Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Could it please be considered that if a player who is closed or guarded attacks (i.e. kills) another player, their PvP stance is set to that of the victim's for a short period of time?
Like say, 30 minutes or until they die, whichever is shorter.
As it is now you really don't have recourse (especially if you are open) if you're a noob or not combat-focused, and then high level characters cannot just gank people or enact revenge because their alt was gweth smashed for being OOC.
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
<<Could it please be considered that if a player who is closed or guarded attacks (i.e. kills) another player, their PvP stance is set to that of the victim's for a short period of time?>>
Wait? if I'm guarded and I attack a person who is closed since they granted me consent I get set to closed?
<<As it is now you really don't have recourse (especially if you are open) if you're a noob or not combat-focused, and then high level characters cannot just gank people or enact revenge because their alt was gweth smashed for being OOC.>>
Being open means you are OK with these kinds of interactions. If you are not OK with these kinda of interactions you might consider going guarded.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
Wait? if I'm guarded and I attack a person who is closed since they granted me consent I get set to closed?
<<As it is now you really don't have recourse (especially if you are open) if you're a noob or not combat-focused, and then high level characters cannot just gank people or enact revenge because their alt was gweth smashed for being OOC.>>
Being open means you are OK with these kinds of interactions. If you are not OK with these kinda of interactions you might consider going guarded.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
>>Wait? if I'm guarded and I attack a person who is closed since they granted me consent I get set to closed?
Don't be dense, you know what I meant.
>>Being open means you are OK with these kinds of interactions. If you are not OK with these kinda of interactions you might consider going guarded.
This has nothing to do with anything that's happened to my characters, it's just frustrating to watch it happen to others and be unable to step in on their behalf when they cannot defend themselves properly. This would solve that.
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
Don't be dense, you know what I meant.
>>Being open means you are OK with these kinds of interactions. If you are not OK with these kinda of interactions you might consider going guarded.
This has nothing to do with anything that's happened to my characters, it's just frustrating to watch it happen to others and be unable to step in on their behalf when they cannot defend themselves properly. This would solve that.
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
<<Don't be dense, you know what I meant.>>
I prefer to go by what people actually say and post instead of assuming things that aren't actually there. Things go much smoother that way.
If you have something to say it it explicitly, don't beat around the bush.
<<This has nothing to do with anything that's happened to my characters, it's just frustrating to watch it happen to others and be unable to step in on their behalf when they cannot defend themselves properly. This would solve that.>>
If they are open, or have granted consent to someone that is the consequence of their actions. If they didn't want to deal with said consequences, there are options they can perform that would limit the said actions in the future.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
I prefer to go by what people actually say and post instead of assuming things that aren't actually there. Things go much smoother that way.
If you have something to say it it explicitly, don't beat around the bush.
<<This has nothing to do with anything that's happened to my characters, it's just frustrating to watch it happen to others and be unable to step in on their behalf when they cannot defend themselves properly. This would solve that.>>
If they are open, or have granted consent to someone that is the consequence of their actions. If they didn't want to deal with said consequences, there are options they can perform that would limit the said actions in the future.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
>>If you have something to say it it explicitly, don't beat around the bush.
...I'm certain it was fairly clear, you are just twisting words for no apparent reason whatsoever.
>>If they are open, or have granted consent to someone that is the consequence of their actions. If they didn't want to deal with said consequences, there are options they can perform that would limit the said actions in the future.
If they are Open it means they are okay with PvP. It shouldn't mean a noob who is Open has no recourse because someone who is Closed decided to kill them. They shouldn't have to just TAKE it and their only RP option being that, simply because someone else is more powerful.
The only thing they could do currently is to get bonded to a HLC, and that shouldn't be the only option. My Thief, if she was not strong enough to fight back would definitely hire someone else to take care of it for her.
All of the conflicts I have ever been in (and there aren't many, I don't even particularly like PvP) have been with CLOSED people thinking they were bigger than my Thief and that I wouldn't be able to actually defend myself.
