Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
>>I was replying specifically to the person advocating forcing everyone to be Open, and I am comfortable with my analogy.
Eh, that person was not advocating anything. He/She was just stating their preference, and even said that they knew it wasn't likely to happen. Can people who aren't Closed/Guarded/Reporters state their preferences?
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
I'm open PvP, Medium RP.
My Open PvP is with a heavy dose of "really would prefer not to just get Ganked at random, but if you feel you must I don't mind being a target as long as yer cool about it."
If yer not cool about it, I'm liable to walk/depart away and ruin your fun. (by removing myself as a target, not by reporting)
~Tieriana~
My Open PvP is with a heavy dose of "really would prefer not to just get Ganked at random, but if you feel you must I don't mind being a target as long as yer cool about it."
If yer not cool about it, I'm liable to walk/depart away and ruin your fun. (by removing myself as a target, not by reporting)
~Tieriana~
<<If a "closed" person is attacking someone with out consent
I thought the definition of open was essentially "I grant consent to all comers!". Isn't an unconcented attack on an open character a contradiction?
As to 'acting your own stance' or any such nonsense, I don't see it working that way. Stance is (at least as written) your level of invitation to other players with regard to how you want or are willing to be treated, not a self-limitation on the invitations offered by others that you are willing to accept.
Suppose we live in the same area and I have my land posted with 'no trespassing' signs. You, on the other hand, plow down your cornfield and build a baseball diamond and invite everyone in the neighborhood to come over and play any time. Does my no-trespassing signs mean that I shouldn't accept your invitation and join the baseball game?
If you are open you have essentially extended a PvP invitation to the entire game. But just because somebody is willing to attend your dinner party doesn't mean they want to hold one at their own house.
An 'open vs. open' stance option makes sense as it allows the option to selectively extend the invitation to PvP to only like minded individuals.
<<If they go 'Open vs Open', what does that really change? They'll start reporting people?
Not necessarily, but it would have an effect on who was willing to engage in PvP with them which would lessen the amount of frustration those players have to deal with with regards to policy.
<<I don't think closed should be able to attack players all.
I disagree. There needs to be at least one (default) stance that allows players to play under the exact same rules that everyone played under before the profile system was introduced. In fact, I still think we should be able to opt out of the profile system altogether. Checking the profile of a player who has opted out of the system would simply return a message that the player in question had opted out of the profile system and normal consent policy applies.
Personally, I don't want to be open, open vs. open, guarded or closed.
As to auto-changing profiles, I generally oppose this. Just because I choose to spend my time in a friendly conflict with people I know doesn't mean I'm inviting the entire population of the game to act against me, which is what a change to overall stance would do. Players should be able to generally play within their own social groups without game mechanics inviting the rest of the game to join the frey.
You suddenly feel nauseous, as if you'd been doing performance art.
I thought the definition of open was essentially "I grant consent to all comers!". Isn't an unconcented attack on an open character a contradiction?
As to 'acting your own stance' or any such nonsense, I don't see it working that way. Stance is (at least as written) your level of invitation to other players with regard to how you want or are willing to be treated, not a self-limitation on the invitations offered by others that you are willing to accept.
Suppose we live in the same area and I have my land posted with 'no trespassing' signs. You, on the other hand, plow down your cornfield and build a baseball diamond and invite everyone in the neighborhood to come over and play any time. Does my no-trespassing signs mean that I shouldn't accept your invitation and join the baseball game?
If you are open you have essentially extended a PvP invitation to the entire game. But just because somebody is willing to attend your dinner party doesn't mean they want to hold one at their own house.
An 'open vs. open' stance option makes sense as it allows the option to selectively extend the invitation to PvP to only like minded individuals.
<<If they go 'Open vs Open', what does that really change? They'll start reporting people?
Not necessarily, but it would have an effect on who was willing to engage in PvP with them which would lessen the amount of frustration those players have to deal with with regards to policy.
<<I don't think closed should be able to attack players all.
I disagree. There needs to be at least one (default) stance that allows players to play under the exact same rules that everyone played under before the profile system was introduced. In fact, I still think we should be able to opt out of the profile system altogether. Checking the profile of a player who has opted out of the system would simply return a message that the player in question had opted out of the profile system and normal consent policy applies.
Personally, I don't want to be open, open vs. open, guarded or closed.
As to auto-changing profiles, I generally oppose this. Just because I choose to spend my time in a friendly conflict with people I know doesn't mean I'm inviting the entire population of the game to act against me, which is what a change to overall stance would do. Players should be able to generally play within their own social groups without game mechanics inviting the rest of the game to join the frey.
You suddenly feel nauseous, as if you'd been doing performance art.
I guess what I don't understand is, why should a person who is guarded or closed even be interacting with an open character on a PvP level in the first place? All this does is create problems later on when the guarded/closed individual decides to take his ball and go home.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
>>Suppose we live in the same area and I have my land posted with 'no trespassing' signs. You, on the other hand, plow down your cornfield and build a baseball diamond and invite everyone in the neighborhood to come over and play any time. Does my no-trespassing signs mean that I shouldn't accept your invitation and join the baseball game?
>>But just because somebody is willing to attend your dinner party doesn't mean they want to hold one at their own house.
The reason why your examples fail is because you're comparing events/meetings/parties/gatherings to the behavior of a DR player. The key word here is Behavior. If someone behaves in a way they don't want to be treated then they are being a hyprocrit, nothing more.
Whether the GMs wish to punish hypocrits or not is up to them, but Celesi is an example of why your argument really doesn't hold.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
>>But just because somebody is willing to attend your dinner party doesn't mean they want to hold one at their own house.
The reason why your examples fail is because you're comparing events/meetings/parties/gatherings to the behavior of a DR player. The key word here is Behavior. If someone behaves in a way they don't want to be treated then they are being a hyprocrit, nothing more.
