Player Managed Turn Based Protocol - you know for civil PVP

[greypawn]

I whole-heartedly disagree. but there would be no one forcing you to enter TBP. So you could continue to "play to win" and one day you might realize that no one wants to play with you anymore.

clearly you don't know me at all. ask somebody who has pvp'd varsick and if i play to win. way to be dick.

[gbbishop]

I remember getting janked by Varsick. Just a 6th level walking down the road. I saw you so I stopped to RP things out. Then no warning no chance to run. Just a hiss and *set hostile* and killed one round! SO yeah, I guess I could ask myself that question. Had I know you were going to act like that I would have not engaged you in RP at all but run to the transition.

Not being a dick. Just saying, I didn't enjoy that "RP" one bit. It did not progress story, it was just lame and left me feeling not much like playing Sundren for a while. In light of avoiding such feelings and nurturing story I proposed this TBP.

Not saying my character had to survive the encounter. But would have been nice to have more than 0 chance.

[gbbishop]

You won't catch me using it. No offense, but I feel like it's common sense before a fight to

a) Flag someone hostile
b) RP unsheathing a blade/prepping a spell/shouting my defiance into my enemies face
c) RP charging forward into the fray

Or, alternatively:

a) Sneak around until they lie down to sleep/eat/take a leak before stabbing them from behind.
Subsection1) But only for the purpose of RP-based assassination/ambush.
Subsection 2) And immediately/sometime beforehand flagging them hostile.

This would be fine but what if someone Non-hostile wants to step between you and who you are attacking? Not possible with out a TBP in place.

[gbbishop]

Clearly nobody wants this. *lets it drop*

[Lugwy]

This reminds me of the whole kerfuffle with DRM so long ago.

For most circumstances, a little common sense would tell you when hostilities are about to commence; that's usually where the guy who wants to intervene steps in (psst: there's nothing stopping you from typing the line beforehand, then c+p'ing it later into the skywing chatbox when the occasion rises). There's only so much you can transplant from turn-based to the bastardized real-time thing that NWN2 is.

[greypawn]

I remember getting janked by Varsick. Just a 6th level walking down the road. I saw you so I stopped to RP things out. Then no warning no chance to run. Just a hiss and *set hostile* and killed one round! SO yeah, I guess I could ask myself that question. Had I know you were going to act like that I would have not engaged you in RP at all but run to the transition.

Not being a dick. Just saying, I didn't enjoy that "RP" one bit. It did not progress story, it was just lame and left me feeling not much like playing Sundren for a while. In light of avoiding such feelings and nurturing story I proposed this TBP.

Not saying my character had to survive the encounter. But would have been nice to have more than 0 chance.

Varsick doesn't hiss. Maybe during his low levels when he was around lvl 6 as well and I was still developing what he was (that has to be some time ago like in 2009 when I first discovered this server). But it sounds like you may have walked into the middle of something. Either that or you are thinking of a different character. Either way, that was a LONG time ago and I'm surprised you'd let something like that upset you for so long. So I do apologize. In the end though, varsick finished his story with something like 5 'wins' to 30 'defeats' as far as pvp goes. And a good chunk of those didn't end with somebody in the fugue.

[Lotus]

1. Whenever you enter PvP, your character would be playing to win, so you should be playing to win. The "win" is the best possible outcome for your character within the rules.

2. Combat mechanics in this game are improved by player skill, just like combat mechanics in PnP are improved by player knowledge and decision making.

3. When someone flags you hostile, that's your warning that something could go down.

4. There are several clues that someone is about to hit you, like drinking potions, casting spells, using abilities, HiPS'ing, running toward you, drawing a weapon, and so on. Those are contextual aggression that you are allowed and expected to react to.

5. The engine is sufficent to our PvP needs. If players agree among themselves to use an alternative means to resolve a PvP conflict and all parties are happy with the method decided on, the staff has no cause to care. However, the expected and "endorsed" system will remain engine-based combat as restricted by Sundren's house rules of engagement. If PvP isn't "your thing," we will not be putting in place any protections to make you off-limits to those pursuing PvP against you. Sundren is a full-PvP server and will continue to be so.

So I do apologize. In the end though, varsick finished his story with something like 5 'wins' to 30 'defeats' as far as pvp goes. And a good chunk of those didn't end with somebody in the fugue.

I've always been a fan of catch-and-release.

[gbbishop]

It was a long time ago, (guessing 2010) to be fair, it is entirely possible that it was not Gyz. I had not remembered it 'til just now. But it served to illustrate my point whether it was you or not. For me, PVP has been foul 90% of the time.

+ It results in more than a few players quitting the server.

I just thought while "common sense" works in one persons mind a different "common sense" works in another. Which is why I proposed the Protocol.

[Laurk]

I love PvP. And I literally "never" win unless ive got dangerous people on my team. People shouldn't get bent over it. Its part of the RP and gives you new direcitons to RP. Its not as though there are actually any real consquences for dying (unless you choose it). I've litterally been assassinated with about a milisecond to take action. Hostile. Dead. Ouch. But I had fun RPing afterwards trying to figure out who my killer was and all the other PCs who became involved in it. I mean its not like its perma-death unless you choose that. And even when you choose it, its far easier than when you don't get the choice.

