AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

So I'm confused about how PVP works here. My main character is a Drow. The other Drow tell me that we're not supposed to just drop an orb of darkness on other players, and charge in swords a swinging. Which I can get a sense of. While it's true to Drow form, it's not exactly ideal for the recipient. When we're all here to have fun, it's not really cool for just one guy to be the one having it.

But there seems to be a double standard. While playing my Dwarf, I got challenged to a duel by a Kolbold, and in the middle of it, people who had nothing to do with the RP running up to the fight interjected themselves and attacked me repeatedly with overpowering spells. There was no reason for it, and when the Kolbold player asked why, they offered up a really poor excuse. It completely ruined the moment. When my dwarf was about to learn a lesson in humility, and possibly experience some character growth, someone just decided to be flashy for kicks, and I was forced to terminate the RP I was having with the Kolbold.

I hear from other UD players that this has happened to them in the past as well. While they take efforts to avoid ambush combat (we did just that today even), the favor rarely seems to be returned.

So can someone explain to me the "accepted" means of PVP on this server?

Edit: I see the stickied PVP thread up above, now that I've made this post. I'll read through that.

viewtopic.php?p=347755#p347755

In short, you may attack a character after hostile RP and with proper IC reason. You have to give the player an IC out opportunity, after that, its game time. Sleeping or buffing during a hostile situation is considered hostile and you may attack that character (or vice versa).

Specific incidents are best saved as screenshots and sent via forum private message to a DM. No dirty laundry in forum posts.

Hate to comment on specific incidents as well but with your dwarf...

If a PC comes across PvP already in progress and has a "legitimate" reason for engaging in that PvP, they may, as I recall it.

I.E. You're walking in the open and you see your buddy/spouse/factionmate/etc being attacked, you may engage as there's no time to initiate "new" RP and supposedly the Outs and whatnot have already been given between the two parties.

If these other people come across your PC fighting a kobold in the wild(a monstrous race), perhaps they ICly assumed you were being ambushed. If they sat there and watched the RP/PvP initiate, then I'd think that that was indeed a cheap-shot on their part.

That's my idea one it, but Hendrack is right, just PM a DM about the details of your incident. I'm not a DM, just trying to give some clarity as it was asked.

It's a grey area, imho.

Just because your PC has a reason to jump into the fray doesn't mean you should as a player. It's the number one cause of PvP dramas; people joining in without prior RP.

A goblin hating kobold can't just start whacking at any goblin he sees without RP even if has legitimate reasons to. I don't know why this doesn't apply to ongoing PvPs.

I say we players make an initiative to be considerate and not jump on any ongoing PvPs unless you were there in the first place. If you want to join the fight, say something prior to hostilities. Also, let's not just stand there on the sidelines and wait for a PvP to start without ever chiming in; then suddenly joining in when the fight breaks out and later justify your actions.

I've been a victim of the nosey bored epic myself a few times.

It does suck, but once PvP is intiated, any combatant in PvP is free game.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

It does suck, but once PvP is intiated, any combatant in PvP is free game.

It does suck, aye. It can potentially turn the server into an arena starting from a 1v1 duel.

If you want to ambush, I'd say hostile, drop darkness, and emote *attacks*. Their out is to flee, cower in fear, whatever. If they buff, or emote *stands his ground* or something, they have foregone their out and you can attack.

Am I the only one that does that type of thing? Am I wrong for doing it? It seems alright from my understanding of the PvP rules. I'd like to hear from a DM on this one so I don't get into trouble. This is the second time I've mentioned doing this type of thing.

ticket wrote:

Just because your PC has a reason to jump into the fray doesn't mean you should as a player. It's the number one cause of PvP dramas; people joining in without prior RP.

No, actually as a player, it likely means you should as if you're following your PC's RP. I'm not saying be a dick and every time you see a drow and someone else in a fight, you jump in with your sun elf to [removed] stuff up.

If your PC's superior, apprentice, lover, or someone of a group they are dearly tied to is under attack, the proper IC action is to come to their aid. If your gang of necromancers ambush a TK outside of Kohl, you can't expect the fellow knights walking by to just twiddle their thumbs and "wait their turn". The PvP rules err on the side of common sense for those cases. RP and PvP are not completely free one from the other.

If my Hoarite sees the father of the clergy under attack, he comes to his aid, no questions asked. And I'd no problem with someone doing the same for the person we're fighting if they have the reason. If it results in a battle royale, so be it. It's RPPvP. Shet happens.

Exactly.

If there's a valid IC reason for my character to join a battle, they're joining a battle for good or ill.

Isaiah wrote:

If you want to ambush, I'd say hostile, drop darkness, and emote *attacks*. Their out is to flee, cower in fear, whatever. If they buff, or emote *stands his ground* or something, they have foregone their out and you can attack.

