Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
I would absolutely love to PvP with Yamcer.
>>Guarded is for people who want RP with their PvP. This is all IC.
lol no Guarded is for people who want to pvp unless they lose, so then they report.
>>I would absolutely love to PvP with Yamcer.
Didn't Gothus do that? I don't think I ever farmed consent on Yamcer, I did get Markhor though at least once. I'm imagining its a similar experience. Though this was back in my thief days.
- Lord General Korsik Rippentropp, Executioner of M'riss
Baum says to Lillietta, "Problem is that Korsik is a very big boy."
Lillietta says, "He is mentally unstable."
lol no Guarded is for people who want to pvp unless they lose, so then they report.
>>I would absolutely love to PvP with Yamcer.
Didn't Gothus do that? I don't think I ever farmed consent on Yamcer, I did get Markhor though at least once. I'm imagining its a similar experience. Though this was back in my thief days.
- Lord General Korsik Rippentropp, Executioner of M'riss
Baum says to Lillietta, "Problem is that Korsik is a very big boy."
Lillietta says, "He is mentally unstable."
<<It isn't about what I do or don't do with my character, it is about the fact that the flag is redundant.
No. No it isn't at all. I don't know how it could possibly be explained anymore clearly for you either.
I'll try a different explanation for you. I don't see how this could negatively impact you at all. The only people that would be hurt by this change are people like Celesi(before he was forced open). He could beat down any open character that he knew was weaker than him. If someone tried to stop him he could report and get people locked out. Eventually he got switched to open, after he played policy games for YEARS. Some people don't want to get attacked by the Celesi's of the realms. If someone is willing to attack they would have to be willing to accept the consequences.
Can you at least acknowledge that this change wouldn't negatively impact you AT ALL. It would help a lot of people. For instance Kougen has already posted saying he'd like it more than the current incarnation of open or guarded. Actually, everyone in this thread except you seems to be a fan.
I don't see this world changing downside you seem to detect, could you explain it for me? I don't get the problem even if they added a few more pvp settings. Like un-set, so we can tell if someone is actually closed and against pvp, or if it's someone recently back to the realms that hasn't found the profile command. Walk me through what you're thinking, help me out here.
No. No it isn't at all. I don't know how it could possibly be explained anymore clearly for you either.
I'll try a different explanation for you. I don't see how this could negatively impact you at all. The only people that would be hurt by this change are people like Celesi(before he was forced open). He could beat down any open character that he knew was weaker than him. If someone tried to stop him he could report and get people locked out. Eventually he got switched to open, after he played policy games for YEARS. Some people don't want to get attacked by the Celesi's of the realms. If someone is willing to attack they would have to be willing to accept the consequences.
Can you at least acknowledge that this change wouldn't negatively impact you AT ALL. It would help a lot of people. For instance Kougen has already posted saying he'd like it more than the current incarnation of open or guarded. Actually, everyone in this thread except you seems to be a fan.
I don't see this world changing downside you seem to detect, could you explain it for me? I don't get the problem even if they added a few more pvp settings. Like un-set, so we can tell if someone is actually closed and against pvp, or if it's someone recently back to the realms that hasn't found the profile command. Walk me through what you're thinking, help me out here.
Did I ever state that it would have a negative impact on me? Start reading the words I post, not trying to infer some psychological freudian meaning behind them.
I've said it is redundant. You are asking for a device of hardened iron and carbon alloy to use momentum to place lengthened metal cylinders into a fibrous cellulose substrate when you have a hammer sitting next to you.
Un-set would be completely different from what closed is, even though closed is the DR policy standard we've played under for years. Though un-set doesn't need to be placed if there was a section of the CG that set up your profile before you entered the game. Knowledge of the system by all the players is preferable to people just being set to default and continue to be ignorant of it.
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've said it is redundant. You are asking for a device of hardened iron and carbon alloy to use momentum to place lengthened metal cylinders into a fibrous cellulose substrate when you have a hammer sitting next to you.
Un-set would be completely different from what closed is, even though closed is the DR policy standard we've played under for years. Though un-set doesn't need to be placed if there was a section of the CG that set up your profile before you entered the game. Knowledge of the system by all the players is preferable to people just being set to default and continue to be ignorant of it.
