Discussion: PVP

[GDwarf]

It's not that hard to make friends.

Mayhaps not for you, I seem to have trouble doing so. So I'll admit that at least part of my complaint is personal bias. Should I be killed using the 'perma-death' PvP rule, that's it, I have to roll up a new PC, which I don't really want to do.

Part of roleplaying in a community is tempering one's reactions to maximize fun factor when necessary. If you want your PC to be a mouthy badass, great, but do it when he's capable of defending himself. For now, when the drow says, "Kneel or die" or the half-orc says, "Pay up or die," kneel or pay up. Hold a grudge. Exact vengeance when you're capable.

Fair enough. But I can think of situations where this really isn't a choice. A friend of yours does decide to resist, or somesuch.

It just strikes me as an incredibly harsh penalty. I mean, it's very much akin to saying "Oh, did that mob kill you? Too bad, I guess you have to wait a RL year before your character can come back. If you don't want that to happen you shouldn't fight mobs without help!"

There is a certain point where a punishment is simply out of all proportion to any 'crime' or mistake a person makes. 'Permanent' PvP death is one of those. All you're saying is "Well, if you're low-level PvP death is permanent, if you're high-level it isn't.", which is silly.

[Maxx Powers]

I'd say that it depends on where you die, just like regular death, too.

If you die in Sarahan hills, chances are one of the miners will walk by and find your corpse. If you die inside the spittlefist caves, the goblins may put your head on a stake, or may throw it out into the open hills. If you die deep in the forest at the Mossclaw Meet, chances are you'll stay there. The best area to start out in is the Gate of the Sunderer, which is heavily patrolled by guards, so you'd be able to easily respawn.

[Morphadite2]

Idea

Couple of points:

Concerning Drow (because I play one, so I can be as mean to em as i want =p) How many times do you think a group of humans would ignore a Drow they've never seen before? How many times do you think they'd try to strike up "friendly" conversation?

None; never; not once. Even the "role model Good Drow" Drizzt is confronted with threats, open attacks, insults, or fear any time he meets someone new.

Flip that now. How often do you think Drow stop to have a chat with surfacers? How often do you think they allow someone an opprotunity to escape?

How often do they kill everyone, or kill most everyone and enslave the rest?

My response to your points on the Drow would be:
How often do Drow actually come to the surface to enforce their lifestyle on surface dwellers? (not very)
When they do come to the surface, how long do they stick around before returning to their home? (not long)
If they do come to the surface, and have a successful attack, and then return to the Underdark, how long do they wait before attacking again? (typically years, though, if unsuccessful, it would be decades)
With this being true, how representative is Sundren for what real Drow interactions would be like? (not very)
If it isn't very representative of what Drow interaction would be like, especially in terms of frequency of a surface dweller seeing the same Drow multiple times, why do we use preconceived notions of proper responses based on a back story that doesn't cleanly apply to Sundren? (I don't know)

Vichtor, I'm using your quote because it is an easy example of what I'm trying to communicate, not to single you out specifically. The problem with any society is trying to please all people, all the time. For this Sundren society, though we all want to participate on a RP server, we all have different thoughts of what 'true' RP is, and how far to take it. Once someone's interaction with another human goes beyond what they think is 'proper' RP, then their level of fun declines.

I'd like to build off of Cassiel's suggestions to make PvP more flexible for all on the server:

This discussion sure gets people upset. Well, I hope it can be discussed calmly so this input is actually considered by the staff.

I think the point here is to put reasonable rules in place so that:

1: PvP death has consiquences
2: PvP is fun for all involved
3: If people break the rules (grief/rp killing people again, again, again, etc) they can be dealt with.

If that said.

1: I still think a long PvP death timer will give PvP more meaning and add an element of fear and humility to encounters. That char is knocked out of play for 12 hours. Or perhaps, their stats are reduced to 2 for 12 hours, so they can still RP their recovery, just can't go out fighting.

2: Some form of conscent is required. If someone mouths off to another person, or threatens them with harm, this is considered conscent.

3: People can submit to DM staff when they feel they are being unfairly killed repeatedly, and per rules in place, DM staff will investigate.

Keep it cool ice cold, stay cool.

I really like idea #1. I would like to see it as all stats reduces to 2, and they come back 1 point at a time over some period of time (say 1 point per hour). I think this allows for great roleplay, and you would be forced to drop most of your stuff if you wanted to move from where you were slain until your strength recovered sufficiently. I think it opens the door for more roleplay after the battle, and it is a good consequence for the loser of a CvC battle.

