PVP question

[Handsomeman]

i have a question about one of the rules for pvp after running into some trouble with some players tonight.

-Players should try to avoid using NPCs as strategic leverage in PVP. If the defender is engaged in a battle with monsters, wait until the fight is finished before you attack. While it could be in-character to strategically "jump" them while in battle, it could cause unfair lag and give the aggressor advantage.

we were attacking veritas soldiers on schild mountains. we were in mid fight with them with our characters. then a character that was part of the veritas faction set us on hostile and attacked us while we were still fighting them. i am uncertain if any warning was given. while it would make sense to aid his own faction rp-wise. we are unsure if this was going against pvp rules. would like a dm to clearify this for us to avoid future misunderstandings. thanks.

[DM_Equinox]

If you attack a faction stronghold, then this is acceptable behaviour from faction PCs.

OOCly, you see this by the Hostiling, ICly your characters would likely see him as just one of the defenders.

[Urithrand]

-Players should try to avoid using NPCs as strategic leverage in PVP. If the defender is engaged in a battle with monsters, wait until the fight is finished before you attack. While it could be in-character to strategically "jump" them while in battle, it could cause unfair lag and give the aggressor advantage.

This isn't a question. There's no rulebreaking involved in defending your faction stronghold. Also, engaging in PvP does not cause server lag, and doesn't provide any unfair advantage, other than the obvious presence of lesser allies. He set you to hostile, so no rule was broken.

[ParadoxicalAnonymity]

Amusing enough, the part you quoted is directly from the Wiki, Urithrand, and is a rule stated about PvP. Handsomeman was probably not posting that portion as his 'inferred' question, but as to show why he was unsure about the issue.

So, if the latter half of what you say is universally true, perhaps the wiki rules concerning PvP need to be reevaluated?

While the second half of Handsomeman's post doesn't have an explicit question, there is an implicit one running through it. Equinox gave an objective response, however.

[Cornuto]

I think the rule may need to be looked at again. Better NWN engine plus Saulus' super-server upgrade may have made it obsolete.

I will say that a long time ago as a player I was told that using the Player Locator to police your Faction HQ is a no-no. If you run into folks in the normal course of business then it was fine, but using it to search for PvP was considered a step on the wrong side of metagaming.

Might be a second rule we look at as DMs with the decrease in PvP death.

[Phantom Lamb]

Will remove the rule. Thanks for finding that -- I agree, it is confusing.

[Thief Of Navarre]

I remember seeing karsten on the mountain once; he decided to join us in fighting the rebelious upstarts - despite the fact that he just screamed at them and never fired a shot

I think its good that you have player characters to represent the 'bad guy mobs'. When you see gromlin running down the mountain you dont bat an eyelid till he is shoving his axe down your throat!

[ParadoxicalAnonymity]

Angry dwarves, axes, and hateful intent bearing down upon you; these things give you pause.

[Urithrand]

All rules have exceptions, and defending your stronghold is the exception in this case. I'd smite anyone who tried to jump you in the middle of a fight which was nothing to do with them purely on the off chance that they'd be more likely to win. Defending your allies isn't in the same league as this though.

[Lothoir]

Except now that rule has been removed, so it is no longer an issue? And Uri, you're talking about smiting those with no rp reason to jump someone, right?

Because an assassin/other would-be killer would be stupid to risk an attack on an opponent at full strength if they could alternatively wait until some ogres or frost giants have bloodied their mark for them. Even more so if they have to fight a group on their lonesome.

[Urithrand]

In some ways, but also people who abuse mechanics to gain an advantage. Just attacking someone randomly in the wild as soon as they're engaged in combat is very different to standing toe to toe with allies against a group of players who is assaulting your stronghold. I see no relevance to the fact that they are NPCs.

[GodBeastX]

As the person who originally wrote the rule I'll explain it's reasoning.

It has a correlation with what Uri said above. The lag was from early Sundren which was running on an AMD XP at the time. Lag was abundant back then when massive amounts of PCs/NPCs were in combat. Bug fixes and more have happened since then so the lag no longer applies, but the "Griefing" concept still does apply, just has to be altered.

In the past we had players who would wait until people were in combat with creatures to attack the person. Thus having a giant upper hand. Creature AI is not strong enough to now include a PVP aggressor in their combat routines, so basically the guy who decides to jump a player fighting something like Mossclaw, has no risk of being attacked at all. And the person being attacked is now grossly out gunned, also fleeing doesn't become a good option due to all the attacks of opportunities and back-stabs.

So the idea is that if people are engaged with a pack of monsters, courteously allow them to finish before you decide to kick their asses. I'm not saying you should wait for them to heal and buff up, but I am saying that the AI just isn't as smart about responding to your presence so should not be used as a tool in your conflicts.

Now, faction headquarters weren't around back then. So the rule didn't specifically include them. The idea that someone attacks a temple of triumvirate and has paladin NPCs fighting them should not force a player to stand and watch until his guard brethren are dead. This wasn't the "Spirit" of the rule. It was to promote fair game play not allow people to have their way with faction bases.

[grant]

Okay, since I was there when the three PC's were discussing the problem:

There were two issues.

1. Player was defending his faction so felt charging into to combat after setting hostile was acceptable.
The ruling now specifically supports this but only for in faction defence right?

2. In this case the player who was being attacked was in combat when hostile was set and it is really hard to watch the messages scroll by while keeping track of the action, and did not know the other player was hostile until he started swinging.

So what exactly constitutes a PvP warning, simply one player setting hostile is not enough is it?

[Vaelek]

2. In this case the player who was being attacked was in combat when hostile was set and it is really hard to watch the messages scroll by while keeping track of the action, and did not know the other player was hostile until he started swinging.

So what exactly constitutes a PvP warning, simply one player setting hostile is not enough is it?

Honestly, I don't see why that would be a problem in the least.

From an RP point of view, the hostile faction-defender would've been considered nothing more than another Veritas punk strolling around, right?
As such, there would be no reason to factor them in beyond the same way you would for the rest of the mobs, unless a direct and/or imposing confrontation was made between the two previously.

True, it's nice to know OOCly when someones after your blood, but in that situation especially I can't see a valid reason beyond 'it's nice' to alert someone with more than the hostile setting.

[Phantom Lamb]

Grant: an emote of the aggressive action is a good way to do it ICly. Or, an OOC tell to the players you're attacking. It's important that all know there is relevance to the attack.

Rule updated:
-Please do not engage in PVP if your target is in combat with NPCs unless you are affiliated with the NPCs' faction. The AI is not smart enough to know there are two targets to attack instead of one, which creates an unrealistic match. If you are part of their faction, they wouldn't attack you, so the rule is moot.