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
Guarded: You can report if others jump in to help against you.
Open: People can kill you, but can report you if you bring in help to strike back.
Open vs. Open: Neither person can report regardless of what extremes they have to go to to kill eachother.
Keep saying they're the same thing and you'll still be wrong.
-=Issus=-
Open: People can kill you, but can report you if you bring in help to strike back.
Open vs. Open: Neither person can report regardless of what extremes they have to go to to kill eachother.
Keep saying they're the same thing and you'll still be wrong.
-=Issus=-
<<Open: People can kill you, but can report you if you bring in help to strike back.>>
Pretty much its all coming down to if you can fight your own battles or not being the reason that people seem to want Open Vs Open.
Okay that is a good argument. So if a Open Vs Open, is engaged by a Guarded person and they cannot call for help, are they then going to report because they cannot have aid... so since they cannot get their revenge via alliances,they now too can report.
Won't the allowance of "Open under certain cases" people being able to report end up in just everyone hiding behind consent in the case of Open Vs Open. Because if yuo need a flag that will give you premission to report if you are engaged in Pvp from a Guarded person and you cannot retaliate the way you wish, then I don't see the point in you needing to be open if you utlimately want GM intervention, if things don't go your way.
The Dragon priest hisses, "We'd have won, too, if it weren't for thossse meddling kidsss."
>
>>lol no Guarded is for people who want to pvp unless they lose, so then they report.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, sadly reality is closer to your definition than mine :(
>>Won't the allowance of "Open under certain cases" people being able to report end up in just everyone hiding behind consent in the case of Open Vs Open
Ideally it would act as a deterrent since the cost of unconsented PvP is stiffer than having a GM manually set your PvP flag and make you sit in a safe room till you can toggle it back for more system abuse.
Tachid smugly exclaims, "Die midget!"
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, sadly reality is closer to your definition than mine :(
>>Won't the allowance of "Open under certain cases" people being able to report end up in just everyone hiding behind consent in the case of Open Vs Open
Ideally it would act as a deterrent since the cost of unconsented PvP is stiffer than having a GM manually set your PvP flag and make you sit in a safe room till you can toggle it back for more system abuse.
Tachid smugly exclaims, "Die midget!"
The only issue I really see here (besides this being better done by mechanical changes to what happens when you attack Open people while Guarded/Closed that I/we just haven't had time to do).. is that people who like to be Open are generally the people who say 'Reporting is the devil'.
If they go 'Open vs Open', what does that really change? They'll start reporting people? I'm not intending to be snarky with this, but I am curious!
-Z
If they go 'Open vs Open', what does that really change? They'll start reporting people? I'm not intending to be snarky with this, but I am curious!
-Z
>They'll start reporting people? I'm not intending to be snarky with this, but I am curious!
I doubt it. There needs to be an easier way for us to go about getting people who obviously don't fit the closed/guarded mold forced open, short of report or making a huge thread regarding them on the forums (see: Celesi).
Then again, really the nicest thing is if we didn't have to worry about involving GM time in pvp conflicts ever, short of harassment. But that isn't going to happen.
I doubt it. There needs to be an easier way for us to go about getting people who obviously don't fit the closed/guarded mold forced open, short of report or making a huge thread regarding them on the forums (see: Celesi).
Then again, really the nicest thing is if we didn't have to worry about involving GM time in pvp conflicts ever, short of harassment. But that isn't going to happen.
I have to agree, there is an attitude of certain players that reporting is NEVER (and sometimes it seems like a holy art I then thou attitude) acceptable or to be done, or at least done for combat.
I've had a few deaths on the behalf of players, and they were not reported on and they didn't have consent on me, but the general story was acceptable to me, so I went with it. And I am guarded.
So player of Korsik and your statement of: "lol no Guarded is for people who want to pvp unless they lose, so then they report."
I would say is a drastic over generalization.
I for one think there are certain times that because its a game, a referee (A GM or GH) should come into the scene, and further that there is a Difference between the Open vs. Open, and Guarded, as well as Open. I think the request may or may not be carried through, but I would like to see more things for groups of players getting together, and doing team conflicts might not be my cup of tea, but would push the game toward more interaction; which may help things that I'd like to see get attention come to fruition.