What I think is missing, is a consequence for the winner of a CvC battle. Having a consequence for both (or all) participants would make people think twice about going through to the 'I win' state and I believe it would encourage more RP (to get out of the situation). I believe I have a solution that combines Cassiel?s #2 and #3?

I propose to enact an XP penalty to the winner(s) of any lethal damage CvC encounter (no XP penalty to the loser). This penalty would only be enforced if the loser of the battle agrees. Something like a pop-up window as soon as the PC dies asking if they want to enforce the XP penalty. This would be the equivalent of agree or not agree to CvC. If both parties had agreed to CvC ahead of time, then the loser probably wouldn?t enact the penalty because it was all part of good, sporting RP. But, if the loser was ?jumped? and wanted no part in the CvC, they could penalize the winning PC. Any ?dead? PC would still have to suffer the ability score penalty and long recovery. This would prevent giving too much power to either aggressor/aggravator. Also, if someone abused the power (say the agree to CvC, but still enforce the penalty on the winner), then that winner would probably not CvC with that person ever again. Problem solved. This will also make the ?I?m just roleplaying my Drow-slaying Paladin like I?m supposed to? types of people think about whether blindly killing a PC is worth the potential XP penalty.

Furthermore, I propose the XP penalty be related to the XP difference between the winner and loser. Thus, if a level 10 PC kills a level 3 PC, then the XP penalty is greater than if they fought at equal levels. This becomes difficult to decide if it is a group versus an individual or group versus group. For this situation, the best I can come up with is the person that strikes the killing blow on the PC would be the one receiving the penalty. Also, if it was possible, it would be good if the proportion of the penalty was based on the difference between the aggregate XP totals of all parties involved, but I imagine it would be a nightmare to program.

I do not know how difficult this would be to implement and I haven?t thought about all of the consequences, but that?s what all you forum-goers are for, right? Haha!

Just a thought.

[valenator]

So, when I say leave me out of it, you're telling me that I do not have the right to say I'm not interested in it? Rather dictatorial of you, isn?t it?

Not at all. You can express your disinterest by taking the option out of PvP. Submit. Run. Whatever. No one's making you stick around to fight. You might watch the labeling, too.

As for the harshness of the permadeath (no respawn) penalty...

I'm a fan of permadeath, period. Any PC death is a permanent death unless someone comes across your body and has the means to either raise you or bring you to a cleric for raising. We're going to differ on our opinions on the "fairness" of this penalty simply because we have different ideas of what the ideal ruleset is.

[Machiavelli]

One quick point

Three things that have consistently come up above (this in not meant to be a commentary on all discussions in the thread, just one aspect)

1) The 'Must Win' attitude
2) People getting (often legitimately imho) squelched in the wilds (low lvls being slain by drow as a good example) and not being terribly happy
3) More serious consequences for PvP death

Alot of people have suggested that more serious consequences for PvP death are desirable. That may be true, but it may also make problems 1) and 2) worse. If there are more serious consequences, there's more incentive to go with the 'must win' because nasty consequences await if you don't (so more scroll spamming, running off to buff and coming back to slay people etc...). Similarly, those who are set upon in the wilds and get stomped (or is the correct internet jargon "pwnzorlzized".. not sure) end up bearing the, now worse, consequences of other peoples actions. In short, such a system actually encourages (and, in relative terms, rewards) the must win attitude, and simultaneously penalises people who just happen to get caught up in these situations (possibly even victims of the 'must win' crowd.

Anyway, just a thought on incentives (oh dear, is the economics training showing again ).

[Ula Fey]

Machiavelli (or can I call you Niccolo?) that's a very good summary of a potential problematic outcome.

One thing that is clear to me - it isn't going to be possible to make everyone happy. The best outcome I can see from this is that the powers that be in Sundren make a decision on how CvC is going to be, publish it, and then work with the players to ensure the rules are abided by. Irrespective of what those rules and up being.

The downside is that some players may be lost because they don't like the eventual rules. But, a clear ruling will surely be better than an ongoing attempt at a compromise to please everyone. And if the playerbase/world then develops in a way that is undesireable, the rules can be tweaked appropriately.

It's great that we, as players, are asked for our opinions, but ultimately it has to come down to the creators of the world telling us how it's going to be, and us as players then abiding by whatever is decided. Otherwise this argument will never reach a conclusion.

