - that red glow is expressed in a twitchy weapon hand, angry glare, grinding teeth or just a general 'in your face' look, regardless of what you actually emote. Something about you just says "don't mess with me" even if you're talking nice. Consent to PvP you is, in effect, automatically given by you when you set someone else to hostile, and anyone in the area can join the fight once it's begun.

Attempting an attack without first setting to hostile may get you flagged and booted as a griefer or paralyzed for a few rounds after your initial attack or something. Griefers who set the entire server to hostile will find themselves avoided, as may those who walk around fully buffed in areas where PvP is enabled (at least by potential opponents). Trigger-happy players might find themselves walking down the road facing a lot of sullen looks and wonder if they might be ambushed (ie. a lynch mob). If you attack someone in the middle of a crowded area, you may find yourself gang-mobbed (not like this doesnt happen already).

I am sure those more familiar with PvP will be better able to point out the potential problems. One that I can see is that if you set someone to hostile from the far side of the server they may simply jump you as soon as they encounter you ("He were jus' lookin' at me funny!"). Conflicts when people run across each other in hunting zones may also be more frequent, especially because everyone's already buffed to the max (the rule about first in the area would of course continue to hold). You could also set someone hostile when they log in, then 'arrange' to meet them with a party of fully buffed friends; you have already satisfied the 1-minute requirement so you can attack immediately and your friends follow on once the combat has been initiated (essentially, an ambush). Conditions could be modified so that you must be in the same area for at least one minute, but this is irrelevant if it's a large area (in fact, you could start a small attack on one side of an area, eg. by hostiling your friend and electric jolting him, to mechanically allow a large ambush to take place on the other side of an area). Perhaps 'area' could be replaced with 'line of sight' (or whatever that immediate area is where you can see and/or hear the people around you).

If death penalties of the sort already discussed apply, then those who are low on 'lives' would make extra effort not to be near those who are well-rested, buffed and hostile. On the other hand, those who go around beating on people may find themselves ambushed by irate victims who ain't gonna take it any more. Hopefully a balance between desire to PvP and nastiness of potential consequences will eventually be struck, particularly under I&I's system where lives are regained only over weeks.

I really dont think this will work, but I just thought I'd toss it out there if what we're ultimately trying to do is make the players face consequences for their actions.

IronAngel wrote:

Amia's players are whiny pussies because PvP penalties have always been negligible. On servers I've played with more consequences to PvP, there has been less controversy about it. Amians are just too used to nothing bothering their peaceful coexistance. We need the shock.

Or in my case I'm a winy pussy with PvP because I've just never liked it. It's very rare I do it. I've had a few big (bad) spats because it caught me off guard it was done. I've had (thankfully) a few that are good and well in memory as good moments in enriched play.

Maybe I'm a stick in the mud. Or a loner on the street. I don't know. Pick a term. Winy pussy works for me. I've never liked PvP. That's why I'm this way you don't like. Any game. All games. I'm the same. Penalites or not; harsh or mediocre. Amia attracted me vastly because the PvP scene is so off to the side that you can well and easily choose if you'll be part of it or not. So I'm a winy pussy because I don't always want to be part of it.

If you're making death penalties just because of PvP sake; I think you're wrong. I think thats idiotic. And I'm not big PvP kind of player at all; I'm the winy pussy standing up and saying "Hey! What the F?"

If Amia is going to have a good and agreeable death penalty system; cater to both sides the the playing field. As a non-PvP, I'll take death penalities; sure, I can see good reason to add them.

Or stick in death penalties for PvP alone and I'll multilply how much of a winy pussy I am when I get stuck doing PvP and all of a sudden death hurts more than when I had my head bitten off by an ettin.

(Vulgar)

RANT:

And why don't I like PvP? Actually, my excuse isn't that "I hate loosing" or "Too much risk". For me, it has to be planned. And I really have to know it's going to happen.

I don't play games where it's Player Vs Everyone and you can get attacked at any time. Amia has rules against playing that way.