Though, as an alternative option, I would be okay with being able to transfer your consent against someone to another player (with a huge WARNING to everyone involved that it has happened).
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'm certain it was fairly clear, you are just twisting words for no apparent reason whatsoever.
>>If they are open, or have granted consent to someone that is the consequence of their actions. If they didn't want to deal with said consequences, there are options they can perform that would limit the said actions in the future.
If they are Open it means they are okay with PvP. It shouldn't mean a noob who is Open has no recourse because someone who is Closed decided to kill them. They shouldn't have to just TAKE it and their only RP option being that, simply because someone else is more powerful.
The only thing they could do currently is to get bonded to a HLC, and that shouldn't be the only option. My Thief, if she was not strong enough to fight back would definitely hire someone else to take care of it for her.
All of the conflicts I have ever been in (and there aren't many, I don't even particularly like PvP) have been with CLOSED people thinking they were bigger than my Thief and that I wouldn't be able to actually defend myself.
Though, as an alternative option, I would be okay with being able to transfer your consent against someone to another player (with a huge WARNING to everyone involved that it has happened).
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 they are Open it means they are okay with PvP. It shouldn't mean a noob who is Open has no recourse because someone who is Closed decided to kill them. They shouldn't have to just TAKE it and their only RP option being that, simply because someone else is more powerful.
Agreed. Being open shouldn't put you at a disadvantage like this. For that reason, I really like the idea of Open vs Open only. I would use that setting on all of my characters.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
Agreed. Being open shouldn't put you at a disadvantage like this. For that reason, I really like the idea of Open vs Open only. I would use that setting on all of my characters.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
| >If they are Open it means they are okay with PvP. It shouldn't mean a noob who is Open has no recourse because someone who is Closed decided to kill them. They shouldn't have to just TAKE it and their only RP option being that, simply because someone else is more powerful. |
| Agreed. Being open shouldn't put you at a disadvantage like this. For that reason, I really like the idea of Open vs Open only. I would use that setting on all of my characters. |
While Closed people shouldn't attack others unless they have been granted consent. That is a separate issue of people misusing the profile system. That aside, I'm not following the logic here.
| It's just a game, a death is not the end of the world. Even 3 deaths in a span of 10 minutes to people with combats 800 ranks higher just because of your characters last name after not having interacted with any of the people killing you for 4 months, isn't the end of the world. |
| Sounds like: I lost so I don't like being Open but if I win then it's ok. |
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
>>For that reason, I really like the idea of Open vs Open only. I would use that setting on all of my characters.
This would be perfect.
GMs: plz?
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
This would be perfect.
GMs: plz?
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
Whats the problem with Guarded Vs Open again?
I missed it or something. IF a Guarded Person attacks a Open person then they intiated the conflict so they gave consent like normal. The only thing it sort of stops is... Open person friends from jumping Guarded person since the consent is only One on One.
The Dragon priest hisses, "We'd have won, too, if it weren't for thossse meddling kidsss."
>
I missed it or something. IF a Guarded Person attacks a Open person then they intiated the conflict so they gave consent like normal. The only thing it sort of stops is... Open person friends from jumping Guarded person since the consent is only One on One.
The Dragon priest hisses, "We'd have won, too, if it weren't for thossse meddling kidsss."
>
>>I missed it or something.
The problem with it is that if a big Guarded/Closed player kills someone who can't defend themselves they can't retaliate.
Open vs. Open would solve the problem. Then Guarded and Closed can play together and if they wanna fight between themselves, so be it.
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
The problem with it is that if a big Guarded/Closed player kills someone who can't defend themselves they can't retaliate.
Open vs. Open would solve the problem. Then Guarded and Closed can play together and if they wanna fight between themselves, so be it.
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
>The problem with it is that if a big Guarded/Closed player kills someone who can't defend themselves they can't retaliate.