Whether the GMs wish to punish hypocrits or not is up to them, but Celesi is an example of why your argument really doesn't hold.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
>>ALDEN
I meant in PvP situations, not normal interactions. I honestly think that with the number of open players out there it is easier to go play with someone who wants to play any time, rather than when they feel like it. I don't want to seem like I am puting any group of people down, and I am sure that there are Guarded/Closed people who are cool about conflicts when they come up, but I have heard a few stories from my roomates of policy lawyering etc. and I don't want to deal with it. If a first strike mechanic set your profile to open for 48 hrs or so, I think it would curb the policy games some people play.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
I meant in PvP situations, not normal interactions. I honestly think that with the number of open players out there it is easier to go play with someone who wants to play any time, rather than when they feel like it. I don't want to seem like I am puting any group of people down, and I am sure that there are Guarded/Closed people who are cool about conflicts when they come up, but I have heard a few stories from my roomates of policy lawyering etc. and I don't want to deal with it. If a first strike mechanic set your profile to open for 48 hrs or so, I think it would curb the policy games some people play.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
>>I thought the definition of open was essentially "I grant consent to all comers!". Isn't an unconcented attack on an open character a contradiction?<<
He's just talking about an attack that would be unconsented were it committed on a Guarded or Closed character.
>>As to 'acting your own stance' or any such nonsense, I don't see it working that way. Stance is (at least as written) your level of invitation to other players with regard to how you want or are willing to be treated, not a self-limitation on the invitations offered by others that you are willing to accept.<<
Several people have had their PvP stances reset because their actions didn't meet their stated preferences. Your PvP stance indicates how you want to approach PvP generally - both how you want to be engaged and how you will engage other people. The broad principal seems to be that if you want to dish out unregulated PvP you have to be prepared to accept it as well.
I think we can both agree that whatever else we think about the profile system, this is a healthy and sensible dynamic. Anyone who wants it to be the way it used to be can still have that. You can perfectly mimic that dynamic by going PvP Closed and treating everyone else as though they were PvP Closed regardless of their profiles.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
He's just talking about an attack that would be unconsented were it committed on a Guarded or Closed character.
>>As to 'acting your own stance' or any such nonsense, I don't see it working that way. Stance is (at least as written) your level of invitation to other players with regard to how you want or are willing to be treated, not a self-limitation on the invitations offered by others that you are willing to accept.<<
Several people have had their PvP stances reset because their actions didn't meet their stated preferences. Your PvP stance indicates how you want to approach PvP generally - both how you want to be engaged and how you will engage other people. The broad principal seems to be that if you want to dish out unregulated PvP you have to be prepared to accept it as well.
I think we can both agree that whatever else we think about the profile system, this is a healthy and sensible dynamic. Anyone who wants it to be the way it used to be can still have that. You can perfectly mimic that dynamic by going PvP Closed and treating everyone else as though they were PvP Closed regardless of their profiles.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
In general I like what Mazrian said.
What I object to in regards to the 'auto-first strike/auto Open idea' is that as the player of a Guarded character, I certainly reserve the right to strike first if someone is being a complete jerk. But if I go the route of attacking someone because some other character has pushed me to it, I have no interest in fighting his gang, or his pals, or his paid assassins. I either kill him, or he kills me, and as far as I am concerned its over with. I have no interest in 48 hours of being Open and waiting for the same jerk to jump me while I am hunting.
Anyway- this is really just talk anyway- sounds like they are headed in the direction in regards to auto settings for a characters repeated actions- that seems like a reasonable approach.
What I object to in regards to the 'auto-first strike/auto Open idea' is that as the player of a Guarded character, I certainly reserve the right to strike first if someone is being a complete jerk. But if I go the route of attacking someone because some other character has pushed me to it, I have no interest in fighting his gang, or his pals, or his paid assassins. I either kill him, or he kills me, and as far as I am concerned its over with. I have no interest in 48 hours of being Open and waiting for the same jerk to jump me while I am hunting.
Anyway- this is really just talk anyway- sounds like they are headed in the direction in regards to auto settings for a characters repeated actions- that seems like a reasonable approach.
Acting on consent should never change your profile settings, even if you strike first. As I'm not sure the game can track all the means of granting or receiving consent (particularly verbal ones or friendly battles between friends such as tourneys and the like) I oppose any systemic adjustments to player profiles.
If I and two or three of my friends wanted to spend an afternoon trying to slaughter each other, we clearly should be able to do so without opening ourselves up to being attacked by the rest of the player base.
You suddenly feel nauseous, as if you'd been doing performance art.
If I and two or three of my friends wanted to spend an afternoon trying to slaughter each other, we clearly should be able to do so without opening ourselves up to being attacked by the rest of the player base.
You suddenly feel nauseous, as if you'd been doing performance art.
>>But if I go the route of attacking someone because some other character has pushed me to it, I have no interest in fighting his gang, or his pals, or his paid assassins.
No other character can push you to do anything you don't want to. You are still choosing to attack, regardless of how you justify it. There should be consequences for the course you choose. IMO, the fact that so many folks are willing to engage someone in PvP and expect no adverse consequences for their actions speaks a ton about the current system in use.
>>I either kill him, or he kills me, and as far as I am concerned its over with.
It's a good theory, and almost never holds true from what I've seen.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
No other character can push you to do anything you don't want to. You are still choosing to attack, regardless of how you justify it. There should be consequences for the course you choose. IMO, the fact that so many folks are willing to engage someone in PvP and expect no adverse consequences for their actions speaks a ton about the current system in use.
>>I either kill him, or he kills me, and as far as I am concerned its over with.
It's a good theory, and almost never holds true from what I've seen.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
"No other character can push you to do anything you don't want to."