_____________________________________
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer.
I've had a few deaths on the behalf of players, and they were not reported on and they didn't have consent on me, but the general story was acceptable to me, so I went with it. And I am guarded.
So player of Korsik and your statement of: "lol no Guarded is for people who want to pvp unless they lose, so then they report."
I would say is a drastic over generalization.
I for one think there are certain times that because its a game, a referee (A GM or GH) should come into the scene, and further that there is a Difference between the Open vs. Open, and Guarded, as well as Open. I think the request may or may not be carried through, but I would like to see more things for groups of players getting together, and doing team conflicts might not be my cup of tea, but would push the game toward more interaction; which may help things that I'd like to see get attention come to fruition.
_____________________________________
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer.
>I would say is a drastic over generalization.
It only takes one for us to apply the generalization to everyone. When we have many more than one do it, it's just easier to treat them all the same unless we know them personally. It's nice that you won't report; I don't know you, why would I trust you not to report? You don't lose anything except respect by reporting; I can potentially lose my 8 years of time investment. Why would I want to risk that?
It only takes one for us to apply the generalization to everyone. When we have many more than one do it, it's just easier to treat them all the same unless we know them personally. It's nice that you won't report; I don't know you, why would I trust you not to report? You don't lose anything except respect by reporting; I can potentially lose my 8 years of time investment. Why would I want to risk that?
We could always just go with two flags. Closed (not able to attack players at all, and not able to be attacked without consent) and open (able to attack/be attacked, no gm involvement short of harrassment). Then let those who want to pvp in any sense police themselves (we've seen this can work). Adjust the policy to reflect this dichotomy. =)
>>The only issue I really see here (besides this being better done by mechanical changes to what happens when you attack Open people while Guarded/Closed that I/we just haven't had time to do).. is that people who like to be Open are generally the people who say 'Reporting is the devil'.
>>If they go 'Open vs Open', what does that really change? They'll start reporting people? I'm not intending to be snarky with this, but I am curious!
I don't think this is the intention at all. I think it is much more a case of getting guarded/closed people to own up to their actions.
Off the top of my head, here is an example that occurred a few days ago.
Person A (Guarded) gets removed from the a guild. Person A then kills Person B (Open) for the removal. To give an idea of the skill difference, Person A has at least over 400 primary weapon compared to the Person B who has 40ish evasion. This itself I have zero problem with, I'm of the mind that you should do whatever as long as you can own it.
However, moments later Person A relayed a message to Person B that was the equivalent of "Neener neener, you're open and I'm not, so don't think about sending someone after me for revenge".
This is where the disconnect/problem comes from. Like someone else said, it's basically like classic Celesi. If you're going to go around jacking open people on a whim/slightest provocation, especially ones you KNOW have zero chance to fight back, you should also be willing to deal with them hiring someone to come back at you. There should be zero ability for someone to treat Open as a one way street.
>>If they go 'Open vs Open', what does that really change? They'll start reporting people? I'm not intending to be snarky with this, but I am curious!
I don't think this is the intention at all. I think it is much more a case of getting guarded/closed people to own up to their actions.
Off the top of my head, here is an example that occurred a few days ago.
Person A (Guarded) gets removed from the a guild. Person A then kills Person B (Open) for the removal. To give an idea of the skill difference, Person A has at least over 400 primary weapon compared to the Person B who has 40ish evasion. This itself I have zero problem with, I'm of the mind that you should do whatever as long as you can own it.
However, moments later Person A relayed a message to Person B that was the equivalent of "Neener neener, you're open and I'm not, so don't think about sending someone after me for revenge".
This is where the disconnect/problem comes from. Like someone else said, it's basically like classic Celesi. If you're going to go around jacking open people on a whim/slightest provocation, especially ones you KNOW have zero chance to fight back, you should also be willing to deal with them hiring someone to come back at you. There should be zero ability for someone to treat Open as a one way street.
How about a setting called mirror?
Where your PvP profile always shows as matching the one of the person looking at it, but you see the true profile when looking at others. A mirror looking at another mirror would see open.
This basically says that you are open, but expect anyone who is not to follow the golden rule.
-pete
Where your PvP profile always shows as matching the one of the person looking at it, but you see the true profile when looking at others. A mirror looking at another mirror would see open.
