Upcoming Events

Collapse

There are no results that meet this criteria.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion: PVP

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I like the PvP consensual unless provoked through RP... but also even then it should be noted to the player that PvP is imminent... not just a random, "I'll use this as justification and attack"

    What about this example?

    Orog a badd-ass 1/2 orc fighter comes upon Bill a low-level mage. Orog and Bill get into a conversation and Bill accidentally insults Orog. The player behind Orog lets the player behind Bill know that PvP is about to happen. The player behind Bill, not wanting to enter into PvP for whatever reason, then RP's Bill into backing down, apologizing and the like. The player behind Orog may be a bit miffed that Bill backed down, but he gets his apology and the like.

    In this case there is mutual respect behind the players! It is up to them to come up with a way out of the situation and advancing their characters at the same time. The next time that Orog and Bill meet, perhaps then Bill is much nicer or perhaps he just runs away.

    And I've seen a few examples of the "paladin of Tyr" walking past the "dark, evil necromancer" and how PvP is justified. If they were in town and the town rules/laws forbade that... then the Pally could not justifiably attack. Also, what about bystanders? How many might die if a full-fledged attack were to occur with innocents around. This does not necessarily mean that combat is eminent... unless the players (and the characters) are blind to everything else.

    I recall Paul, my last PC in my other server... a righteous Cleric/Pally/Fighter of epic level. He had many severe disagreements with Tamerous, a Ftr/Mage/Pale Master, over his adventuring career... not a single one erupted into PvP combat. Neither of the players really liked PvP and we always found ways to resolve. Same with Mordrid, an evil Mage that Paul found in the wilderness and accidentally saved... they had tangled before, but in this case there were just verbal fireworks... and both of the players had a lot of fun.
    James the Lesser, Cleric/Fighter of Ilmater. Let the suffering begin.

    You don't know SQUAT!

    Comment


    • #47
      First let me say, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I think I've been engaged in maybe 5 PvP encounters ever - 2 of them on Sundren. I have had positive PvP experiences thus far regarding players respecting one another. However, I found it difficult to RP both times because death is unclear and the memory loss is confusing. Some players are RP'ing that they were beaten within an inch of their life, some are RP'ing death. Some players are remembering things that happened 5 minutes before the encounter, some 2 minutes, blah, blah. It's ridiculous, really. I spent more time trying to match my RP with what others were doing than actually enjoying the encounter.

      "Oh you're going to remember that? OK, then I guess I should remember this."

      Anyway, the bottom line for me is that memory loss should go, and a clear, universal view of death should be developed. I understand not remembering the killing stroke, but forgetting the battle itself? Why? If somebody breaks into my house, beats the hell out of me, and kills me, but I'm brought back to life in the hospital, it's likely I'd remember something about it, yes?

      "I was at home, and I heard a noise at the door. When I opened the door I saw a big, scary man with a mask. He attacked me and we fought like cats and dogs. Then it all goes fuzzy, and I woke up here."
      -Player of Druid Rosalyn Leafall
      and Bard Ancora Dallenson-

      Afterism (n) - A concise, clever statement you don't think of until too late.
      --John Alexander Thom
      This is the story of my life.

      Comment


      • #48
        Some kind of standard rule on death should be implemented.

        However, I don't know about just abolishing the memory loss. Something needs to be there to replace it, or you very much will end up with people killing each other, respawning, and going at it again.

        It'll be like Tribes, only with PCs.

        Comment


        • #49
          What about being weakened after death for some period of time? Makes sense anyway.
          -Player of Druid Rosalyn Leafall
          and Bard Ancora Dallenson-

          Afterism (n) - A concise, clever statement you don't think of until too late.
          --John Alexander Thom
          This is the story of my life.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by GDwarf View Post
            It'll be like Tribes, only with PCs.

            Let me grab my disklauncher. BRB
            Don't run...you'll only die tired.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by CrimsonTears View Post

              That could help, I think. It just needs some fine tunning so people don't loophole it. For exemple, the "kneel or die" thing, it's terribly easy to claim "not kneeling was provoking me in the RP" as a justification.

              That's called an ultimatum. If you choose to ignore it; run. Don't stand there and be defiant and expect to live. You won't. If a group feels confidant enough to issue an ultimatum like that, you might want to consider your options. You know...kneeling isn't that hard. Yes you "lose" but then everyone goes on their merry way.

              If you were confronted IRL by a group of people with guns and they told you to kneel or die, what would you do?
              Don't run...you'll only die tired.

              Comment


              • #52
                Ah... the "lose". For there to be a "lose", there has to be a "win". So we get to the whole "must win" thing, no? Isn't giving an ultimatum the ultimate "must win" stance (especially when you -know- you will win)? I thought it was the "must win" stance that was bothering many people.

                If I was confronted in real life like that, I would kneel. Then talk to friends in police and military police and get the group of people in jail for a long time, even for drug selling without them ever having touched drugs. Are the "kneel or die" or other ultimatum people up to being in jail for years? Even in-game years are fine
                Ashley, the social chameleon.

                ---

                Lockindal: "All PVP is an epeen fight."

                Comment


                • #53
                  The reason the memory loss idea was implemented was specifically so that people don't get killed in PvP, revive, and then go round up all their friends to go kill the person they lost to. Zoberraz, this is what I meant when I said playing to "win". I don't mean a character going all out, trying not to die. I mean a player going all out, because he wants to beat someone at a video game.
                  Dalian - Shapeshifter of the Tuatha Dé Dúlra
                  "My true identity goes beyond the outer roles I play. It transcends the Self."
                  UTC -4

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by CrimsonTears View Post
                    Ah... the "lose". For there to be a "lose", there has to be a "win". So we get to the whole "must win" thing, no? Isn't giving an ultimatum the ultimate "must win" stance (especially when you -know- you will win)? I thought it was the "must win" stance that was bothering many people.