I don't play games where PvP is the central focus.

I do play games where PvP is set to battlegrounds or situations additional to the "safe" gameplay where you know fully before hand you're commiting to PvP conflict.

My distate for PvP is purely physiological. It's the adrenaline. PvP actually scares me a degree as well; and I hate being scared with a passion. I hate PvP in all games, save a rare occurance, because the adrenaline makes me very uncomfortable, I have a fear factor, and my asthma will flair which is painful when you're sitting still and can't breath for doing nothing but hitting the keyboard (physical and pshycological).

Yes. Winy pussy. *Bows*

/RANT

I'll agree to PvP penalities if someone can guarentee me that all my hardwork in organising a PvP event with some people won't be ruined by dickhead mage number 5 running up and hellballing us for kicks and giggles, using the excuse "He doesn't like people fighting" as the RP reason.

PvP penalities should only be put in place under the gaurentee that the DM team will do a serious overhaul of the PvP rules and take measures to make sure they are enforced more strictly.

And no, before someone jumps in and makes the accusation, that was not me blaming the DM team for PvP troubles.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

PvP penalities should only be put in place under the gaurentee that the DM team will do a serious overhaul of the PvP rules and take measures to make sure they are enforced more strictly.

That's basically what I'm suggesting - an overhaul of PvP rules so that the system can handle it mechanically without having 57 different rules for everyone to argue about. So the DMs dont have to babysit every little combat. And so that any griefer who pops up can have his ass pounded into the ground in a few minutes so badly that he wont be able to carry on and we can go back to what we were doing.

Any character who PvP's simply because "I'm evil" or "I don't like elves" is going to be viewed as borderline psychotic ICly and should be treated as such. You cant get a lot of RP if everyone disappears when you show up or attacks you pre-emptively. And if a group of people wants to get together and ambush said psychotic, I'm all for it. Nor should you be lurking by the road waiting for your morning sacrifice to walk by and grabbing the same person every day just because they happen to play a lot in that area.

At the very least, if you treat 'Hostile' as an IC thing, that red colour then becomes your consent to PvP and part of your RP lead-in.

Not being a PvP type I'm not really sure how, mechanically, you can stop griefing or harassment but still allow for repeated combats within a short period of time. Store the names of the last 5 people that killed you and make it so you cant be reduced below 0 hp by any of those people, perhaps? I dont know.

Xaviera wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

The severity of the argument is not proportional to the actual damage. If it was, there would be no arguments on Amia about PvP, because there are no consequences whatsoever. The biggest fights break out over something irrelevant, a percieved lack of sufficent RP, insufficent adherence to PvP protocol, or personal feuds. It's not because your PC got killed, because that has no mechanical effect.

You make an excellent point here, Iron, and I think that the reluctance to discuss penalties even for PvM may stem from the same root - lack of willingness to take consequences. Yes, it's a game, and people want to come here and chop monsters into itty bitty pieces, but they want to do so with no repercussions. I'll bet that even having to save the game before you went into combat (if you could do that in multiplayer) would be too arduous for some.

I have a suggestion which I dont think will go over well, but before everyone blows up at me for suggesting we make Amia a haven for griefers and PvPers (something I would quite frankly hate), I'm essentially asking if there is some way PvP can be simplified so that it can take place under clear, unequivocal circumstances (to relieve the DMs of having to deal with OOC bitchfests) that dont favour griefers.

How about removing all requirements to initiate PvP except that an attacker must set the target to hostile at least one minute prior to attacking. You can only attack someone you've not set to hostile if they have launched an attack at you (or, possibly, at someone else in the same area while you are present). 'Hostile', then, becomes an IC thing - that red glow is expressed in a twitchy weapon hand, angry glare, grinding teeth or just a general 'in your face' look, regardless of what you actually emote. Something about you just says "don't mess with me" even if you're talking nice. Consent to PvP you is, in effect, automatically given by you when you set someone else to hostile, and anyone in the area can join the fight once it's begun.