Pretty much this. If you're open, it means you don't want to play policy games. Closed or guarded vs open means the open person still needs to play all the policy/consent games while reaping no benefit whatsoever.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
Pretty much this. If you're open, it means you don't want to play policy games. Closed or guarded vs open means the open person still needs to play all the policy/consent games while reaping no benefit whatsoever.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
<<Whats the problem with Guarded Vs Open again?
It stacks the odds in favor of the guarded player. He can choose when to initiate the conflict. If he gets dominated he can go train for a while and come back. The open player just has to stand there and wait until the guarded guy attacks again.
First strike is so important, the 'ability' to always get first strike is pretty huge.
I don't care too much either way, been Open from 50th to 131st and never been attacked outside a tournament.
It stacks the odds in favor of the guarded player. He can choose when to initiate the conflict. If he gets dominated he can go train for a while and come back. The open player just has to stand there and wait until the guarded guy attacks again.
First strike is so important, the 'ability' to always get first strike is pretty huge.
I don't care too much either way, been Open from 50th to 131st and never been attacked outside a tournament.
"Sounds like: I lost so I don't like being Open but if I win then it's ok."
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
<<I'm not asking to change people's flags, I just think an open vs open flag would be beneficial in general.>>
Would this "open vs open flag" prevent anyone from acting on granted consent? If not, how is this different from what we have? If it does, how does one justify a flag that works outside current policy?
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
Would this "open vs open flag" prevent anyone from acting on granted consent? If not, how is this different from what we have? If it does, how does one justify a flag that works outside current policy?
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
<<Would this "open vs open flag" prevent anyone from acting on granted consent? If not, how is this different from what we have? If it does, how does one justify a flag that works outside current policy?
It wouldn't prevent acting on consent. It would prevent closed/guarded people from ambushing an open person whenever they want. If you want to jump someone you would need to be prepared to go to war. As it stands you can be closed and pop any open person you want.
<<Personally I think the whole idea of being Open is that you are willing to deal with whatever.
I think he's suggesting this new setting because Open for anything isn't his cup of tea. Open for anything from people that are similarly open for anything doesn't seem like a bad idea.
It wouldn't prevent acting on consent. It would prevent closed/guarded people from ambushing an open person whenever they want. If you want to jump someone you would need to be prepared to go to war. As it stands you can be closed and pop any open person you want.
<<Personally I think the whole idea of being Open is that you are willing to deal with whatever.
I think he's suggesting this new setting because Open for anything isn't his cup of tea. Open for anything from people that are similarly open for anything doesn't seem like a bad idea.
<<It would prevent closed/guarded people from ambushing an open person whenever they want.>>
This is pretty clearly a violation of the "closed" stance and has been stated as such by the GMs in this folder. The "Guarded" stance seems like they are indicating their desire to participate in PVP.
<<It wouldn't prevent acting on consent.>>
How is this different from what we currently have?
<<I think he's suggesting this new setting because Open for anything isn't his cup of tea. Open for anything from people that are similarly open for anything doesn't seem like a bad idea.>>
This is essentially being Guarded. Open means you are open to any and all PvP conflict, win or lose, from noob or supreme overlord. If you want only a select few to interact with in a PvP sense, Guarded would be the obvious choice.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
This is pretty clearly a violation of the "closed" stance and has been stated as such by the GMs in this folder. The "Guarded" stance seems like they are indicating their desire to participate in PVP.
<<It wouldn't prevent acting on consent.>>
How is this different from what we currently have?
<<I think he's suggesting this new setting because Open for anything isn't his cup of tea. Open for anything from people that are similarly open for anything doesn't seem like a bad idea.>>
This is essentially being Guarded. Open means you are open to any and all PvP conflict, win or lose, from noob or supreme overlord. If you want only a select few to interact with in a PvP sense, Guarded would be the obvious choice.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
>This is essentially being Guarded. Open means you are open to any and all PvP conflict, win or lose, from noob or supreme overlord. If you want only a select few to interact with in a PvP sense, Guarded would be the obvious choice.
