Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
"Thats the nature of the class. This isn't about my moral compass, it's about whether not getting caught should result the same as being caught."
It's not the same as getting caught. It's the same as saying the following:
I am randomly choosing to do something detrimental to another character therefor I am open to other characters randomly choosing to do something detrimental to me.
It's not about justice being served on a thief whether they were caught or not. It's about your stance of choosing to do something that "harms" another character.
I concede this does present a slight mechanical problem when someone knows that you are usually guarded or closed and suddenly they have fewer coins and you are now open. This is best remedied by realizing that your relationship with other characters is one that is generally open to conflict (You enjoy doing harm to other players) and should be set open (other players may do harm to you)anyway.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
"but it should be a risk to steal from players, not an outright death sentence."
Open is not an outright death sentence. Clearly your experience with it is a lot more interesting than the majority of players with an open profile. Still, your experience is an anomaly and there is just something special about you that you may not be aware of yourself. Calling it an outright death sentence is simply untrue and harms your argument.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
Open is not an outright death sentence. Clearly your experience with it is a lot more interesting than the majority of players with an open profile. Still, your experience is an anomaly and there is just something special about you that you may not be aware of yourself. Calling it an outright death sentence is simply untrue and harms your argument.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
>>You cannot be open and remain within any of the mainland cities without being repeatedly killed until you close your status. This is not RP opportunity, its an arrow from the darkness without a word spoken.
Pretty much this. I stole from ONE person that definitely didn't see me. While open in the Crossing and only while training non-combats I was killed 6 times in the days it took to go back to closed. Apparently all of the characters who had killed me were much higher than I and were known for randomly killing PVP open people. I chalk this up to the rotting cesspool that is the Crossing and real grade A people.
Pretty much this. I stole from ONE person that definitely didn't see me. While open in the Crossing and only while training non-combats I was killed 6 times in the days it took to go back to closed. Apparently all of the characters who had killed me were much higher than I and were known for randomly killing PVP open people. I chalk this up to the rotting cesspool that is the Crossing and real grade A people.
I'll go at this in reverse order.
<<Open is not an outright death sentence.
The current mechanics surrounding open pvp stance essentially commit you to engaging in the octagon of Elanthia. It is not "simply untrue" because I know I'm not the only one to encounter this. I have seen others get smoked right in front of me for no other reason than their pvp stance, some while actually waiting for it to change back after realizing what it meant. I have spoken with other players and they all echo the same stories: go open and you may as well stock up on favors. I was told a number of times that to be open is to basically surrender to assassination. I quipped that I enjoy conflict, and wouldn't mind a little vigorous RP. What did I get? An arrow, the point of a blade, or the fire of a moon. Complete disinterest in RP from this group. I'm fine with that element, and I hope one day to join it, but I didn't steal from them.
This is like the open pvp players being mob-connected. Steal from any of them, or their friends, and its bad business for you. Great, I get it. But the difference is that in this system, stealing from ANYONE in the WORLD, without being fingered or even suspected, means stealing from someone mob-connected and getting caught in the act. Thats just rubbish.
You may KNOW these people, or be intimidating enough to be avoided or ignored, but that is not the same as refuting the argument as presented.
<<I am randomly choosing to do something detrimental to another character
In point of fact, if other players wish to steal from me, they are quite able to. I am choosing to steal from other players, who are justified in stealing from me in the same manner. If I am caught stealing, the stakes go way up, and I am fine with that.
<<It's about your stance of choosing to do something that "harms" another character.
Appeal to the greater good, I have addressed this. The issue is not whether I'm a naughty boy, its whether I'm caught being a naughty boy.
<<I concede this does present a slight mechanical problem when someone knows that you are usually guarded or closed and suddenly they have fewer coins and you are now open.
That would be an OOC 'tell', as they frame it in cards, and is one of the indications that this is a game, not real life. Thats deduction based on OOC information. If they could see you before and after, well, as NJP so eloquently put it: "You're doing it wrong"
<<I'm [stating my own takes on things] because I want to see more people open up to the idea that conflict can be a fun thing to play out in DR.