That's not how it works.

If you want to ambush anyone, you send a DM a tell or the players under attack before hand. That would count as an assassination.

The moment you hostile them and cast a spell, you've forgone the time for "outs".

RP -> Outs -> Hostile -> PvP(spells/buffing/resting). That's the way it goes.

How about hostile, emote *attacks*, see what they do and if they want to fight, do darkness and attack? Same thing pretty much just no spells being cast after the hostile. Didn't think about darkness as a hostile spell but now that I think of it, it definitely is.

I'd say that is still not the best way to go about it. You are basically skipping the 'tell a DM or the player' step. I think it's mostly a fact of courtesy that you are about to jump someone sometime soon. I would imagine that you could stretch it even and say to the player (in the case of an assassination attempt) 'My player has a contract to kill you, so over the next day or two I am going to attack you.'

I -think- a DM would be fine with the 'day or two', but I dunno. You might have to have the intent to do it pretty quickly after sending the tell, so don't take my guess for it.

But yeah, I'd be safer just sending a quick message to the player or, better yet, a DM so that it's more 'legit'.

Isaiah wrote:

How about hostile, emote *attacks*, see what they do and if they want to fight, do darkness and attack? Same thing pretty much just no spells being cast after the hostile. Didn't think about darkness as a hostile spell but now that I think of it, it definitely is.

Why the hell would you *emote* attacks after you've already hostiled? If you hostile someone, that's pretty much when you let the mechanics do the talking.

If you've already hostiled them, you've made clear your intentions, or at least you should have through the RP before you hostiled. Hostiling and doing anything other than fight or flight after that is just wonky and best to be avoided.

You can stand there and talk while hostile to someone. But *emoting* attacks really has no role there. I know personally, if we're both hostile and someone emotes trying to punch me in the face.... I -may- roll back. But right after that, I'm letting mechanics take over. Emote-fighting is something all on its own as far as I am concerned.

Last edited by Isaiah on Wed, Oct 06 2010, 3:15 AM, edited 1 time in total.

What I mean by emoting *attacks* is that there was no RP before hand. It was an ambush. By emoting it, you know there is no intention to talk and I give you a chance to have an out by fleeing or some such. I'd also be standing at a distance so mechanics don't make me attack you. You don't alway have a DM to send a tell for you.

If you have already attacked, there is no chance to flee. Just get a DM or inform people beforehand if you wish to be as the viper from the grass.

Isaiah wrote:

What I mean by emoting *attacks* is that there was no RP before hand. It was an ambush. By emoting it, you know there is no intention to talk and I give you a chance to have an out by fleeing or some such. I'd also be standing at a distance so mechanics don't make me attack you.

If there is no RP beforehand, you shouldn't be doing it anyway without notifying a DM or Player of an assassination.

If you have done either of these, you can hostile/attack on sight.

Otherwise, no, you still have to RP and give outs before you cast Darkness or anything of the sort. Otherwise, from the instance you cast Darkness, you have initiated PvP. You intentions don't matter then.

An Ambush like you're talking about is best done as an Assassination. I know plenty of people, myself included, that would attack your PC the moment after they casted Darkness if they felt threatened. And we would be completely within the rules.

Instead of just *Attacks* do something like, *Springs out of the nearby underbrush and rushes [insert character name here] with sword raised high, definitely meaning to attack them* and then wait to see what they did with no setting hostile, no darkness, no anything.... just the emote. Because that could allow for RP to grow from it. Setting hostile first, makes the intentions quite clear and a player could feel like there's no way out of the situation. It is a rather questionable method and probably left alone, though.

ainjyll wrote:

Instead of just *Attacks* do something like, *Springs out of the nearby underbrush and rushes [insert character name here] with sword raised high, definitely meaning to attack them* and then wait to see what they did with no setting hostile, no darkness, no anything.... just the emote. Because that could allow for RP to grow from it. Setting hostile first, makes the intentions quite clear and a player could feel like there's no way out of the situation. It is a rather questionable method and probably left alone, though.

I like this.

Yeah, ICly the same thing. I like it.

http://www.amiaworld.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49569

For those who might have a use for it and those who may have missed it.

Friend and I was sparring, when out of the blue a mage comes up and starts to bombard me with a bunch of stun spells, making it completely one sided so we had to hault the RP to ask just what the hell he was doing. But before either of us could do so he just ran off without a word.

Sounds like Tyd. :lol:

There's been many times I've been attacked and killed without fair warning, but you know, I was caught just as unaware as my character was, and it added to the sense of excitement and urgency one feels when being threatened. I was scrambling to save my characters' life, it was fun and even though he died I didn't care. There's usually some OOC feedback afterwards, so no harm done. Needless to say, that character is much more wary and prepared for occasions like that, lesson learned and all.