What is hard to understand? If a person is going to be Guarded, and attack an Open person for absolutely no reason, the Guarded person needs to be willing to accept retaliation from anyone, not just the open person they attacked. Otherewise they are playing by a double standard; picking/choosing the fights they want, but expecting the Open person they just killed to play by more limiting rules.
The Open person can be perfectly willing to roll with the punches, but still want to be able to get revenge even if they themselves can not do it. It is not a complete disconnect to say "I am willing to roll with anything and everything and not be upset" and "but If you attack me, I want to be able to call in support (or whatever mercenary I can talk into it) to slaughter you since you're 100 circles bigger".
What is hard to understand? If a person is going to be Guarded, and attack an Open person for absolutely no reason, the Guarded person needs to be willing to accept retaliation from anyone, not just the open person they attacked. Otherewise they are playing by a double standard; picking/choosing the fights they want, but expecting the Open person they just killed to play by more limiting rules.
The Open person can be perfectly willing to roll with the punches, but still want to be able to get revenge even if they themselves can not do it. It is not a complete disconnect to say "I am willing to roll with anything and everything and not be upset" and "but If you attack me, I want to be able to call in support (or whatever mercenary I can talk into it) to slaughter you since you're 100 circles bigger".
>>Yamcer
We want a way to either keep Closed players from attacking those who CANNOT fight back, or a way to retaliate against them when one cannot.
Seriously, what about this do you not get? You can only say "I just don't understand" so many times.
It is not about NOT being okay with whatever random PvP happens to you. It is about being able to respond in a manner that makes sense. Not all characters need to enact revenge. Some it makes sense for. Forcing players to just take it is not cool.
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
We want a way to either keep Closed players from attacking those who CANNOT fight back, or a way to retaliate against them when one cannot.
Seriously, what about this do you not get? You can only say "I just don't understand" so many times.
It is not about NOT being okay with whatever random PvP happens to you. It is about being able to respond in a manner that makes sense. Not all characters need to enact revenge. Some it makes sense for. Forcing players to just take it is not cool.
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
<<What is hard to understand?>>
Do you really think an opposing view means I don't understand? This is why I've kept my sig line the same for all these years.
<<If a person is going to be Guarded, and attack an Open person for absolutely no reason, the Guarded person needs to be willing to accept retaliation from anyone, not just the open person they attacked.>>
I agree, and I stated, "The "Guarded" stance seems like they are indicating their desire to participate in PVP." That can be a bit tricky though.
<<We want a way to either keep Closed players from attacking those who CANNOT fight back, or a way to retaliate against them when one cannot.>>
If a "closed" person is attacking someone with out consent they are clearly abusing the closed flag. GMs have said this and have even corrected a few mis-flagged characters.
As for the "Open V Open." If you want to limit (keyword here is limit) your PvP options, there is a flag for that. Guarded.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
Do you really think an opposing view means I don't understand? This is why I've kept my sig line the same for all these years.
<<If a person is going to be Guarded, and attack an Open person for absolutely no reason, the Guarded person needs to be willing to accept retaliation from anyone, not just the open person they attacked.>>
I agree, and I stated, "The "Guarded" stance seems like they are indicating their desire to participate in PVP." That can be a bit tricky though.
<<We want a way to either keep Closed players from attacking those who CANNOT fight back, or a way to retaliate against them when one cannot.>>
If a "closed" person is attacking someone with out consent they are clearly abusing the closed flag. GMs have said this and have even corrected a few mis-flagged characters.
As for the "Open V Open." If you want to limit (keyword here is limit) your PvP options, there is a flag for that. Guarded.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
I do not have an opinion on the open vs open debate but i wanted to explain the reasoning for me to be guarded vs closed or open.