This basically says that you are open, but expect anyone who is not to follow the golden rule.
-pete
I like Open vs Open. It clears a lot of things up, and I don't see the issue about them then being able to report. If you're Guarded, the option to report is there because some things can be considered outside of your flagged settings. If someone who is Open VS Open gets attacked by someone who is Closed or Guarded, there is nothing they can do about it other then keep getting killed by this person, Open vs Open could report. I don't see how that's any different then Guarded, so I don't personally see the issue there. Open means "Take me now" to all of the policy players in the game, Open vs Open means "Bring it on, this could get fun" at least in my opinion.
All of my characters are open, and I've never reported. I don't think I would report over something combat related, but I would also rather not have to worry about who's going to report me.
I recently rolled a trial account and was surprised to find that it could not attack another player. I don't know if this is new or if I just never noticed it. It would be nice, I think, if people set to PVP Closed had this restriction, which could be raised if someone attacked them with regular consent rules.
All of my characters are open, and I've never reported. I don't think I would report over something combat related, but I would also rather not have to worry about who's going to report me.
I recently rolled a trial account and was surprised to find that it could not attack another player. I don't know if this is new or if I just never noticed it. It would be nice, I think, if people set to PVP Closed had this restriction, which could be raised if someone attacked them with regular consent rules.
I am all for closed folks not being able to attack. I really wish that there was a more robust system in place for conflict especially group conflict. I also thing that grave camping and graverobbing are in the poorest of forms. Although, I will say that I have seen the Goose's use grave robbing as an rp tool and I find that acceptable. But graverobbing to be a general pain is just poor form.
Conflict has always been part of DR and I hope it always will be. I am also of the mind that reoprting is EVIL with the exception of harassment. I have never reported on a conflict and never intend to, what I hate the most about poor sports is that they want to waste my time with a GM interview cause they lost. It just leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth after such an incident.
If open vs open settles these things I am all for it, but only time would tell as there are jerks amongst even the open population not just the guarded and closed. I think Yuoree hit the nail on the head in his posts. I could not agree with you more.
Miv
I will paper cut you to death with my awesome ranger TM!
Conflict has always been part of DR and I hope it always will be. I am also of the mind that reoprting is EVIL with the exception of harassment. I have never reported on a conflict and never intend to, what I hate the most about poor sports is that they want to waste my time with a GM interview cause they lost. It just leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth after such an incident.
If open vs open settles these things I am all for it, but only time would tell as there are jerks amongst even the open population not just the guarded and closed. I think Yuoree hit the nail on the head in his posts. I could not agree with you more.
Miv
I will paper cut you to death with my awesome ranger TM!
This is not the folder to be bickering in, if you want to share your opinion on PvP and Profile settings you need to accept that others with differing opinions are going to participate.
You'll get your points heard if you address the points of the posts without the slams directed at the other posters, otherwise this just turns into noise that no one on staff wants to read and should be in Conflicts or the Equine Cemetery.
Annwyl
Message Board Supervisor
If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing me at DR-Annwyl@play.net.
>>I think Yuoree hit the nail on the head in his posts.
I concur.
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 concur.
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
>>DR-ZEYURN: If they go 'Open vs Open', what does that really change? They'll start reporting people?
I don't think that the "Open vs. Open" crowd really wants to report Guarded/Closed players who attack them without consent. Rather, they want to be on equal policy footing with the players who attack them. (Right now, an Open person who is attacked by a Guarded/Closed person has to worry about whether the attacker will report if the Open person doesn't strictly adhere to the consent policy when retaliating.)
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
I don't think that the "Open vs. Open" crowd really wants to report Guarded/Closed players who attack them without consent. Rather, they want to be on equal policy footing with the players who attack them. (Right now, an Open person who is attacked by a Guarded/Closed person has to worry about whether the attacker will report if the Open person doesn't strictly adhere to the consent policy when retaliating.)
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
<<I don't think that the "Open vs. Open" crowd really wants to report Guarded/Closed players who attack them without consent. Rather, they want to be on equal policy footing with the players who attack them.>>
Exactly. When confronting someone who's open, you don't need to worry about reporting. With guarded, you need to make sure you play by policy (which we all know can be interpreted and enforced in different ways by different GMs).