To me there are some pros and cons to turn based PvP, and mostly cons. I'll address them as sarcastically and ridiculously as possible for fun.

pros:
1) You can describe non-engine actions in a more table-top fasion.

2) It provides more chances for non-engine results, such as cutting off limbs, figure-4-leg-locks, and hurling garbage cans on your foe while he's down.

cons:
1) Some people over-emote. Example: Player 1: "LaBlade Crimsondeath leaps through the air, spinning is twin scimitars so fast that a vortex of air pushes stunned onlookers back as he hurtles toward the fear-filled visage of Marl. Marl understands that death approaches even as Grimdoom, the ancient blade of his father, taken from the lifeless hands of LaBlade's former drow slave masters who also killed his father, streaks out with the speed of a hasted cobra to rend the life from Marl's body.... okay... I got a 32. take 4 damage." Player 2: "Okay.. Marl hits you real hard with his sword.. n.. stuff. Got a 29. umm.. take 12 damage."

2) Many people who over-emote type very slowly.

3) Turn-based removes your need to think and act quickly. Part of the fun of PvP is that it isn't completey about numbers. In PvP you have a lot of choices to make, esspecialy when magic is involved, and victory often goes to the person who can think and time their actions better. You loose this in Turn based because everyone has all the time in the world to come up with the perfect action for the moment.

So as dumb as that sounds, im actually loosly basing it (with embelshment) on a turn based PvP I actually witnessed. The over-emoter was a slow typer and it took freaking forever to resolve.

[Lugwy]

I just thought while "common sense" works in one persons mind a different "common sense" works in another. Which is why I proposed the Protocol.

That is very true, but there's a lot of areas where common sense overlaps. If you spot some magicker uttering threats towards you then moving to cast an unknown spell, what would be the conclusion to draw? What would you do if, after a tense hour of borderline hostile conversation, a big scary warrior from the other side yells and charges with sword drawn? When you can grok the situation enough to be able to intervene in time, that's all fine and good, but not every event will permit you the opportunity, either in-game or real life, unless you or your character has Lightning Reflexes.

+ It results in more than a few players quitting the server.

I could also predict just as many players quitting the server or not bothering with the server at all under such a protocol if it were widely implemented, or whatever other PvP system you could think of, because you can't please everyone. If all the players in the specific little situation agree to it, then it's fine, you set whatever rules you want, everyone comes out satisfied.

It'd be perfectly fine in PnP as it's turn-based and everyone has time to declare their actions, but in NWN2 and its bastard offspring of real-time and turn-based, it's much, much harder to do, and really not worth the effort to jury-rig a rule, let alone enforce it. Also, imagine all the complaint reports being filed!

Anyway, back to work.

[Valhalla]

I've got to say.

+ It results in more than a few players quitting the server.

PvP's only real consequence (especially since I've never seen someone actually take an item) is bruised feelings afterwards and a minor inconvenience in the fugue. If people are seriously quitting because of PvP on this server, I suggest reconsidering how seriously you take your elfgame.

[Fuzziebunny]

* stands up*. Yes, it is true. I am an over-emoter.

You know, turned base does have its place. There is no way to mechanically choke someone out to prevent them from casting. Also there is the sucker punch to the face, and various other fun RP stuff that can be done. Just depends on what you want to do and what is fun.

[gbbishop]

People don't quit because of a few minutes in the fugue they quit because some people take it too far.

I was thinking this would nearly eliminate complaints. Given that all parties are involved in acting out the event.

And if there was a "standard" set up you wouldn't have to ad-hoc it each time you encounter someone.

[Laurk]

It could be noted that just because you don't know "why" someone killed you for what seems to you as "no apparent reason" does not mean they didn't have a reason.

When my healer got assassinated, there was no dialog, no RP no anything. Her killer came out of stealth and I was dead in about 1 second. I could have easily assumed that her killer was a jerk and killing me just to be evil. But I decided that they probably had a reason as most of the people we play with are good RPers. Part of the fun afterwards came from trying to unravel that mystery. It turned out they were a hired assassin, hired by someone who as an enemy of one of my healer's friend who wanted to kill me to get at her. One of those "I shall strike down those dearest to you" kind of things. Totally valid, but totally easy to get mad about and call foul play if you're not willing to give your fellow RPers the benifit of the doubt.

We should always give each other the benifit of the doubt for that very reason. If there is someone griefing people to be a jerk, ist not like they'll get away with it for long. They will get banned, so why would you quit the server because someone chooses to abuse the rules?

Anyone who is considering quitting over PvP death should go lose a PC they really like against their will on a perma-death server. Then you'll return here and jump for joy that you can hit respawn.

[Valhalla]

People don't quit because of a few minutes in the fugue they quit because some people take it too far.

If that's true, then how will a formal system help keep the people who are quitting around? People who take things to far are incredibly unlikely to obey some kind of formal system that isn't mechanically represented when their behavior is already questionable at best.

I just don't see how "Oh but think of the people who quit" lends any strength to why this should be adopted. The protocol proposed certainly has merits, but that really isn't one of them.