Attempting an attack without first setting to hostile may get you flagged and booted as a griefer or paralyzed for a few rounds after your initial attack or something. Griefers who set the entire server to hostile will find themselves avoided, as may those who walk around fully buffed in areas where PvP is enabled (at least by potential opponents). Trigger-happy players might find themselves walking down the road facing a lot of sullen looks and wonder if they might be ambushed (ie. a lynch mob). If you attack someone in the middle of a crowded area, you may find yourself gang-mobbed (not like this doesnt happen already).

I am sure those more familiar with PvP will be better able to point out the potential problems. One that I can see is that if you set someone to hostile from the far side of the server they may simply jump you as soon as they encounter you ("He were jus' lookin' at me funny!"). Conflicts when people run across each other in hunting zones may also be more frequent, especially because everyone's already buffed to the max (the rule about first in the area would of course continue to hold). You could also set someone hostile when they log in, then 'arrange' to meet them with a party of fully buffed friends; you have already satisfied the 1-minute requirement so you can attack immediately and your friends follow on once the combat has been initiated (essentially, an ambush). Conditions could be modified so that you must be in the same area for at least one minute, but this is irrelevant if it's a large area (in fact, you could start a small attack on one side of an area, eg. by hostiling your friend and electric jolting him, to mechanically allow a large ambush to take place on the other side of an area). Perhaps 'area' could be replaced with 'line of sight' (or whatever that immediate area is where you can see and/or hear the people around you).

If death penalties of the sort already discussed apply, then those who are low on 'lives' would make extra effort not to be near those who are well-rested, buffed and hostile. On the other hand, those who go around beating on people may find themselves ambushed by irate victims who ain't gonna take it any more. Hopefully a balance between desire to PvP and nastiness of potential consequences will eventually be struck, particularly under I&I's system where lives are regained only over weeks.

I really dont think this will work, but I just thought I'd toss it out there if what we're ultimately trying to do is make the players face consequences for their actions.

I can't see that suggestion solving anything.

At one hand, you're giving the "Oh no, PvP, I just want to social RP and not have to receive a beatdown due to my hostile posters against Cyricists which I've been spamming for a week in Cordor"-people a free out in every single PvP...

*Sets hostile... waits*... *Realizes he/she has been hostiled, immediately runs to the nearest city/settlements or casts GS / goes into hiding*

On the other hand, you're basically saying that this is a PvP server, and that PvP happens all the time, all over the place, often for little to no reason.

The amount of "trigger happy" people aren't as many and as imposing as this thread has come to portray them.

In more or less all PvP encounters I've been in, there's been a fair amount of RP leading up to the PvP. If anything, people are more inclined to initiate hostile RP, than start to actually attack each other.

Those who are trigger happy, generally don't stay for long. Either because they realize that what they're doing is generally frowned upon, or they manage to violate the PvP rules enough times to get a ban.

Torzeng wrote:

<snip>

For hating PvP, I'm surprised to see that you choose to RP Weston the way you do, because he's been successful in pissing off quite a few evil bad guys for a long time now, and eventually... as that stuff comes back at you, it will likely result in some PvP.

Mr Mago wrote:

Torzeng wrote:

<snip>

For hating PvP, I'm surprised to see that you choose to RP Weston the way you do, because he's been successful in pissing off quite a few evil bad guys for a long time now, and eventually... as that stuff comes back at you, it will likely result in some PvP.

Mago, you can hate PvP but still fight the good fight.

All due honestly the only thing saving Darthion from the noose as an example, is the need of consent for permanent destruction and the fact he's been built to be a damn killer.

Point taken, since... oddly enough, I actually hate PvP as well.

I don't delight in PvP (if I wanted that solely, I have a game I much prefer for it, lovely little game called Call of Duty: World at War but anyhoo) m'self but sadly I gotta be ready to accept especially with Vael, it's darn likely.

The death penalty should progress as you level, with no penalty for the first five lvls.