-Mr. Glemm
Exactly. When confronting someone who's open, you don't need to worry about reporting. With guarded, you need to make sure you play by policy (which we all know can be interpreted and enforced in different ways by different GMs).
-Mr. Glemm
<<I don't think that the "Open vs. Open" crowd really wants to report Guarded/Closed players who attack them without consent. Rather, they want to be on equal policy footing with the players who attack them.
This is the reason I suggested having the profile system auto-change profiles for those who are Closed/Guarded.
It is possible to check for first strike, for Paladins right? Why not just tie it to that. If a Closed player has first strike against anyone else it at least bumps them up to Guarded (though I'd still prefer reflecting the profile of those they attacked) unless it's a duel, of course.
Even give them a huge warning message like with the Fade weapons and make them repeat the attack command, so they know it will happen and can't pretend they didn't know.
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 is the reason I suggested having the profile system auto-change profiles for those who are Closed/Guarded.
It is possible to check for first strike, for Paladins right? Why not just tie it to that. If a Closed player has first strike against anyone else it at least bumps them up to Guarded (though I'd still prefer reflecting the profile of those they attacked) unless it's a duel, of course.
Even give them a huge warning message like with the Fade weapons and make them repeat the attack command, so they know it will happen and can't pretend they didn't know.
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
<<an Open person who is attacked by a Guarded/Closed person has to worry about whether the attacker will report if the Open person doesn't strictly adhere to the consent policy when retaliating>>
Consent policy is pretty generous so are GMs when considering the situation, given that you were attacked or there is some actaul circumstances that warrent the retaliation.
Consent policy really doesn't support Gangs of people attacking one person because of them engaging one of their buddies one day and winning the conflict... Again we are sort of playing with Grey Areas which i still think is really supported by Guarded.
In the case presented the Guarded person had a very valid reason for killing the person who had them kicked out of the Guild. Does that mean everyone and their sister or brothers should have a field day with Said person, because they were booted from a guild by another person and took action.
I guess i'm rougher than most, if i'm attacked by a guarded person with one of my open characters. I'll take out my revenge personally. Not just with my main character, but with my lowest ones as well if I have them open. If they cannot do it themselves, then thats how stuff happens, I go on about the game. If it gets to the point I cannot hunt without dealing with said person shooting my character for no reason, then I'll set them to Guarded until said person gets something better to do.
I guess my bottomline is, I do not support reporting while you want to be open. That is just entering into a grey area I can see getting really messy and tedious for GMs and Everyone else.
The Dragon priest hisses, "We'd have won, too, if it weren't for thossse meddling kidsss."
>
Consent policy is pretty generous so are GMs when considering the situation, given that you were attacked or there is some actaul circumstances that warrent the retaliation.
Consent policy really doesn't support Gangs of people attacking one person because of them engaging one of their buddies one day and winning the conflict... Again we are sort of playing with Grey Areas which i still think is really supported by Guarded.
In the case presented the Guarded person had a very valid reason for killing the person who had them kicked out of the Guild. Does that mean everyone and their sister or brothers should have a field day with Said person, because they were booted from a guild by another person and took action.
I guess i'm rougher than most, if i'm attacked by a guarded person with one of my open characters. I'll take out my revenge personally. Not just with my main character, but with my lowest ones as well if I have them open. If they cannot do it themselves, then thats how stuff happens, I go on about the game. If it gets to the point I cannot hunt without dealing with said person shooting my character for no reason, then I'll set them to Guarded until said person gets something better to do.
I guess my bottomline is, I do not support reporting while you want to be open. That is just entering into a grey area I can see getting really messy and tedious for GMs and Everyone else.
The Dragon priest hisses, "We'd have won, too, if it weren't for thossse meddling kidsss."
>
>>If they go 'Open vs Open', what does that really change? They'll start reporting people? I'm not intending to be snarky with this, but I am curious!
Some would, and if Guarded/Closed people start getting hit with Unconsented PvP charges they'll hopefully be much less likely to play games with policy. And I'm talking about Lockouts and other penalties that an Open person attacking a Closed person would have to deal with, not just a Profile flag getting flipped.
Auto-Open for initiating combat would be ideal, but no idea how hard that is to code.