I see guarded as someone that doesnt mind PVP if its warranted and wont play the report trump-card. I dont like the idea of someone seeing that your open and kills you just because they feel like it.
Wanderer Larze
Your mind hears Aethyrr thinking, "fyrel I can't lick my hips"
I see guarded as someone that doesnt mind PVP if its warranted and wont play the report trump-card. I dont like the idea of someone seeing that your open and kills you just because they feel like it.
Wanderer Larze
Your mind hears Aethyrr thinking, "fyrel I can't lick my hips"
>I agree, and I stated, "The "Guarded" stance seems like they are indicating their desire to participate in PVP." That can be a bit tricky though.
Okay then. But a lot of people set to guarded don't agree; they feel a one way street is okay and acceptable. This is why the issue has been raised of removing the option for guarded to play unless they are really willing to play.
>I see guarded as someone that doesnt mind PVP if its warranted and wont play the report trump-card. I dont like the idea of someone seeing that your open and kills you just because they feel like it.
This is a good way to look at guarded. But you're just 1 of the people set to guarded; others have very wide views on it and how they act while guarded or treat guarded. And even the definition of "warranted" varies from player to player, and GM to GM.
Open does not allow any ambiguity - it is very clear cut that there is no recourse, and you accept the dice as they land.
Okay then. But a lot of people set to guarded don't agree; they feel a one way street is okay and acceptable. This is why the issue has been raised of removing the option for guarded to play unless they are really willing to play.
>I see guarded as someone that doesnt mind PVP if its warranted and wont play the report trump-card. I dont like the idea of someone seeing that your open and kills you just because they feel like it.
This is a good way to look at guarded. But you're just 1 of the people set to guarded; others have very wide views on it and how they act while guarded or treat guarded. And even the definition of "warranted" varies from player to player, and GM to GM.
Open does not allow any ambiguity - it is very clear cut that there is no recourse, and you accept the dice as they land.
>As for the "Open V Open." If you want to limit (keyword here is limit) your PvP options, there is a flag for that. Guarded.
It's not about limiting MY options, it's about limiting YOUR options (i.e. griefing and policy playing). As a staunch past supporter of Guarded stance and frequent debater with PvP-Open elitists, I would strongly consider using an OvO setting, which would partially (but not completely) address the concerns that keep me using Guarded for now.
I think it's a shame you're so afraid of PvP that you can't grasp how this would help people after having it explained to you clearly at least three times.
~ Kougen
The sand swirls around a s'sugi malchata, improving its balance.
The violence of the storm hurls a shadowling southwest!
It's not about limiting MY options, it's about limiting YOUR options (i.e. griefing and policy playing). As a staunch past supporter of Guarded stance and frequent debater with PvP-Open elitists, I would strongly consider using an OvO setting, which would partially (but not completely) address the concerns that keep me using Guarded for now.
I think it's a shame you're so afraid of PvP that you can't grasp how this would help people after having it explained to you clearly at least three times.
~ Kougen
The sand swirls around a s'sugi malchata, improving its balance.
The violence of the storm hurls a shadowling southwest!
Most times I am open other times when I am helping create things for events or weddings or whatever I set myself to guarded. Why, I have been attacked randomly for no reason whilst open, poor fool as it was died quickly, even when I tried to rp it with them, all they did was talk crap about how they were gonna get so and so to kick my ass. Ohh you know who you are and I am still waiting...
That said, I think open has its merits, I for one like pvp but love rp Pvp even more! I think its great when folks can rumble and not take thier text death like it was thier favorite puppy being killed. I will say that camping someone is just childish though and nothing good can ever come from it, I feel the same about grave robbing.
Anyway, Guarded has its uses and Open has its uses, why must everyone be one or the other. The thing I do not understand is that I have to wait 48 hours between changes. If I want to go to open from guarded after my business is finished then whats the big deal. I can undestand the wait from Open to guarded to prevent some wierd kind of abuse. But alas I do not understand the wait.