You enjoy pvp conflicts that you choose, yes? How fun is being assassinated by someone you have no hope of engaging, much less killing, probably ever? I LIKE CONFLICT TOO, but the realm of pvp open is not about conflict as much as it's about indiscriminate murder.
<<The important part is that you don't get to cherry pick only the conflict you want, that way lies policy-playing and bad RP.
How? Explain how specific, targetted theft, which may or may not result in being caught, result in policy-playing? How is a careful thief "bad RP"? I get caught, fine, have at me, send your friends, initiate a manhunt. If you don't catch me, WHY AM I EVEN IN DANGER? The risk has passed once the theft is complete, no one is the wiser.
None of you are making the distinctions necessary to understand this argument. I have conceded the conflict resolution points, I have conceded that it is a risk, why is it so hard to understand that not getting caught means there should be zero attachment between you and the crime? No evidence, no fingerprints, no footprints, just a ghost in the night. Stupid, greedy, slow, or incompetent ghosts get snatched up, as they should. Smart, competent, quick ghosts get murdered in their sleep because, apparently, bad actions need to be punished.
Separate the action from the moral imperatives, and look at it pragmatically. If someone kills someone else, and leaves no clues, does he now wear a sign on his forehead that says "kill me please"? No. Should he? Probably; ideally; but practically? No.
I'm not asking to cheat, I'll take my punches when I screw up, but I expect anonymity when I EARN it.
The big illusion in all of this is that somehow either your coins are safer, or now thieves can't escape engagement through some loophole. The fact is the only thieves who steal now are the ones who will snuff you out like a candle if you don't like it. They grab even after they've been caught, daring you to do something about it. All this has done is eliminated small-timers, and created an RP void in the middle circles for players who want to steal/RP at their own level but don't, because doing so means they are forced to contend with players who will mop the floor with them.
<<Open is not an outright death sentence.
The current mechanics surrounding open pvp stance essentially commit you to engaging in the octagon of Elanthia. It is not "simply untrue" because I know I'm not the only one to encounter this. I have seen others get smoked right in front of me for no other reason than their pvp stance, some while actually waiting for it to change back after realizing what it meant. I have spoken with other players and they all echo the same stories: go open and you may as well stock up on favors. I was told a number of times that to be open is to basically surrender to assassination. I quipped that I enjoy conflict, and wouldn't mind a little vigorous RP. What did I get? An arrow, the point of a blade, or the fire of a moon. Complete disinterest in RP from this group. I'm fine with that element, and I hope one day to join it, but I didn't steal from them.
This is like the open pvp players being mob-connected. Steal from any of them, or their friends, and its bad business for you. Great, I get it. But the difference is that in this system, stealing from ANYONE in the WORLD, without being fingered or even suspected, means stealing from someone mob-connected and getting caught in the act. Thats just rubbish.
You may KNOW these people, or be intimidating enough to be avoided or ignored, but that is not the same as refuting the argument as presented.
<<I am randomly choosing to do something detrimental to another character
In point of fact, if other players wish to steal from me, they are quite able to. I am choosing to steal from other players, who are justified in stealing from me in the same manner. If I am caught stealing, the stakes go way up, and I am fine with that.
<<It's about your stance of choosing to do something that "harms" another character.
Appeal to the greater good, I have addressed this. The issue is not whether I'm a naughty boy, its whether I'm caught being a naughty boy.
<<I concede this does present a slight mechanical problem when someone knows that you are usually guarded or closed and suddenly they have fewer coins and you are now open.
That would be an OOC 'tell', as they frame it in cards, and is one of the indications that this is a game, not real life. Thats deduction based on OOC information. If they could see you before and after, well, as NJP so eloquently put it: "You're doing it wrong"
<<I'm [stating my own takes on things] because I want to see more people open up to the idea that conflict can be a fun thing to play out in DR.
You enjoy pvp conflicts that you choose, yes? How fun is being assassinated by someone you have no hope of engaging, much less killing, probably ever? I LIKE CONFLICT TOO, but the realm of pvp open is not about conflict as much as it's about indiscriminate murder.