The higher you level the more you should have to lose.

Mr Mago wrote:

*Sets hostile... waits*... *Realizes he/she has been hostiled, immediately runs to the nearest city/settlements or casts GS / goes into hiding*

Is this any different from how it is now? People who want to hide in cities will continue to do so. Those who want to avoid PvP will still run at first opportunity. Or they'll whine when it actually happens.

Mr Mago wrote:

Those who are trigger happy, generally don't stay for long. Either because they realize that what they're doing is generally frowned upon, or they manage to violate the PvP rules enough times to get a ban.

I'm glad to hear that. So what would be your suggestion(s) for a set of simple, easy PvP rules that could be implemented mechanically?

The difference with having to wait 1 minute before attacking is... that, well, as it is now, you can actually attack them as they attempt to run off. But with that implemented, you couldn't.

I haven't actually put much thought (yet) into a suggestion for how to alter the PvP mechanics and rules. I've just realized, as many others, that it's not optimal the way it is right now.

I guess what I had in mind with the one-minute timer was to prevent people from just running up and jumping others (particularly if you require the 1 min be in line of sight), hopefully generating some lead-in RP.

My (limited) experience in PvP has been that people stand around for an hour and insult each other until someone finally pulls the trigger and kicks off the firefight.

The trick as I see it will be to allow the ability to come to blows (fairly) quickly without facilitating griefing.

Well on the mechanics side of things, it's possible to alter the PvP tool so that one use on a player sets Hostile and two uses on a player unsets Hostile, and one use by both players still results in Hostile being set. Two uses by either player results in Hostile being cleared for both.

This means that it's possible to compare the two settings. If both players have used the tool against each other, they have entered into the PvP willingly. If neither or only one player has used the tool, then it is assumed that they have not entered into PvP willingly.

Penalties can then only be applied to players who have acknowledged the chance that they might not win and have decided to fight anyway.

For parties: If the party leaders both set Hostile to each other, this auto-sets Hostile for everyone in both parties and allows penalties. After thirty seconds.

The hostiling 1 minute before PVP thing, as Mago said, is a no-go.

As it stands right now, we can be doing some excellent RP that inevitably MAY lead to PVP, so we hostile before the conflict, (while we're still RPing) and then some people will freak out and start buffing, or randomly attack. I think people already metagame the hostile enough, I don't know that I want them to have a minute to metagame it in the future.

Mimiron wrote:

As it stands right now, we can be doing some excellent RP that inevitably MAY lead to PVP, so we hostile before the conflict, (while we're still RPing) and then some people will freak out and start buffing, or randomly attack. I think people already metagame the hostile enough, I don't know that I want them to have a minute to metagame it in the future.

My point is that they shouldnt metagame it. So if you make it IC they're no longer metagaming, by definition. Setting hostile wont necessarily lead to PvP, but it does set a heightened level of alertness, if you will. You can liken it to a DefCon rating - you're at a increased state of readiness, and when that adrenalin gets going, people get twitchy and it's possible to make mistakes. In fact, I think someone suggested elsewhere in these forums not too long ago that hostile should almost be the default setting - when you meet that person clad in black spiky armour on the road at night, you should be nervous about it and have your hand on your weapon if you have any brains. (The point was also made that this becomes an issue with summons and pets - I know that if I tell a summons to sit or follow or even guard, it doesnt necessarily do so.)

I dont like the idea of hitting hostile and then immediately launching an attack - you might as well not bother for the few seconds of warning they'll get, which means it's an entirely OOC rule that just puts an additional strain on the system by providing something else to bicker about. If I'm in a situation that I think might result in PvP (which I hate and will do my best to run away from) I'll set hostile just because... I'm hostile! I'm having an argument with someone who I know ICly would like very much to kill me, even if I'm not planning to die myself and trading blows is the farthest thing from my mind. I'm acknowledging that the interaction might very well turn dangerous. If you want to engage in combat, admit that your character is looking like it might happen. Heck, set the lead time to 60 seconds less your Bluff skill!