Setting up guidelines for how much RP is needed for combat with a Guarded person would be nice, but I understand a lot of it subjective. Adding in a line that a guarded person not only needs RP to be attacked, but RP to initiate an attack might help but the subjective nature means that those who are playing the system will continue to do so.
Tachid smugly exclaims, "Die midget!"
Some would, and if Guarded/Closed people start getting hit with Unconsented PvP charges they'll hopefully be much less likely to play games with policy. And I'm talking about Lockouts and other penalties that an Open person attacking a Closed person would have to deal with, not just a Profile flag getting flipped.
Auto-Open for initiating combat would be ideal, but no idea how hard that is to code.
Setting up guidelines for how much RP is needed for combat with a Guarded person would be nice, but I understand a lot of it subjective. Adding in a line that a guarded person not only needs RP to be attacked, but RP to initiate an attack might help but the subjective nature means that those who are playing the system will continue to do so.
Tachid smugly exclaims, "Die midget!"
>>Adding in a line that a guarded person not only needs RP to be attacked, but RP to initiate an attack might help but the subjective nature means that those who are playing the system will continue to do so.
The thing is, the majority of Open players that I have seen actually DO RP out their conflicts, and a lot of the time it tends to be the Closed players who do not, simply because they can report instead of playing it out.
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 thing is, the majority of Open players that I have seen actually DO RP out their conflicts, and a lot of the time it tends to be the Closed players who do not, simply because they can report instead of playing it out.
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
Some of you are completely missing the point. The point is NOT to support reporting from an open stance, nor is it to teach guarded people a lesson with warnings.
The point is to create a system where people have to own up to their actions, rather than going around fighting open people they know they can decimate and then crying foul when something unconsented happens to them.
Again, the underlying premise of what Yuoree is arguing for will NOT change that Open people may have to deal with random attacks at any time without GM intervention. What it does change is that people that are set Guarded should expect a wider scope of potential actions based upon their own actions.
The point is to create a system where people have to own up to their actions, rather than going around fighting open people they know they can decimate and then crying foul when something unconsented happens to them.
Again, the underlying premise of what Yuoree is arguing for will NOT change that Open people may have to deal with random attacks at any time without GM intervention. What it does change is that people that are set Guarded should expect a wider scope of potential actions based upon their own actions.
>What it does change is that people that are set Guarded should expect a wider scope of potential actions based upon their own actions.
This.
>If it gets to the point I cannot hunt without dealing with said person shooting my character for no reason, then I'll set them to Guarded until said person gets something better to do.
This is why it's stupid. If my 50 evasion character is getting ganked/gravecamped because someone had a bad day, I don't mind too much. I accept that as part of being open. I do mind not being able to bring in friends/mercenaries/whatever have you to assist. I do not want to resort to OOC methods (reporting, changing pvp stance, etc) to resolve the situation.
With an open person camping me, I can bring in all the support I want. With a guarded person attacking me, the only person who can help is my spouse... assuming I have one.
A guarded person who is actively RPing would accept that outside help will come to the persons aid. A closed/guarded person just looking for cheap thrills and willing to toss out a report for no good reason, will not accept that outside help will come to the persons aid and will report ASAP wasting time (if the GM decides in the favor of RP) or earning a warning/lo for anyone coming to aid.
There are enough of this latter group, to make us all very wary. If you remove their ability to attack at all (closed), and make them responsible for their actions (guarded - if you report frivolously, YOU get a warning. Now wouldn't that be great?), maybe we'd see less GM time spent dealing with issues like this, and players enjoying the game more with less paranoia.
This.
>If it gets to the point I cannot hunt without dealing with said person shooting my character for no reason, then I'll set them to Guarded until said person gets something better to do.
This is why it's stupid. If my 50 evasion character is getting ganked/gravecamped because someone had a bad day, I don't mind too much. I accept that as part of being open. I do mind not being able to bring in friends/mercenaries/whatever have you to assist. I do not want to resort to OOC methods (reporting, changing pvp stance, etc) to resolve the situation.
With an open person camping me, I can bring in all the support I want. With a guarded person attacking me, the only person who can help is my spouse... assuming I have one.