<<The important part is that you don't get to cherry pick only the conflict you want, that way lies policy-playing and bad RP.
How? Explain how specific, targetted theft, which may or may not result in being caught, result in policy-playing? How is a careful thief "bad RP"? I get caught, fine, have at me, send your friends, initiate a manhunt. If you don't catch me, WHY AM I EVEN IN DANGER? The risk has passed once the theft is complete, no one is the wiser.
None of you are making the distinctions necessary to understand this argument. I have conceded the conflict resolution points, I have conceded that it is a risk, why is it so hard to understand that not getting caught means there should be zero attachment between you and the crime? No evidence, no fingerprints, no footprints, just a ghost in the night. Stupid, greedy, slow, or incompetent ghosts get snatched up, as they should. Smart, competent, quick ghosts get murdered in their sleep because, apparently, bad actions need to be punished.
Separate the action from the moral imperatives, and look at it pragmatically. If someone kills someone else, and leaves no clues, does he now wear a sign on his forehead that says "kill me please"? No. Should he? Probably; ideally; but practically? No.
I'm not asking to cheat, I'll take my punches when I screw up, but I expect anonymity when I EARN it.
The big illusion in all of this is that somehow either your coins are safer, or now thieves can't escape engagement through some loophole. The fact is the only thieves who steal now are the ones who will snuff you out like a candle if you don't like it. They grab even after they've been caught, daring you to do something about it. All this has done is eliminated small-timers, and created an RP void in the middle circles for players who want to steal/RP at their own level but don't, because doing so means they are forced to contend with players who will mop the floor with them.
>>why is it so hard to understand that not getting caught means there should be zero attachment between you and the crime?
Because you haven't listened to the argument you're dismissing as an appeal to the greater good.
That's not what it is.
Nevermind that there is no greater good involved here. It's just you misunderstanding why you're being set to open. You refuse to understand the basis for this, and as a result, you feel punished. Thus, you try to respond to it as if it were a punishment.
It is not a punishment.
Because you haven't listened to the argument you're dismissing as an appeal to the greater good.
That's not what it is.
Nevermind that there is no greater good involved here. It's just you misunderstanding why you're being set to open. You refuse to understand the basis for this, and as a result, you feel punished. Thus, you try to respond to it as if it were a punishment.
It is not a punishment.
You seem to be ignoring everything everyone is telling you, so I'll try to be as simple as possible.
You try to harm others (theft) = others can try to harm you (PvP open)
"Your suffering amuses me" -GM Raesh
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html
Blunts for Sale:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Caraamon#Wares
You try to harm others (theft) = others can try to harm you (PvP open)
"Your suffering amuses me" -GM Raesh
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html
Blunts for Sale:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Caraamon#Wares
<<You try to harm others (theft) = others can try to harm you (PvP open)
<<It is not a punishment.
Simply restating your conclusions does not an argument make.
<<It's just you misunderstanding why you're being set to open.
I understand your argument, and I have repeatedly explained why it is falsely constructed. Your both just saying the same thing over and over, repetition doesn't equal justification.
<<It is not a punishment.
Simply restating your conclusions does not an argument make.
<<It's just you misunderstanding why you're being set to open.
I understand your argument, and I have repeatedly explained why it is falsely constructed. Your both just saying the same thing over and over, repetition doesn't equal justification.
Welp, I'm done with this conversation.
I have other brick walls to slam my head into.
"Your suffering amuses me" -GM Raesh
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html
Blunts for Sale:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Caraamon#Wares
I have other brick walls to slam my head into.
"Your suffering amuses me" -GM Raesh
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html
Blunts for Sale:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Caraamon#Wares
<<This is probably the most important statement of this whole discussion.
And yet it remains unjustified, and contested. You DO choose your conflicts based on who you steal from, and who that person may know. Every time you steal from a player, you run the RISK of being caught. This risk should play out like any other, and navigating the treacherous waters successfully should not result in being arbitrarily eaten on the other side.
I have shown why the present system all but eliminates RP for any but the high end players. I have yet to hear why not being subject to random assassination following a successful theft results in bad RP or policy-playing.
<<I have other brick walls to slam my head into.