Of course not. As I mentioned, my character is Guarded. I can count on one hand the number of times I have gotten into actual violent confrontations with other characters, outside of some scenario. However, if the situation warrents it, I reserve the right to respond appropriately- and heck, if the other person is making it fun for both of us(the players), I would likely join in. I have no big issue with dieing. Unless the other player is truely incompetant and their character considerably weaker than Flavius, Flavius is likely going to end up dead anyway.
"You are still choosing to attack, regardless of how you justify it."
Of course. If someone were standing there slapping my character, messing with my pyramids or saying unkind things about my characters mother, I can simply walk away. Or I can chose to act upon their provocation. My character however will never attack another character unprovoked.
"There should be consequences for the course you choose."
Of course- the person who I act upon has every right, under consent, to respond.
"IMO, the fact that so many folks are willing to engage someone in PvP and expect no adverse consequences for their actions speaks a ton about the current system in use."
I am fine with the character responding. Or his bonded spouse. Not his gang, his buddies or his hired assasins. If the jerk who irritates me enough so that I will bother to respond, I intend it to be between himself and myself. I won't be crying to some friend of mine to kill him on my behalf, and I don't want him bringing in his bought 150 circle character to finish what his first character couldn't handle.
">>I either kill him, or he kills me, and as far as I am concerned its over with."
"It's a good theory, and almost never holds true from what I've seen."
Its worked out just fine for me so far. If Joe Bob manages to provoke a reaction from Flavius, Joe Bob and Flavius can resolve it between themselves. I will not go to friends and ask them to help me get my revenge on Joe Bob, and I don't want Joe Bob's goons coming after me the next day. CvC is not my thing in general.
Of course not. As I mentioned, my character is Guarded. I can count on one hand the number of times I have gotten into actual violent confrontations with other characters, outside of some scenario. However, if the situation warrents it, I reserve the right to respond appropriately- and heck, if the other person is making it fun for both of us(the players), I would likely join in. I have no big issue with dieing. Unless the other player is truely incompetant and their character considerably weaker than Flavius, Flavius is likely going to end up dead anyway.
"You are still choosing to attack, regardless of how you justify it."
Of course. If someone were standing there slapping my character, messing with my pyramids or saying unkind things about my characters mother, I can simply walk away. Or I can chose to act upon their provocation. My character however will never attack another character unprovoked.
"There should be consequences for the course you choose."
Of course- the person who I act upon has every right, under consent, to respond.
"IMO, the fact that so many folks are willing to engage someone in PvP and expect no adverse consequences for their actions speaks a ton about the current system in use."
I am fine with the character responding. Or his bonded spouse. Not his gang, his buddies or his hired assasins. If the jerk who irritates me enough so that I will bother to respond, I intend it to be between himself and myself. I won't be crying to some friend of mine to kill him on my behalf, and I don't want him bringing in his bought 150 circle character to finish what his first character couldn't handle.
">>I either kill him, or he kills me, and as far as I am concerned its over with."
"It's a good theory, and almost never holds true from what I've seen."
Its worked out just fine for me so far. If Joe Bob manages to provoke a reaction from Flavius, Joe Bob and Flavius can resolve it between themselves. I will not go to friends and ask them to help me get my revenge on Joe Bob, and I don't want Joe Bob's goons coming after me the next day. CvC is not my thing in general.
>>I will not go to friends and ask them to help me get my revenge on Joe Bob, and I don't want Joe Bob's goons coming after me the next day.
I don't think the timer should be that long, 2 or 3 hours while being LOGGED IN is more than enough. This is part of why I suggested the profile change until you are killed, so they couldn't repeatedly attack you.
Of course, then people would just hide in safe rooms. :(
Vashir: one day I will devise a weapon fueled by the tears of warrior mages
Vashir: it'll be unstoppable
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcszxzpn_22g3mtzcv
http://elanthipedia.com/wiki/Out_of_Character
I don't think the timer should be that long, 2 or 3 hours while being LOGGED IN is more than enough. This is part of why I suggested the profile change until you are killed, so they couldn't repeatedly attack you.
Of course, then people would just hide in safe rooms. :(
Vashir: one day I will devise a weapon fueled by the tears of warrior mages
Vashir: it'll be unstoppable
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcszxzpn_22g3mtzcv
http://elanthipedia.com/wiki/Out_of_Character
>>If I and two or three of my friends wanted to spend an afternoon trying to slaughter each other, we clearly should be able to do so without opening ourselves up to being attacked by the rest of the player base.
I watch out for Open people and if I and hundreds others see someone suddenly turn to Open we kill them without hesitation. Don't dare open yourself up ever.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
I watch out for Open people and if I and hundreds others see someone suddenly turn to Open we kill them without hesitation. Don't dare open yourself up ever.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
>>I am fine with the character responding. Or his bonded spouse. Not his gang, his buddies or his hired assasins. If the jerk who irritates me enough so that I will bother to respond, I intend it to be between himself and myself.<<
Unless someone has done your character material harm, I'm not sure it's in the public interest to let you have that option.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
Unless someone has done your character material harm, I'm not sure it's in the public interest to let you have that option.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
>>"Unless someone has done your character material harm, I'm not sure it's in the public interest to let you have that option."<<
A policy that allows someone to strike the first blow and essentially choose his own consequences encourages policy playing and probably makes folks more violent than they'd be if attacking opened them up to catching a fist full of knuckles from someone they weren't expecting.
Put another way...
There are things we recognize will validly provoke a violent response - someone attacking you first, someone stealing from you, etc. Things that put you in a self-defense situation, basically. Responding to these things should not change your profile.
Then there are things that miiiiight provoke a violent response depending on how tetchy you're feeling that day. Maybe someone threatened to kill your mom...but maybe they just looked at you funny. These are things that you could let slide, but could also pop someone over. They're also things it would be unlikely that an automated profile switcher could track.