Mr Mago wrote:

Torzeng wrote:

<snip>

For hating PvP, I'm surprised to see that you choose to RP Weston the way you do, because he's been successful in pissing off quite a few evil bad guys for a long time now, and eventually... as that stuff comes back at you, it will likely result in some PvP.

I know.

But then, I also play so that I expect the PvP. Even when Weston got assassinated; I knew it was going to happen before hand so I personally was in a comfortably aware zone.

Do I do PvP? Yes: Rarely.

Read, no?

Okay then, how's about this for a shake-up?

Designate a number of 'contested' areas. And also, whom they are contested by. If you want to contest an area that isn't contested, you need to get hold of a DM. These settings can be changed between resets and will stick despite a reset.

This doesn't affect Party PvP, but it does affect what happens when someone is reduced below -10 HP by a player. If the player is not contesting the area, then the player they just killed is immediately restored to full health and the killer is punted immediately back to their home location.

While you are contesting an area, Raise and Resurrection will not work in that area. To be more specific, you can't be raised by anyone (even if they aren't contesting) and you can't raise anyone. You can respawn, but if you enter a contested area in the twenty minutes (or more) after a respawn, you will be sent back to your home location.

Anyone killed by a player in an area that they have not contested will be immediately healed back to full health and their killer will be sent back home.

All players who are contesting an area will see a warning message in their combat window which tells them that they are contesting that area and how many other factions are also contesting. But note, not all of those need be hostile to each other.

This means that the worst a griefer can ever do is temporarily inconvenience someone who is hunting. It does not prevent any PvP between factions which don't like each other, but it does stop PvP from happening everywhere that is Party PvP enabled. At the same time, if you want to PvP in an area and you have good reason to, you can set it up pretty easily.

If you don't want to contest an area, then although you might start PvP there you will get punted back home the moment you kill someone, because the protocol is for an area to be contested by all combatants.

Note that I talked about PvP factions. Well, technically, a party can be treated as a faction too, at least temporarily. If you have a ragtag militia and want to defend against a hostile faction, you too can contest an area with the help of a DM wand. But that will not persist past a reset, since your party gets disbanded by a reset, so there's nothing to persist.

There will be a maximum number of areas which can be contested. Factions will always be able to contest their faction area(s) without adding to that count, if it is possible to PvP there. Parties with unaffiliated characters will only be able to contest two areas, maximum.

What? That would destroy RP and PVP.

TormakSaber wrote:

What? That would destroy RP and PVP.

Pretty much what I thought after reading that.

With all respect, as I know you probably mean well, that's a real bad idea. It will kill RP, take away consequences and turn Amia into some type of weird "capture the flag"-ish type of server.

I have another idea.

One of the reasons why the one minute cooldown before the start of PvP is bad, is the risk of someone going nuts buffing or starting to attack prematurely.

What you can do there is block spell casting using the spell hooking, so long as a variable 'cooldown' is set to 1 on a PC. Also, for the duration of the minute, the PCs would be made invulnerable. However, both effects would get stripped from anyone in the area as soon as a protected PC leaves the area or triggers an encounter.

What this means is that neither side particularly needs to bolt, unless the hostiling was started without a good pretext in which case yeah, you can run.

It's still easy enough to set someone Hostile from the player menu and that would bypass the PvP tool. You can also attack them without hostiling at all, though that's also bad form. If the PvP tool is required in order to properly observe protocol, it can set a variable to indicate that the Hostiling was done through its use.

If people aren't going to stand and fight, they're not going to start running in the last five seconds. The way to look at this is, by the end of the minute the people who actually want to PvP will still be standing opposite, the ones who don't will be long gone.

Quote:

What you can do there is block spell casting using the spell hooking, so long as a variable 'cooldown' is set to 1 on a PC. Also, for the duration of the minute, the PCs would be made invulnerable. However, both effects would get stripped from anyone in the area as soon as a protected PC leaves the area or triggers an encounter.