I say let the gms code and mae our world more wonderful than it is, rahter than have folks reporting over some of the silliest things. The idea that you intruded upon someone elses text world is silly, we join a multi player game to have different people good, bad, pretty, ulgy, nice, pain the ass folks. Its adds fun and excitement to it. I wish they would get rid of report alltogether unless its an extreme issue then have them come weigh in. I think their involvement at times hampers RP not encourages it. my 2 dokoras worth..
Miv
I will paper cut you to death with my awesome ranger TM!
That said, I think open has its merits, I for one like pvp but love rp Pvp even more! I think its great when folks can rumble and not take thier text death like it was thier favorite puppy being killed. I will say that camping someone is just childish though and nothing good can ever come from it, I feel the same about grave robbing.
Anyway, Guarded has its uses and Open has its uses, why must everyone be one or the other. The thing I do not understand is that I have to wait 48 hours between changes. If I want to go to open from guarded after my business is finished then whats the big deal. I can undestand the wait from Open to guarded to prevent some wierd kind of abuse. But alas I do not understand the wait.
I say let the gms code and mae our world more wonderful than it is, rahter than have folks reporting over some of the silliest things. The idea that you intruded upon someone elses text world is silly, we join a multi player game to have different people good, bad, pretty, ulgy, nice, pain the ass folks. Its adds fun and excitement to it. I wish they would get rid of report alltogether unless its an extreme issue then have them come weigh in. I think their involvement at times hampers RP not encourages it. my 2 dokoras worth..
Miv
I will paper cut you to death with my awesome ranger TM!
The point of open is, you are open.
The point of guarded is, you are open to those who are open to roleplay, not just those who randomly want to have their mother brothers sister cousin come from Armadillos two weeks after the inital conflict had been over and off you for no apparent reason because you insulted their pink ribbon in their hair by saying you didn't like pink.
While yes i'm exaggerating, you'd be shocked the reasons that people will use to justify their revenge streaks. There are people in DR who go overboard because they can.
So all i see is a Open to Open only profile being is... you really just only want to open on certain terms, which is better classfied by the Guarded stance.
If a Guarded person is really running around offing open people then using the Guarded stance as a way to keep said person from retaliating then i'm sure the GMs will see the situation your way after you kill them and tehy report, if you were attacked or provoked or there was some RP history leading up to it. I think they stated they would set those people to OPEN who are OPENLY being hostile to others.
The Dragon priest hisses, "We'd have won, too, if it weren't for thossse meddling kidsss."
>
The point of guarded is, you are open to those who are open to roleplay, not just those who randomly want to have their mother brothers sister cousin come from Armadillos two weeks after the inital conflict had been over and off you for no apparent reason because you insulted their pink ribbon in their hair by saying you didn't like pink.
While yes i'm exaggerating, you'd be shocked the reasons that people will use to justify their revenge streaks. There are people in DR who go overboard because they can.
So all i see is a Open to Open only profile being is... you really just only want to open on certain terms, which is better classfied by the Guarded stance.
If a Guarded person is really running around offing open people then using the Guarded stance as a way to keep said person from retaliating then i'm sure the GMs will see the situation your way after you kill them and tehy report, if you were attacked or provoked or there was some RP history leading up to it. I think they stated they would set those people to OPEN who are OPENLY being hostile to others.
The Dragon priest hisses, "We'd have won, too, if it weren't for thossse meddling kidsss."
>
>If a "closed" person is attacking someone with out consent they are clearly abusing the closed flag. GMs have said this and have even corrected a few mis-flagged characters.
For all those who share this view, how do you propose achieving this change without GM involvment? Most people who are open want to keep GMs out of their PvP, but the only way to have another players PvP stance changed is by using Report which many of these players would view as whining about losing a fight.