[Machiavelli]

It's great that we, as players, are asked for our opinions, but ultimately it has to come down to the creators of the world telling us how it's going to be, and us as players then abiding by whatever is decided. Otherwise this argument will never reach a conclusion.

Couldn't agree with you more Ula! I was (attempting) to be constructive (And even objective by focusing on one small thing!), but perhaps failing .

And yes, of course you may call me Niccolo

[Ula Fey]

I didn't mean to come off as disagreeing with you, or saying you shouldn't be expressing that opinion.....gah, the difficulty of expressing yourself clearly when written words can't convey a tone of voice, maybe I should start including emotes......

*continues in a measured tone of voice, with a positive undertone of friendly agreement*

I thought you made an excellent summary there. My final point was an attempt to illustrate a problem I've seen elsewhere, on other PWs... if the PW designers attempt to keep everyone happy all the time, the result can be endless debate, and progress stifled by indecision. Strong 'leadership' will bring a better outcome, hopefully for the majority, and will maintain the consistency of quality that Sundren has achieved so far.

[Machiavelli]

I didn't mean to come off as disagreeing with you, or saying you shouldn't be expressing that opinion.....gah

All is Kewl Ula!. I'd just like to say that Ms Communication is a total bitch! I was (in a twisted way) attempting to agree with you and simultaneously use self-deprecating humour (it *really* doesnt translate well into forum posts, or at least when I try).

Back on topic...

I kinda like getting squelched in PvP (or is it CvC), as long as there's a good RP reason for it (and I do get squelched ). It seems alot has to do with peoples preferences and so forth, and also showing courtesy about initiating fights. Alot of the problems above seem to stem from these two issues, and perhaps the iron fist of tighter rules is the only solution! *gets on his jackboots and warms up for a goose-step* .

[Voided76]

What is missing I feel, is a subdual form of PVP, where the outcome is not actually fatal in the sense that someone might be doomed. it makes great sense, between the laws of battery and assault, and Murder. once you get to a point, there's little grey area, yanno, unless you take the time to assume some OOC place say badly wounded to stop a duel/fight/whatever.

As horribly permanent as death is I hear, Subdual with perhaps a curse at near death that penalizes you unable to run, dex/cha/str penalties and what have you, to come back, like some have suggested, but yeah. PVP Does Not and perhaps Should Not = Death in most cases. Most characters are too goodhearted to just put someone down for the sake of ending an arguement, but lets face it, ego is ego, and things sometimes come to blows.

any in agreement?

[Ula Fey]

I think subdual is planned already...and I personally like it as an option.

'those drow beat seven kinds of ...stuff out of me...I had to crawl back to town. I was lucky to survive....'

[Machiavelli]

What is missing I feel, is a subdual form of PVP

Nice! Dig that bigtime.

[Skro]

What is missing I feel, is a subdual form of PVP, where the outcome is not actually fatal in the sense that someone might be doomed. it makes great sense, between the laws of battery and assault, and Murder. once you get to a point, there's little grey area, yanno, unless you take the time to assume some OOC place say badly wounded to stop a duel/fight/whatever.

As horribly permanent as death is I hear, Subdual with perhaps a curse at near death that penalizes you unable to run, dex/cha/str penalties and what have you, to come back, like some have suggested, but yeah. PVP Does Not and perhaps Should Not = Death in most cases. Most characters are too goodhearted to just put someone down for the sake of ending an arguement, but lets face it, ego is ego, and things sometimes come to blows.

any in agreement?

Im agree with you. Maybe *takes the D&D 2.0. Manual and shoves the spider webs* Gah! Lolth! *uses insecticide* Well... *opens it*
Maybe the admins and programmers may discuss the idea of Non Lethal Damage for the fists (Excepting monks), so when the HP reaches to 0 or negative, the character stabilizes and fall uncouncious, with the add of: If the last punch is a critical, considers it lethal.
This way if the situation ran out of words and the characters will to fight they have the posibility to fight with the fists. In some manner this will encourage some more of RP like duels and challenges of strenght and endurance, avoiding the XP loss or the trauma of death.

[CrimsonTears]

I haven't tried the new client version yet, but one of the things that were being worked on and commented was a system for non-lethal combat. Anyone can confirm if it's in or not?

[Ula Fey]

Skro...I'd like to be able to do subdual damage with any weapon, not just bare fists.

*beats the peasant with the flat of his sword* sort of thing.