...what? Why?

So that if someone does jump the gun before the allotted time, nothing untoward happens.

The idea of having a cooldown before PvP begins proper is to allow sufficient time for the other guys to accept. But if someone (or everyone) buffs for that whole minute, then there wasn't much point in taking a minute to make sure everyone is ready. Similarly if someone starts attacking before the minute is up.

There isn't an event which fires when a player has been attacked, which means you can't end the spell block early if there is a premature attack.

As an alternative to the invulnerability, you could just use some kind of mind-immunity-removing temporary daze to both sides, as that will prevent the initiation of attacks. The spell block can also block items of course, so no mindblanking out of that.

Why does there need to be a timer? That seems more like "insult until timer runs out then runs".

Well think about it, timer or no timer, someone is going to try and have the last word before the fighting really begins.

By having Hostile pop on after a minute on no buffing and no fighting, you're setting out the options of Fight or Flee one more time if they haven't already been made clear in RP.

Yurell wrote:

Why does there need to be a timer? That seems more like "insult until timer runs out then runs".

Xaviera wrote:

My (limited) experience in PvP has been that people stand around for an hour and insult each other until someone finally pulls the trigger and kicks off the firefight.

In the few mass fights I've seen in the forest, that's exactly what happens. Apart from the insults, someone will cast a single spell here and there ("Oh, I'm not actually buffing...") until someone finally starts something. Is this typical or atypical? You tell me.

Xaviera wrote:

I dont like the idea of hitting hostile and then immediately launching an attack - you might as well not bother for the few seconds of warning they'll get, which means it's an entirely OOC rule that just puts an additional strain on the system by providing something else to bicker about.

As it stands, people are afraid of the hostile button. The only reason they use it is because the rules say you must, and it's used immediately before you attack. At least in some situations. Again, I'm no PvP expert. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Xaviera wrote:

I guess what I had in mind with the one-minute timer was to prevent people from just running up and jumping others (particularly if you require the 1 min be in line of sight), hopefully generating some lead-in RP.

What I'm saying is, do it at the beginning and acknowledge outright that there may be conflict. The timer is proposed only to 'force' some RP before the spells start flying (and you have to have some lead-in RP under the rules anyway).

Selmak wrote:

The idea of having a cooldown before PvP begins proper is to allow sufficient time for the other guys to accept. But if someone (or everyone) buffs for that whole minute, then there wasn't much point in taking a minute to make sure everyone is ready. Similarly if someone starts attacking before the minute is up.

Now, it's problematic if someone wants to use that minute to buff themselves and you cant do anything in the meantime, but then you could run instead. Or possibly use an AoE attack. Or the timer (as suggested by Selmak) makes you invulnerable and blocks spellcasting. I dont know. I'm trying to get the whole hostiling thing out in the open way ahead of time so it's clear from square one and there's no whining about people not having done so. If someone is big and red and glowing they have an obvious attitude and it's up to you to decide how you want to behave in the face of that attitude.

Is there any way to make two varieties of hostile? Making neutral, for instance similar to hostile, but summons will not attack and attacks of opportunity not taken, but attacks can still easily be made?

To be fair, just forget about implementing the 1 minute cooldown suggestion.

Personally, whether or not I use the hostile button depends on how the other person is RPing the fight. If the PvP is nothing but the engine doing things, or I figure that's how the person is going to deal with it after ignoring more RP-centric things, I just click the hostile button and go.

But if the person RPs out a fight using emotes and dice rolls, taking into account the surroundings and letting things play out like that, I'll only turn the hostile on to do something like, say, pop a single arrow into them, then quickly cancel attack and turn hostile back off. It sends the message you'd rather RP the fight out but it does take some skill, both click-wise and socially, to pull this off, the former to be fast enough with cancelling attacks un-hostiling and the latter to get the message across that you don't want to just click hostile and go.

Death Penalties (no permadeath talk here!)

Who is online