Responding to these things should change your profile, because the attacks we want to discourage are the ones that would only happen if the profile were not switched. They are the attacks that 1) will most likely result in someone reporting if they go bad and 2) will only happen because being able to hide behind policy has made the would-be attacker brave.
Whatever we think of the profile system, I think we can agree that those sorts of PvP engagements are not optimal and ought to be discouraged.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
A policy that allows someone to strike the first blow and essentially choose his own consequences encourages policy playing and probably makes folks more violent than they'd be if attacking opened them up to catching a fist full of knuckles from someone they weren't expecting.
Put another way...
There are things we recognize will validly provoke a violent response - someone attacking you first, someone stealing from you, etc. Things that put you in a self-defense situation, basically. Responding to these things should not change your profile.
Then there are things that miiiiight provoke a violent response depending on how tetchy you're feeling that day. Maybe someone threatened to kill your mom...but maybe they just looked at you funny. These are things that you could let slide, but could also pop someone over. They're also things it would be unlikely that an automated profile switcher could track.
Responding to these things should change your profile, because the attacks we want to discourage are the ones that would only happen if the profile were not switched. They are the attacks that 1) will most likely result in someone reporting if they go bad and 2) will only happen because being able to hide behind policy has made the would-be attacker brave.
Whatever we think of the profile system, I think we can agree that those sorts of PvP engagements are not optimal and ought to be discouraged.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
First of all Mazrian, I appreciate your well written response.
"Then there are things that miiiiight provoke a violent response depending on how tetchy you're feeling that day. Maybe someone threatened to kill your mom...but maybe they just looked at you funny. These are things that you could let slide, but could also pop someone over. They're also things it would be unlikely that an automated profile switcher could track."
Really, I could let pretty much anything slide if I chose to. I can't speak about anyone else, but I said it before and will say again, that if Flavius were to attack someone there would be little doubt that he had been clearly, and intentionally provoked. I would probably have consent, but I really wouldn't worry about that. And I don't look at profiles.
"Responding to these things should change your profile, because the attacks we want to discourage are the ones that would only happen if the profile were not switched. They are the attacks that 1) will most likely result in someone reporting if they go bad and 2) will only happen because being able to hide behind policy has made the would-be attacker brave."
Funny, what I want to discourage is players who attempt to provoke consent, and then can't deal with a single death. I have seen enough players skirting the edge of consent, trying to provoke an action. I can deal with that. But I want to deal with that character, that time- not his gang, his brothers, his hired assassins and not two days later. I want to discourage characters from starting stuff they aren't willing to handle themselves.
"Whatever we think of the profile system, I think we can agree that those sorts of PvP engagements are not optimal and ought to be discouraged."
I actually agree with your basic argument- that attacks that happen only because the attacker thinks he can still report, or that he can hide behind policy should be discouraged.
I also think that characters should be willing to deal with the consequences of conflict that they initiate, and if they start something and die because it, they shouldn't be running off to their HLC buddy to finish what they couldn't. Characters relying on others to protect them from their own aggressions or to enact revenge that they can't should be discouraged.
"Then there are things that miiiiight provoke a violent response depending on how tetchy you're feeling that day. Maybe someone threatened to kill your mom...but maybe they just looked at you funny. These are things that you could let slide, but could also pop someone over. They're also things it would be unlikely that an automated profile switcher could track."
Really, I could let pretty much anything slide if I chose to. I can't speak about anyone else, but I said it before and will say again, that if Flavius were to attack someone there would be little doubt that he had been clearly, and intentionally provoked. I would probably have consent, but I really wouldn't worry about that. And I don't look at profiles.
"Responding to these things should change your profile, because the attacks we want to discourage are the ones that would only happen if the profile were not switched. They are the attacks that 1) will most likely result in someone reporting if they go bad and 2) will only happen because being able to hide behind policy has made the would-be attacker brave."
Funny, what I want to discourage is players who attempt to provoke consent, and then can't deal with a single death. I have seen enough players skirting the edge of consent, trying to provoke an action. I can deal with that. But I want to deal with that character, that time- not his gang, his brothers, his hired assassins and not two days later. I want to discourage characters from starting stuff they aren't willing to handle themselves.
"Whatever we think of the profile system, I think we can agree that those sorts of PvP engagements are not optimal and ought to be discouraged."
I actually agree with your basic argument- that attacks that happen only because the attacker thinks he can still report, or that he can hide behind policy should be discouraged.
I also think that characters should be willing to deal with the consequences of conflict that they initiate, and if they start something and die because it, they shouldn't be running off to their HLC buddy to finish what they couldn't. Characters relying on others to protect them from their own aggressions or to enact revenge that they can't should be discouraged.
>>I want to discourage characters from starting stuff they aren't willing to handle themselves.
But on the other side of the same coin you have you wanting the freedom to initiate the attack how you see fit from a closed/guarded stance. Like you yourself has said, you can just not make the move if you're not willing to deal with what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT happen.
But on the other side of the same coin you have you wanting the freedom to initiate the attack how you see fit from a closed/guarded stance. Like you yourself has said, you can just not make the move if you're not willing to deal with what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT happen.
>>Characters relying on others to protect them from their own aggressions or to enact revenge that they can't should be discouraged.
I disagree. It's low and lame, but it's within the setting of the game. It's IC, IG, for a character to rely on another (not 2 accounts).
However, for someone to hide behind policy just because Jim's buddy doesn't like him being killed is... yup, OOC and is not within the setting of the game.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
I disagree. It's low and lame, but it's within the setting of the game. It's IC, IG, for a character to rely on another (not 2 accounts).