                    If I was confronted in real life like that, I would kneel. Then talk to friends in police and military police and get the group of people in jail for a long time, even for drug selling without them ever having touched drugs. Are the "kneel or die" or other ultimatum people up to being in jail for years? Even in-game years are fine

                    That was why "lose" was in quotes...because that seems to be the mentality of most people right now. And if you outnumber a person four to one, and your character would, following every known thing about that character and his race, kill that person on the spot without speaking to him, then an ultimatum is an extention of metagamed player consideration more than anything. When you offer someone a way out when all things point to the fact that such an offering shouldn't exist, then you're being generous. When that person refuses the offering, then dies, they have no ground to stand on if they wish to complain about that death. It was an RP situation, with RP progression. The Ultimatum was the only thing that would actually break that RP, or, if it's a group of evil necromancers instead of Drow, then it might be proper RP. Yes, they KNOW they will win....that's why they're in a group to begin with....if you're alone, and you're against that....then its your own fault for being alone. Take the offered escape and continue.


                    As for your second paragraph: YES!

                    YES YES YES YES!

                    Submit now, go get your lynch mob, and get your revenge when you've evened the odds. That would be what the character would do in the same situation, I would think; save their own skin then find a way to pay back the "attacker" for the humiliation.

                    It's when people fail to view it like this that problems arise, kind of like you insinuated when you mentioned refusing to kneel not being grounds for combat to ensue. What alternative is there? One: Death. It was given with the option to kneel. Since you refused one, it can only be assumed you have accepted the other. Simple RP is still RP.
                    Don't run...you'll only die tired.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      The win/lose things goes to both sides tho, Vichtor. If one side is put in a "die or lose" situation, the other has put itself in a "win or win" situation. There's only a loser when someone is "winning"

                      You might like the idea of the second paragraph, but how many others would? I -know- many would see it as "losing". Threaten someone, go to jail for 2 in-game years (would be over a month real life)... ah right, you can escape with the help of friends. But that kind of trick can only be pulled once or twice. After you escape prison a couple times, people will decide it might be better to disintegrate your body and spread the dust in the sea. Then what?

                      For some people it is a "win or lose" situation, but for others it's a "be abused or not be abused" one. There's just so much abuse people can take before they blow. Being put under an abusive position of "kneel or die" will just make people get sick of it and give thrice the hell back on the abusers, for which I wouldn't blame them. Is it what the PvP-happy people want? To get people so sick of abuses that they decide to take ultimate measures to end it, making -sure- the abuses will stop?
                      Ashley, the social chameleon.

                      ---

                      Lockindal: "All PVP is an epeen fight."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I fail to see how initiating an RP experiance is abuse. You are vastly outnumbered. You are alone, by your own choice. You're facing an enemy who should, by all means, kill you outright. Instead, they offer a way out. You have to press eight times on the keyboard and you're done.

                        How, exactly, is that abuse? Help me understand how that is such a horrible concept.
                        Don't run...you'll only die tired.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          You don't consider it an abuse, others might.
                          Just like some consider it fun to RP putting people in humiliating positions, while I find it stuff that could be considered flaming if I typed *shrugs*

                          Thsi is still a game about having fun in the end of the day. Your fun goes as far as the fun of the one you interact with ends. If you interact with someone who dislikes it, go interact with someone else? There are others who will have no problem with it, why stick to the ones who do? That's where you draw the line of respect.
                          Ashley, the social chameleon.

                          ---

                          Lockindal: "All PVP is an epeen fight."

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Vichtor View Post
                            Submit now, go get your lynch mob, and get your revenge when you've evened the odds. That would be what the character would do in the same situation, I would think; save their own skin then find a way to pay back the "attacker" for the humiliation.
                            I'm not sure I understand why this would be bad? I can assure you, in real life, if someone attacked and killed my friend, and my friend could come back and tell me who did it, I would be lusting for the attackers blood. Maybe those who start trouble should keep that in mind? The characters are aware that death can be overcome, so why shouldn't the fear of retaliation play a role in the decisions they make? This way, if I am held up in the woods by some bandits, I can bluff about how I'm the most popular gal in all of Sundren.

                            As for assassins and such - just wear a mask for heaven's sake! A rule shouldn't be implemented because of metagaming, an effort should made to stop the metagaming!
                            -Player of Druid Rosalyn Leafall
                            and Bard Ancora Dallenson-

                            Afterism (n) - A concise, clever statement you don't think of until too late.
                            --John Alexander Thom
                            This is the story of my life.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Ummm, just about half the rules are made to try to stop metagaming and negative behavior Saying "You shouldn't make rules because people try to cheat, you should try to stop the cheating" doesn't make sense, since we made the rule to try to stop the cheating.

                              It was also to try to stop the "Back and forth" PVP scenario.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Autumn View Post
                                I'm not sure I understand why this would be bad? I can assure you, in real life, if someone attacked and killed my friend, and my friend could come back and tell me who did it, I would be lusting for the attackers blood. Maybe those who start trouble should keep that in mind? The characters are aware that death can be overcome, so why shouldn't the fear of retaliation play a role in the decisions they make? This way, if I am held up in the woods by some bandits, I can bluff about how I'm the most popular gal in all of Sundren.

                                I was actually suggesting that....not bad at all, makes sense.

                                I agree with you.
                                Don't run...you'll only die tired.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X