On the other hand, one time I saw some people being attacked by kobolds and getting tore up, so I stepped in to help. One of the kobolds was a PC, my character killed it, not knowing IC that it was a party member. The following RP turned out awesome and that kobold is now a friend of Crows.

Note: Not all situations are alike, so RP accordingly, don't be so uptight, and roll with it, have fun.

Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.

The PvP rules are just bad. That is all I really have to say, they are harsh on certain things that are irrelevent and simply do not address problems that hurt roleplay on the server all the time.

To improve them they need to address:

Third Parties in PvP Situations (bystanders that may or may not involve themself)
Area of Effect Spells/abilities
Raise Scrolls (Burn with fire imo)
Going away, reviving and healing, then coming back

An alternative is to make them very relaxed. There are plenty of NPC areas, so just make it "hostile, make sure the character isnt AFK and you can pvp them" outside of them. This means that if you are watching pvp you are open to be pvp'd, as it should be.

Quite honestly, the old pvp system of asking permission first was kind of better...

Unless you got someone that said "No pvp lolz" and then proceeded to insult the poopy out of your PC while knowing he/she was totally safe.

Which was purdy often.

Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.

Lally wrote:

Unless you got someone that said "No pvp lolz" and then proceeded to insult the poopy out of your PC while knowing he/she was totally safe.

Which was purdy often.

Yes, but still superior because it doesnt have such absurd gray areas. The insults to my character are IC, they don't really hurt me, in exchange for that annoyance I get a clear cut answer as to whether I can pvp someone or not. THe current system is just a gray area nightmare where you 'kinda' have permission. The system we have has one giant problem after another associated with it. For instance, what my character considers an insult and what the players consider insults is not necessarily attached, so pvp permission is gray in such areas.

I'd rather a system where its just clear cut, yes or no, rather than the current "maybe you can, maybe you cannot, but if you get it wrong and they report it is ban time billy". At present, every pvp encounter is a dice roll with the current rules, even if you dont start it.

In Short: A harsher rule system or a far more relaxed system, the in between is the issue.

Also, hey, let's not use transitions to our advantage in PvP. They are strictly OOC.

Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.

Let me put things another way: I have not been in a single pvp encounter since returning in which the opposing side obeyed the pvp rules. Not one. That may seem like me attacking them, but its not, they are simply not realistically possible to obey.

At least the permission rule is. You can just say "if you have permission, you have it, or you dont". That is very clear cut.

I'm slightly confused. My reading of the PvP rules is that insulting your character willy-nilly is grounds for PvP.
The only odd area I see is

"5. You must give the other party clear IC indication of your intentions to attack, and make sure they have reasonable time to react and possibly back down IC."

But, then, I just read that as "Say something like 'You better shut your mouth before I shut it for you!' and you are giving IC intent to PvP". At least, that's the only way that rule makes sense to me.

I dunno, I haven't PvPed, but I think the rules are pretty straight forward. But that's just me?

Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.

Oh, there is one other thing that also needs to be cleared up: Is HiPSing a combat move and thus opens the HiPSer to pvp? I personaly think that any form of hiding/invis surely gives pvp permission.

Couldn't hiding also be a means of "backing down"?

HiPSing is hostile, as is Barbarian Raging or drinking a potion, it falls under the same rule as if you start buffing or resting or prepping, in a hostile situation, you've given a clear indication that you are intending to engage in PvP.

I've started PvP in Djedet on my Pally for people walking into the town fully buffed and not dismissing their spells for instance, and smacked he that shall not be named for walking around HiPSed, because thats a clear indication to my character that you are there for nefarious purposes.

And no Hiding is not a clear means of backing down, backing down is getting out of there in plain sight.

Edit: Mind thats how I interpret the rules and I've never been banned for PvP.

Well, I mean if it's a goblin or something that responds to a threat with: "Ack! *runs and hides*" While backing it up with HiPS or invis.

Yeah still no in my opinion, if its cogent enough to HiPS, its high enough in levels and experience, and in my characters experience letting someone stealth away in a hostile situation is a sure way to get six inches of steel in your back.

You have to remember that my character assumes that your character has been fighting creatures of similiar skill and ferocity as he has, so your cowardly goblin, HiPSing away is seen as a threat.

Fair enough. But it's worth noting at least on an OOC level that some people learn to be stealthy to avoid confrontation, not cause it.

MoshingChris wrote:

I've never been banned for PvP.

It's hilarious that anyone would use this as a barometer, considering the stupid shit I have seen certain people get banned for, while others get away with blatant (and documented) violations.

Welp. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere we go.

Ride's done, kiddies. Exit's to your left, don't hit your head.

What is up with PVP?

Who is online