However, for someone to hide behind policy just because Jim's buddy doesn't like him being killed is... yup, OOC and is not within the setting of the game.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
<<Characters relying on others to protect them from their own aggressions or to enact revenge that they can't should be discouraged.>>
If you think someone's just trying to troll you, ignore them. The above is only ever a problem if you allow it to be. Otherwise, if you RP demands you must react with force, it shouldn't evaporate when the target's allies respond in kind.
If I've been reading all this stuff right, that's one of the main points of the exercise.
~Kevalia~
If you think someone's just trying to troll you, ignore them. The above is only ever a problem if you allow it to be. Otherwise, if you RP demands you must react with force, it shouldn't evaporate when the target's allies respond in kind.
If I've been reading all this stuff right, that's one of the main points of the exercise.
~Kevalia~
>>I want to discourage characters from starting stuff they aren't willing to handle themselves.<<
I agree with that, but we have to think candidly about what "starting" means.
If someone assaults you, steals from you, thumps you, slaps you repeatedly, etc, I think we can all agree they are Starting Stuff.
Without those trackable cues, though, I think it's more reasonable to say that you are choosing to escalate the situation and Start Stuff in response to a stimulus.
If you start the fight, you shouldn't also be able to dictate who can participate. It's similar to the age-old convention for sharing food - one person divides, the other chooses his half.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
I agree with that, but we have to think candidly about what "starting" means.
If someone assaults you, steals from you, thumps you, slaps you repeatedly, etc, I think we can all agree they are Starting Stuff.
Without those trackable cues, though, I think it's more reasonable to say that you are choosing to escalate the situation and Start Stuff in response to a stimulus.
If you start the fight, you shouldn't also be able to dictate who can participate. It's similar to the age-old convention for sharing food - one person divides, the other chooses his half.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
"If you start the fight, you shouldn't also be able to dictate who can participate."
Well we will just disagree here.
I get the others point about the RP setting, but this is also a game, and there are also consent rules. I choose to be Guarded because yes indeed, I have no interest in prolonged PVP with all comers, and the description of Guarded seems about right to me. If the situation warrents it, I may respond accordingly, and the ensuing violence will be between myself and the other party- or his bonded spouse. If some buddy of his showed up the next day and made an interesting escalation of the conflict I might choose to participate, but if his buddy instead just backstabbed me out of the blue the next day while I was hunting I might chose to report him. All of this is irregardless of whether Flavius lived or died during the initial violence.
If I or anyone were to be abusing Guarded status, and regularly going around ganking Open players just because they are Open, then certainly that warrents them being forced to Open.
Well we will just disagree here.
I get the others point about the RP setting, but this is also a game, and there are also consent rules. I choose to be Guarded because yes indeed, I have no interest in prolonged PVP with all comers, and the description of Guarded seems about right to me. If the situation warrents it, I may respond accordingly, and the ensuing violence will be between myself and the other party- or his bonded spouse. If some buddy of his showed up the next day and made an interesting escalation of the conflict I might choose to participate, but if his buddy instead just backstabbed me out of the blue the next day while I was hunting I might chose to report him. All of this is irregardless of whether Flavius lived or died during the initial violence.
If I or anyone were to be abusing Guarded status, and regularly going around ganking Open players just because they are Open, then certainly that warrents them being forced to Open.
>If I or anyone were to be abusing Guarded status, and regularly going around ganking Open players just because they are Open, then certainly that warrents them being forced to Open.
So, how do we get them force them open? Assume that the people being ganked have no desire to type "report soandso is ganking open people, please make him open"
I can only think of two people who have been forced open off the top of my head. Celesi and Jhime. Celesi was starting stuff for years before the new system, and months after the new system, before a thread on the boards caught a GM's attention. And Jhime was just rampaging on everyone and everything and then attempting to report people retaliating (which is what I believe got him forced open; bringing attention upon his own blatant killing sprees).
As to your own viewpoint; I understand it. However, people play both sides of the fence regularly. Policy is just a mess.
So, how do we get them force them open? Assume that the people being ganked have no desire to type "report soandso is ganking open people, please make him open"
I can only think of two people who have been forced open off the top of my head. Celesi and Jhime. Celesi was starting stuff for years before the new system, and months after the new system, before a thread on the boards caught a GM's attention. And Jhime was just rampaging on everyone and everything and then attempting to report people retaliating (which is what I believe got him forced open; bringing attention upon his own blatant killing sprees).
As to your own viewpoint; I understand it. However, people play both sides of the fence regularly. Policy is just a mess.
"So, how do we get them force them open?"
I think that is what they are working on- a way of monitoring players interactions so that Players who are Closed or Guarded, but who are regularly employing first strikes against other characters can be forced to a stance that more closely resembles their actions. I would disagree that any first strike should result in being automatically set to Open for a certain period of time. But for characters that are clearly not acting Guarded or Closed on a repeated basis, sure set them Open.
I think that is what they are working on- a way of monitoring players interactions so that Players who are Closed or Guarded, but who are regularly employing first strikes against other characters can be forced to a stance that more closely resembles their actions. I would disagree that any first strike should result in being automatically set to Open for a certain period of time. But for characters that are clearly not acting Guarded or Closed on a repeated basis, sure set them Open.
>>I get the others point about the RP setting, but this is also a game, and there are also consent rules. I choose to be Guarded because yes indeed, I have no interest in prolonged PVP with all comers, and the description of Guarded seems about right to me. If the situation warrents it, I may respond accordingly, and the ensuing violence will be between myself and the other party- or his bonded spouse. If some buddy of his showed up the next day and made an interesting escalation of the conflict I might choose to participate, but if his buddy instead just backstabbed me out of the blue the next day while I was hunting I might chose to report him. All of this is irregardless of whether Flavius lived or died during the initial violence.<<
I understand this is how you feel, but I think that attitude overall is bad for DR and policies that accommodate that attitude are also bad for DR.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
I understand this is how you feel, but I think that attitude overall is bad for DR and policies that accommodate that attitude are also bad for DR.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
Flavius, to give you an idea about what Mazrian is talking about....