TLDR version:
How do you propose stopping people from abusing Profile settings without resorting to Report? The Open crowd has weighed in, now it's your turn to offer up suggestions.
Tachid smugly exclaims, "Die midget!"
For all those who share this view, how do you propose achieving this change without GM involvment? Most people who are open want to keep GMs out of their PvP, but the only way to have another players PvP stance changed is by using Report which many of these players would view as whining about losing a fight.
TLDR version:
How do you propose stopping people from abusing Profile settings without resorting to Report? The Open crowd has weighed in, now it's your turn to offer up suggestions.
Tachid smugly exclaims, "Die midget!"
lol this is not rocket science.
I'm Open. If a Guarded/Closed player attacks me out of nowhere for no reason, I'm fine with it. It's why I'm Open. But, the Guarded/Closed person isn't acting their own stance are they? If the Guarded person is Guarded because they want to know of an incoming attack before it happens, aren't they being a hypocrit for attacking an Open person for no reason?
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
I'm Open. If a Guarded/Closed player attacks me out of nowhere for no reason, I'm fine with it. It's why I'm Open. But, the Guarded/Closed person isn't acting their own stance are they? If the Guarded person is Guarded because they want to know of an incoming attack before it happens, aren't they being a hypocrit for attacking an Open person for no reason?
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
<<How is this different from what we currently have?
Because you do not understand how guarded works in the game.
If guarded was enforced how it is described you would have a point, and guarded would be a great stance. The problem is the amount of GM involvement required to determine if you had rp-consent, would be ridiculous.
So at the end of the day guarded is just 'I'm open to pvp until I lose' to a lot of people. Every time you attack a guarded person no matter how well RP'd the fight is, if you haven't locked up consent then you're breaking the precious consent rules you're so concerned about Yamcer. Guarded means nothing policy-wise. Nothing.
Because you do not understand how guarded works in the game.
If guarded was enforced how it is described you would have a point, and guarded would be a great stance. The problem is the amount of GM involvement required to determine if you had rp-consent, would be ridiculous.
So at the end of the day guarded is just 'I'm open to pvp until I lose' to a lot of people. Every time you attack a guarded person no matter how well RP'd the fight is, if you haven't locked up consent then you're breaking the precious consent rules you're so concerned about Yamcer. Guarded means nothing policy-wise. Nothing.
>Guarded means nothing policy-wise. Nothing.
Not 100% true. Since GM's are the arbiters of policy, and several seem to take guarded into account, it can mean something.
But a lot of GM and player time is wasted the second someone guarded feels like they are losing and reports, even if the GM decides in the end to let you off.
A lot of us realize this, but it is still a crap-shoot. It can depend a lot on who responds to the report, how well they're versed, their own opinions, etc. So for something you think is clear cut RP and well deserved, may not turn out that the GM agrees. It only takes once to ruin everything; so why risk it ever?
It's why a lot of us refuse to interact with guarded/closed in a confrontational manner unless we know them/how they'll react. It's not worth the double headache of having time wasted explaining to a GM why you did what you did when you killed that person, nor the risk of getting a warning/LO.
They want the safety blanket of being able to report. We want the safety blanket of being able to call in our friends to squash you if we're in too deep. One wants to use the power of GM's, the other wants to rely on the power of the player base. One is willing to get you locked out from the game forever, the other is happy just making your characters life miserable when it starts something. Different views.
Not 100% true. Since GM's are the arbiters of policy, and several seem to take guarded into account, it can mean something.
But a lot of GM and player time is wasted the second someone guarded feels like they are losing and reports, even if the GM decides in the end to let you off.
A lot of us realize this, but it is still a crap-shoot. It can depend a lot on who responds to the report, how well they're versed, their own opinions, etc. So for something you think is clear cut RP and well deserved, may not turn out that the GM agrees. It only takes once to ruin everything; so why risk it ever?