A guarded person who is actively RPing would accept that outside help will come to the persons aid. A closed/guarded person just looking for cheap thrills and willing to toss out a report for no good reason, will not accept that outside help will come to the persons aid and will report ASAP wasting time (if the GM decides in the favor of RP) or earning a warning/lo for anyone coming to aid.
There are enough of this latter group, to make us all very wary. If you remove their ability to attack at all (closed), and make them responsible for their actions (guarded - if you report frivolously, YOU get a warning. Now wouldn't that be great?), maybe we'd see less GM time spent dealing with issues like this, and players enjoying the game more with less paranoia.
>>If they go 'Open vs Open', what does that really change? They'll start reporting people?
I think what people want (me included), is to know that we can't be reported for helping a friend in a conflict. If my friend is getting pwned over and over by a guarded person, I want to be able to step in and help, without fear of a report.
~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 think what people want (me included), is to know that we can't be reported for helping a friend in a conflict. If my friend is getting pwned over and over by a guarded person, I want to be able to step in and help, without fear of a report.
~Sulakhan
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
Basically what I'm getting from this is that it's a confused muddle (sorry, but even I'm not sure how on earth this would make 'Guarded people' own up to their actions unless the 'Open vs Open' people actually act on the unconsented PvP) and that the only real fix is going to be Systematic profile locking based on behavior, which I would in fact like to do! Otherwise any such system is going to require
a) 'Open vs Open' people assisting to report abuses.
b) More GM time spent watching people as playground monitors.
Neither of which seem to be appealing to me. I know people hate 'soon' but mechanical changes to flag people Guarded/Open based on how often they engage in PvP is already approved, we just haven't had the time to get to it yet.
-Z
a) 'Open vs Open' people assisting to report abuses.
b) More GM time spent watching people as playground monitors.
Neither of which seem to be appealing to me. I know people hate 'soon' but mechanical changes to flag people Guarded/Open based on how often they engage in PvP is already approved, we just haven't had the time to get to it yet.
-Z
>>Neither of which seem to be appealing to me. I know people hate 'soon' but mechanical changes to flag people Guarded/Open based on how often they engage in PvP is already approved, we just haven't had the time to get to it yet.
This is actually what I was arguing for. I didn't realize the 'Open vs Open' was an actual profile suggestion, as opposed to a title slapped on the idea.
Glad to hear it already has approval. Any details on it's potential implementation?
This is actually what I was arguing for. I didn't realize the 'Open vs Open' was an actual profile suggestion, as opposed to a title slapped on the idea.
Glad to hear it already has approval. Any details on it's potential implementation?
>a) 'Open vs Open' people assisting to report abuses.
>b) More GM time spent watching people as playground monitors.
Which is exactly the opposite of what open people want. We want less GM involvement, not more.
>I know people hate 'soon' but mechanical changes to flag people Guarded/Open based on how often they engage in PvP is already approved
This is nice to hear however.
I just wish people would quit using report as a primary go to button. It should be an absolute last resort as far as far as PvP goes. You do not win DR by getting people locked out guys.
>b) More GM time spent watching people as playground monitors.
Which is exactly the opposite of what open people want. We want less GM involvement, not more.
>I know people hate 'soon' but mechanical changes to flag people Guarded/Open based on how often they engage in PvP is already approved
This is nice to hear however.
I just wish people would quit using report as a primary go to button. It should be an absolute last resort as far as far as PvP goes. You do not win DR by getting people locked out guys.
Option 3, of course, being that Guarded becomes a stance that can only be set by a GM, and only in situations wherein someone who is normally Open is being harassed/camped by someone else (who, obviously, is Open).
Then you have PvP Closed people who should not be getting involved in conflict at all (which is as easy as applying a two hour timeout to anyone who kills someone while PvP Closed, with cumulative time for repeat offenses in the same 48 hour period), and PvP Open people who are ready to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Then you have PvP Closed people who should not be getting involved in conflict at all (which is as easy as applying a two hour timeout to anyone who kills someone while PvP Closed, with cumulative time for repeat offenses in the same 48 hour period), and PvP Open people who are ready to deal with the consequences of their actions.
>>the only real fix is going to be Systematic profile locking based on behavior, which I would in fact like to do!
^ I strongly support this line of development.