Tirsten decided that he didn't like Empaths coming in the gem shops and doing their thing, so he dragged them out(not sure if he killed any or not). I doubt any of them could do anything about it except report. They mainly just took it. Enter Mazrian who offered his services(or someone may have asked) to stop Tirsten from doing this. Mazrian accomplished this by killing Tirsten a few times. Now what we are saying is that Tirsten has no right to complain that Mazrian entered into this conflict because he started it. And at the same time, if Tirsten decided to hire someone to take out Mazrian, he could not complain.
Now Flavius, from what I gather you are saying is that Mazrian has no right being involved in this. So that leaves two options for those being dragged. First, report. And then if they do there is that group who yell BAD RPing. Or secondly, take it and move on. Which in my mind makes this game Snertrealms instead of Dragonrealms. I'm really curious what you think and why?
Tirsten decided that he didn't like Empaths coming in the gem shops and doing their thing, so he dragged them out(not sure if he killed any or not). I doubt any of them could do anything about it except report. They mainly just took it. Enter Mazrian who offered his services(or someone may have asked) to stop Tirsten from doing this. Mazrian accomplished this by killing Tirsten a few times. Now what we are saying is that Tirsten has no right to complain that Mazrian entered into this conflict because he started it. And at the same time, if Tirsten decided to hire someone to take out Mazrian, he could not complain.
Now Flavius, from what I gather you are saying is that Mazrian has no right being involved in this. So that leaves two options for those being dragged. First, report. And then if they do there is that group who yell BAD RPing. Or secondly, take it and move on. Which in my mind makes this game Snertrealms instead of Dragonrealms. I'm really curious what you think and why?
"Tirsten decided that he didn't like Empaths coming in the gem shops and doing their thing, so he dragged them out(not sure if he killed any or not). I doubt any of them could do anything about it except report. They mainly just took it. Enter Mazrian who offered his services(or someone may have asked) to stop Tirsten from doing this. Mazrian accomplished this by killing Tirsten a few times. Now what we are saying is that Tirsten has no right to complain that Mazrian entered into this conflict because he started it. And at the same time, if Tirsten decided to hire someone to take out Mazrian, he could not complain."
I read about that scenario, and I agree that it sounded like Tirsten was being a jerk. And I have no idea whether Tirsten is Open, Guarded or Closed. Certainly he was acting like he was Open, could possibly justify calling himself Guarded but certainly wasn't acting Closed.
"Now Flavius, from what I gather you are saying is that Mazrian has no right being involved in this."
Mazrian certainly had no "right" to be involved. What was happening to the Empaths is none of Mazrian's business. However, I can see why he would want to be involved, or that the empaths would want him to be involved.
"So that leaves two options for those being dragged. First, report. And then if they do there is that group who yell BAD RPing."
Well, that really doesn't bother me- and I don't think it should be a consideration. A player can choose to report or not report, according to their own feelings on the matter.
"Or secondly, take it and move on."
Are you saying that Empaths can't defend themselves?
"Which in my mind makes this game Snertrealms instead of Dragonrealms."
Then DR has been Snertrealms for a long time, and what is proposed won't change that.
"I'm really curious what you think and why?"
I look at this from a very different perspective. Lets look at this from your same example, but from my perspective. Say Flavius was the character that Tirsten was dragging out, or slapping or doing whatever to. At some point, I decide that this is far to irritating of a provocation, and I attempt to kill Tirsten. Lets say that I manage to remember how to PVP and succeed. As far as I am concerned, I am done unless Tirsten starts up something again. Under your scenario, Tirsten can call upon his ingame gang- be it the Gooses or the Vibrant Shade or the Fragrant Mooses to come retaliate against me. As far as I concerned that would be the gang protecting the Snert. What I don't want is DR to become Gangrealms. I don't want to have to be part of a gang in order to protect myself.
I don't need others to protect my character, and I don't expect others to protect those who initiate conflict with mine.
I read about that scenario, and I agree that it sounded like Tirsten was being a jerk. And I have no idea whether Tirsten is Open, Guarded or Closed. Certainly he was acting like he was Open, could possibly justify calling himself Guarded but certainly wasn't acting Closed.
"Now Flavius, from what I gather you are saying is that Mazrian has no right being involved in this."
Mazrian certainly had no "right" to be involved. What was happening to the Empaths is none of Mazrian's business. However, I can see why he would want to be involved, or that the empaths would want him to be involved.
"So that leaves two options for those being dragged. First, report. And then if they do there is that group who yell BAD RPing."
Well, that really doesn't bother me- and I don't think it should be a consideration. A player can choose to report or not report, according to their own feelings on the matter.
"Or secondly, take it and move on."
Are you saying that Empaths can't defend themselves?
"Which in my mind makes this game Snertrealms instead of Dragonrealms."
Then DR has been Snertrealms for a long time, and what is proposed won't change that.
"I'm really curious what you think and why?"
I look at this from a very different perspective. Lets look at this from your same example, but from my perspective. Say Flavius was the character that Tirsten was dragging out, or slapping or doing whatever to. At some point, I decide that this is far to irritating of a provocation, and I attempt to kill Tirsten. Lets say that I manage to remember how to PVP and succeed. As far as I am concerned, I am done unless Tirsten starts up something again. Under your scenario, Tirsten can call upon his ingame gang- be it the Gooses or the Vibrant Shade or the Fragrant Mooses to come retaliate against me. As far as I concerned that would be the gang protecting the Snert. What I don't want is DR to become Gangrealms. I don't want to have to be part of a gang in order to protect myself.