It's why a lot of us refuse to interact with guarded/closed in a confrontational manner unless we know them/how they'll react. It's not worth the double headache of having time wasted explaining to a GM why you did what you did when you killed that person, nor the risk of getting a warning/LO.
They want the safety blanket of being able to report. We want the safety blanket of being able to call in our friends to squash you if we're in too deep. One wants to use the power of GM's, the other wants to rely on the power of the player base. One is willing to get you locked out from the game forever, the other is happy just making your characters life miserable when it starts something. Different views.
<<If the Guarded person is Guarded because they want to know of an incoming attack before it happens, aren't they being a hypocrit for attacking an Open person for no reason?>>
If we are assuming there is no real legit reason for the attack then yes they are a hypocrite. But if you are playing a Necromancer and are open, and a guarded person attacks you.. then the point is you being a necromancer is the trigger.
Most Guarded people i know are fine with PvP in a RP setting, if there is a strong RP reason behind it there is no foul...
If DR was full of mature people, there would really be no need for Closed, Guarded, or Open, but it isn't. Its just the way it is.
The Dragon priest hisses, "We'd have won, too, if it weren't for thossse meddling kidsss."
>
If we are assuming there is no real legit reason for the attack then yes they are a hypocrite. But if you are playing a Necromancer and are open, and a guarded person attacks you.. then the point is you being a necromancer is the trigger.
Most Guarded people i know are fine with PvP in a RP setting, if there is a strong RP reason behind it there is no foul...
If DR was full of mature people, there would really be no need for Closed, Guarded, or Open, but it isn't. Its just the way it is.
The Dragon priest hisses, "We'd have won, too, if it weren't for thossse meddling kidsss."
>
The main reason I like the open vs open idea is that I really am up for anything, but only with people I know aren't going to play policy games. If they start to rezz-kill me, I want to be able to ask a friend for help without having the friend risk getting reported or have to farm consent, which to me is the least IC activity in game. In prime, I'm low circle. I don't need to win every fight, but I don't want to encourage griefing either. I think a lot more people would go open vs open than currently choose the open setting. That's all.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
>The main reason I like the open vs open idea is that I really am up for anything, but only with people I know aren't going to play policy games.
This. A game of "anything goes" needs to be a two way street. If you aren't willing to play by the "anything goes" philosophy, you a) shouldn't be open and b) shouldn't be starting stuff with someone who is open, and if you do you should automatically wave all rights being guarded gives you.
This. A game of "anything goes" needs to be a two way street. If you aren't willing to play by the "anything goes" philosophy, you a) shouldn't be open and b) shouldn't be starting stuff with someone who is open, and if you do you should automatically wave all rights being guarded gives you.
>>The main reason I like the open vs open idea is that I really am up for anything, but only with people I know aren't going to play policy games. If they start to rezz-kill me, I want to be able to ask a friend for help without having the friend risk getting reported or have to farm consent, which to me is the least IC activity in game. In prime, I'm low circle. I don't need to win every fight, but I don't want to encourage griefing either. I think a lot more people would go open vs open than currently choose the open setting. That's all.
Well put.
-=Issus=-
Well put.
-=Issus=-
<< I really am up for anything, but only...>>
Again this is an imposed limit on who you want to PvP with. Which is clearly the Guarded stance.
Closed, None
Guarded, Limited
Open, Any
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
Again this is an imposed limit on who you want to PvP with. Which is clearly the Guarded stance.
Closed, None
Guarded, Limited
Open, Any
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
No, Yamcer, it's not "clearly the guarded stance" because what he said after the "only" doesn't apply to the guarded stance. Quite sticking your fingers in your ears and butting into a discussion if you're not going to take the time to do it in a reasonable manner. We get it: You don't want to PvP. Guess what? We don't want to PvP with you, either. Some people asking for an Open vs. Open doesn't need your sideline commentary.
-=Issus=-
-=Issus=-
It isn't about what I do or don't do with my character, it is about the fact that the flag is redundant.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