I think that an 'open vs open' (OVO) profile setting would be a effective bandaid to fix the problems that people have brought up here, but I don't think it's the best ultimate solution.
I am of the camp that everyone should have their profile set to open. This isn't because I want to walk around ganking people, but because that's what 'life' in 'DR' would be like. Yeah, there's going to be some criminal activity. There would also be PC self policing. I would also be fine with NPC policing being stronger against things like murder in exchange.
Since this isn't something that is likely to pass in this game, the profile system has been a vast improvement. I don't like involving GMs in character conflict, but it IS extremely annoying when a character gets killed but can't ask an ally to retaliate. No, I have no interest in reporting a character to get them in any trouble because if this bothered me too much I'd suck it up and go guarded. However, I do wish there was a way that they could be forced to open based on their actions so that I could play out the situation as it really should be played.
I know that some characters have been set to open by GMs and this surely was due to GM time being taken up by folk complaining about these characters. The OVO profile would solve this since guarded characters would cease to attack OVO for fear of being reported (even if the OVO player doesn't believe in reporting). This is really just an answer to a symptom and not to the problem.
So I support mechanics that can affect profiles being forced open. OVO could work in the meantime if this is a big or unsure project.
^ I strongly support this line of development.
I think that an 'open vs open' (OVO) profile setting would be a effective bandaid to fix the problems that people have brought up here, but I don't think it's the best ultimate solution.
I am of the camp that everyone should have their profile set to open. This isn't because I want to walk around ganking people, but because that's what 'life' in 'DR' would be like. Yeah, there's going to be some criminal activity. There would also be PC self policing. I would also be fine with NPC policing being stronger against things like murder in exchange.
Since this isn't something that is likely to pass in this game, the profile system has been a vast improvement. I don't like involving GMs in character conflict, but it IS extremely annoying when a character gets killed but can't ask an ally to retaliate. No, I have no interest in reporting a character to get them in any trouble because if this bothered me too much I'd suck it up and go guarded. However, I do wish there was a way that they could be forced to open based on their actions so that I could play out the situation as it really should be played.
I know that some characters have been set to open by GMs and this surely was due to GM time being taken up by folk complaining about these characters. The OVO profile would solve this since guarded characters would cease to attack OVO for fear of being reported (even if the OVO player doesn't believe in reporting). This is really just an answer to a symptom and not to the problem.
So I support mechanics that can affect profiles being forced open. OVO could work in the meantime if this is a big or unsure project.
"but it IS extremely annoying when a character gets killed but can't ask an ally to retaliate"
Or to put it another way- its annoying if I start something I can't handle, and then when I get killed, I can't have more powerful members of my gang retaliate.
I am not saying this is what you do. I am saying that everyone being Open in my mind would lead naturally to more people ganging up together to protect themselves. I am a loner, my character is a loner. I don't expect, nor do I need other characters to retaliate for me.
I have nothing against Open vs Open, nothing against behaviour linked settings. Of course I don't have anything against the status quo either.
Or to put it another way- its annoying if I start something I can't handle, and then when I get killed, I can't have more powerful members of my gang retaliate.
I am not saying this is what you do. I am saying that everyone being Open in my mind would lead naturally to more people ganging up together to protect themselves. I am a loner, my character is a loner. I don't expect, nor do I need other characters to retaliate for me.
I have nothing against Open vs Open, nothing against behaviour linked settings. Of course I don't have anything against the status quo either.
>Or to put it another way- its annoying if I start something I can't handle, and then when I get killed, I can't have more powerful members of my gang retaliate.
Pretty sure you're saying something else entirely, not just putting it another way.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
Pretty sure you're saying something else entirely, not just putting it another way.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
<<>Or to put it another way- its annoying if I start something I can't handle, and then when I get killed, I can't have more powerful members of my gang retaliate.
Yeah that's completely different. If you jump some guy he could be closed, or guarded etc. A new pvp setting wouldn't change anything in this instance at all. It wouldn't enable you to have gang members help you. I think you should go re-read the thread, and related policies.
Yeah that's completely different. If you jump some guy he could be closed, or guarded etc. A new pvp setting wouldn't change anything in this instance at all. It wouldn't enable you to have gang members help you. I think you should go re-read the thread, and related policies.