I don't need others to protect my character, and I don't expect others to protect those who initiate conflict with mine.
>Under your scenario, Tirsten can call upon his ingame gang- be it the Gooses or the Vibrant Shade or the Fragrant Mooses to come retaliate against me. As far as I concerned that would be the gang protecting the Snert.
But let us take it a step further. You are both guarded. You attempt to retaliate, and fail. He kills you (he got what he wanted: a free kill). Now you expect him to leave you alone.
But he doesn't, he keeps on dragging you whenever you come into "his" shop, even after you've already died in your failed attack. Do you report, or just take it?
Or in the other scenario. You are guarded, he is open. You attempt to kill him and fail. Being upset, you ask your friend to come kill him. Being doubly upset, you ask your friend to gravecamp him. Your friend does this.
But even worse, your friend is also guarded. So now the person who started it is being gravecamped (well, it's his own damn fault for starting it, he deserves it!). And he can't have his friends kill your friend.
You just escalated it to more than 1 person. He is stuck by his lonesome. Fair?
Now another scenario. It's a Goose who starts it (omg, those evil gooses right?). You kill him for his silliness, perfectly okay. He comes crying to me. I laugh at him and tell him it's his own damn fault. I go back to hunting dillos and you never see me show up.
Some of us can be slightly more mature, I promise. =)
But let us take it a step further. You are both guarded. You attempt to retaliate, and fail. He kills you (he got what he wanted: a free kill). Now you expect him to leave you alone.
But he doesn't, he keeps on dragging you whenever you come into "his" shop, even after you've already died in your failed attack. Do you report, or just take it?
Or in the other scenario. You are guarded, he is open. You attempt to kill him and fail. Being upset, you ask your friend to come kill him. Being doubly upset, you ask your friend to gravecamp him. Your friend does this.
But even worse, your friend is also guarded. So now the person who started it is being gravecamped (well, it's his own damn fault for starting it, he deserves it!). And he can't have his friends kill your friend.
You just escalated it to more than 1 person. He is stuck by his lonesome. Fair?
Now another scenario. It's a Goose who starts it (omg, those evil gooses right?). You kill him for his silliness, perfectly okay. He comes crying to me. I laugh at him and tell him it's his own damn fault. I go back to hunting dillos and you never see me show up.
Some of us can be slightly more mature, I promise. =)
>>Now another scenario. It's a Goose who starts it (omg, those evil gooses right?). You kill him for his silliness, perfectly okay. He comes crying to me. I laugh at him and tell him it's his own damn fault. I go back to hunting dillos and you never see me show up.
>>Some of us can be slightly more mature, I promise. =)
Yeah, it appears to be nothing but paranoia to me. Not that Flavius' player is scared of anything, just that he automatically assumes that his character might get ganged. That notion (being against the player's desires) of course is not met by an attempt to RP the situation, but rather to cancel it by any means necessary: often my reporting. The scenario isn't given a chance at all and the 'gang' is often met by premature 'Griefer Impressions'.
It's a story I see often. I understand it's a game, and that's the greatest priority. At the same token, the more people realize it's just a game and don't take the tiniest form of negative conflict so seriously, the healthier the gaming environment becomes IMHO.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
>>Some of us can be slightly more mature, I promise. =)
Yeah, it appears to be nothing but paranoia to me. Not that Flavius' player is scared of anything, just that he automatically assumes that his character might get ganged. That notion (being against the player's desires) of course is not met by an attempt to RP the situation, but rather to cancel it by any means necessary: often my reporting. The scenario isn't given a chance at all and the 'gang' is often met by premature 'Griefer Impressions'.
It's a story I see often. I understand it's a game, and that's the greatest priority. At the same token, the more people realize it's just a game and don't take the tiniest form of negative conflict so seriously, the healthier the gaming environment becomes IMHO.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
"But he doesn't, he keeps on dragging you whenever you come into "his" shop, even after you've already died in your failed attack. Do you report, or just take it?"
Oh I can be more inventive than that. Certainly I reserve the option to report, though I don't think merely dragging someone out of a shop would qualify. I could stop going into that shop. I could move to another town. Or I could train really hard to be able to take him on. I wouldn't go whine to my friends about it- its not their problem, its mine.
"Or in the other scenario. You are guarded, he is open. You attempt to kill him and fail. Being upset, you ask your friend to come kill him. Being doubly upset, you ask your friend to gravecamp him. Your friend does this."
First of all, my whole point is that I wouldn't call in a friend to fight my battle. However, I am assuming that if someone is Open, they are willing to have any conflict with other characters, so he should be fine with that. If he isn't he shouldn't be Open but Guarded.
"But even worse, your friend is also guarded. So now the person who started it is being gravecamped (well, it's his own damn fault for starting it, he deserves it!). And he can't have his friends kill your friend."
Yeah sucks eh? Personally, I think that someone who is Guarded shouldn't be getting involved in that manner. And as I said before, I am all for a system that would monitor and auto change the settings of someone who is repeatedly doing first strikes, and I would also include grave robbing in that. But then again, the Open person chose his setting- one way or another, and should be willing to accept the consequences. If it escalates to harassment, he can always report. There are also ways his friends can get involved to prevent the repeated killings- and who has graves anymore anyway?
"You just escalated it to more than 1 person. He is stuck by his lonesome. Fair?"
Nope, not fair- but then again, if he hadn't chosen to a) start the conflict and b) to be Open he wouldn't have put himself in that position.
I am not in anyway saying that there aren't potential inequities with the current consent system. But I see as many inequities in automatically changing the profile to Open of anyone who acts as Guarded and responds to provocation.
My perspective is different from the rest of yours. I don't normally engage in PVP, and the idea of a prolonged conflict isn't exciting to me. Its very simple to me- if you are going to start crap with me, handle it yourself, and so will I.
Oh I can be more inventive than that. Certainly I reserve the option to report, though I don't think merely dragging someone out of a shop would qualify. I could stop going into that shop. I could move to another town. Or I could train really hard to be able to take him on. I wouldn't go whine to my friends about it- its not their problem, its mine.
"Or in the other scenario. You are guarded, he is open. You attempt to kill him and fail. Being upset, you ask your friend to come kill him. Being doubly upset, you ask your friend to gravecamp him. Your friend does this."
First of all, my whole point is that I wouldn't call in a friend to fight my battle. However, I am assuming that if someone is Open, they are willing to have any conflict with other characters, so he should be fine with that. If he isn't he shouldn't be Open but Guarded.
"But even worse, your friend is also guarded. So now the person who started it is being gravecamped (well, it's his own damn fault for starting it, he deserves it!). And he can't have his friends kill your friend."
Yeah sucks eh? Personally, I think that someone who is Guarded shouldn't be getting involved in that manner. And as I said before, I am all for a system that would monitor and auto change the settings of someone who is repeatedly doing first strikes, and I would also include grave robbing in that. But then again, the Open person chose his setting- one way or another, and should be willing to accept the consequences. If it escalates to harassment, he can always report. There are also ways his friends can get involved to prevent the repeated killings- and who has graves anymore anyway?
"You just escalated it to more than 1 person. He is stuck by his lonesome. Fair?"
Nope, not fair- but then again, if he hadn't chosen to a) start the conflict and b) to be Open he wouldn't have put himself in that position.
I am not in anyway saying that there aren't potential inequities with the current consent system. But I see as many inequities in automatically changing the profile to Open of anyone who acts as Guarded and responds to provocation.
My perspective is different from the rest of yours. I don't normally engage in PVP, and the idea of a prolonged conflict isn't exciting to me. Its very simple to me- if you are going to start crap with me, handle it yourself, and so will I.
<<Its very simple to me- if you are going to start crap with me, handle it yourself, and so will I.>>
What do you all generally think the difference is between asking friends for help (or having friends who step in on their own initiative) and reporting so the GMs come resolve the conflict for you?
~Kevalia~
What do you all generally think the difference is between asking friends for help (or having friends who step in on their own initiative) and reporting so the GMs come resolve the conflict for you?
~Kevalia~
>But I see as many inequities...
You (generic you) reserve the right to have my character permanently and forever removed from the gaming environment, a character I have been playing off and on for 8 years. B/c your (generic) text died one day and you (generic) were having a bad day IRL and decided to take it out on my text by typing >report soandso just killed me w/o consent!
There are stronger inequities on your side of the fence than my side of the fence. In my opinion anyway.
It's a game. Dying, even repeatedly, doesn't change that fact. When you (generic) chooses to report for something as silly as a single text death, you make it into much more than a game.
And this is why open prefer to play with open. We know we each have chosen to give up our right to completely obliterate our time investment.
Open is about a lot more than just "kill kill kill gangs murder!". It's about being honest to ourselves, and saying that it is just a game. That we aren't going to be so upset that we'll try to demolish all enjoyment that could come from it.
You (generic you) reserve the right to have my character permanently and forever removed from the gaming environment, a character I have been playing off and on for 8 years. B/c your (generic) text died one day and you (generic) were having a bad day IRL and decided to take it out on my text by typing >report soandso just killed me w/o consent!
There are stronger inequities on your side of the fence than my side of the fence. In my opinion anyway.
It's a game. Dying, even repeatedly, doesn't change that fact. When you (generic) chooses to report for something as silly as a single text death, you make it into much more than a game.
And this is why open prefer to play with open. We know we each have chosen to give up our right to completely obliterate our time investment.
Open is about a lot more than just "kill kill kill gangs murder!". It's about being honest to ourselves, and saying that it is just a game. That we aren't going to be so upset that we'll try to demolish all enjoyment that could come from it.
>>Open is about a lot more than just "kill kill kill gangs murder!". It's about being honest to ourselves, and saying that it is just a game. That we aren't going to be so upset that we'll try to demolish all enjoyment that could come from it.
That's part of something I meant to hit on earlier about what someone else said. Being Open doesn't always mean we are inviting conflict and want to be killed at any point in time. It doesn't mean we are inviting people to camp us and kill us while we're hunting. I can honestly say that just about no one wants to be camped and killed repeatedly, especially while hunting.
It is not always invitation on our part. Do you (generic you) believe that the 5th circle Open character wants to be killed at anytime by a 150th character? Do you believe that the character is inviting 150ths and others they can't touch to kill them?
Being Open is not just because people want conflict, it is acceptance to any scenario people want to bring. Some people choose Open because they realize that the best friend of the person they killed won't truly be able to RP their character without being Open. Some people choose Open because they want others to know that they will attempt to RP any situation. So yeah, just because Billy the 8th circle Empath is Open doesn't mean he is a griefer/gangster.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
That's part of something I meant to hit on earlier about what someone else said. Being Open doesn't always mean we are inviting conflict and want to be killed at any point in time. It doesn't mean we are inviting people to camp us and kill us while we're hunting. I can honestly say that just about no one wants to be camped and killed repeatedly, especially while hunting.
It is not always invitation on our part. Do you (generic you) believe that the 5th circle Open character wants to be killed at anytime by a 150th character? Do you believe that the character is inviting 150ths and others they can't touch to kill them?
Being Open is not just because people want conflict, it is acceptance to any scenario people want to bring. Some people choose Open because they realize that the best friend of the person they killed won't truly be able to RP their character without being Open. Some people choose Open because they want others to know that they will attempt to RP any situation. So yeah, just because Billy the 8th circle Empath is Open doesn't mean he is a griefer/gangster.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