Find a hole and dismantle the wall. If I'm wrong, demonstrate it, don't just assert it, thats worse than just banging your head against a wall. I care deeply about this issue, I'm not just here to make people angry.
And yet it remains unjustified, and contested. You DO choose your conflicts based on who you steal from, and who that person may know. Every time you steal from a player, you run the RISK of being caught. This risk should play out like any other, and navigating the treacherous waters successfully should not result in being arbitrarily eaten on the other side.
I have shown why the present system all but eliminates RP for any but the high end players. I have yet to hear why not being subject to random assassination following a successful theft results in bad RP or policy-playing.
<<I have other brick walls to slam my head into.
Find a hole and dismantle the wall. If I'm wrong, demonstrate it, don't just assert it, thats worse than just banging your head against a wall. I care deeply about this issue, I'm not just here to make people angry.
Characters who resort to extra-judicial means of profit shouldn't complain when they are subjected to extra-judicial means of punishment that are just as fickle and arbitrary.
Don't do the crime if you don't like the consequence. If you wanted to be play a guild that involved carefully constructed situations that involved removing others' wealth without exposing yourself to risk unless you were demonstrably guilty beyond any doubt, you should lobby for a barrister profession.
Ryken
--
lolbard 3.0
Don't do the crime if you don't like the consequence. If you wanted to be play a guild that involved carefully constructed situations that involved removing others' wealth without exposing yourself to risk unless you were demonstrably guilty beyond any doubt, you should lobby for a barrister profession.
Ryken
--
lolbard 3.0
>>I have shown why the present system all but eliminates RP for any but the high end players.
The current system doesn't exist for RP.
You seem to be arguing that the system should change for the betterment of RP, while others are arguing that the system should remain the same for the betterment of player enjoyment.
It's just a difference of opinion at this point, no one way is "better" than the other really.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
The current system doesn't exist for RP.
You seem to be arguing that the system should change for the betterment of RP, while others are arguing that the system should remain the same for the betterment of player enjoyment.
It's just a difference of opinion at this point, no one way is "better" than the other really.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
<<The important part is that you don't get to cherry pick only the conflict you want, that way lies policy-playing and bad RP.
<<The current system doesn't exist for RP.
--
<<Characters who resort to extra-judicial means of profit shouldn't complain when they are subjected to extra-judicial means of punishment that are just as fickle and arbitrary.
<<It is not a punishment.
--
You're contradicting each other, and it seems the only goal is me being wrong. The "greater good" has spoken:
<<...anyone who engages in any sort of PvP on any sort of regular basis should probably always be Open...
As I said, thanks for the discussion, and I hope no one bears me any extreme ill will for speaking my mind.
As a final note:
<<Pretty much this. I stole from ONE person that definitely didn't see me. While open in the Crossing and only while training non-combats I was killed 6 times in the days it took to go back to closed. Apparently all of the characters who had killed me were much higher than I and were known for randomly killing PVP open people.
I hear your voice, comrade, lament with me.
<<Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and cull the living flower.
~Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
<<The current system doesn't exist for RP.
--
<<Characters who resort to extra-judicial means of profit shouldn't complain when they are subjected to extra-judicial means of punishment that are just as fickle and arbitrary.
<<It is not a punishment.
--
You're contradicting each other, and it seems the only goal is me being wrong. The "greater good" has spoken:
<<...anyone who engages in any sort of PvP on any sort of regular basis should probably always be Open...
As I said, thanks for the discussion, and I hope no one bears me any extreme ill will for speaking my mind.
As a final note:
<<Pretty much this. I stole from ONE person that definitely didn't see me. While open in the Crossing and only while training non-combats I was killed 6 times in the days it took to go back to closed. Apparently all of the characters who had killed me were much higher than I and were known for randomly killing PVP open people.
I hear your voice, comrade, lament with me.
<<Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and cull the living flower.
~Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
<<My advice: Reroll and be less annoying
oh?
<<Apparently all of the characters who had killed me were much higher than I and were known for randomly killing PVP open people.
<<much higher than I and were known for randomly killing PVP open people.
<<known for randomly killing PVP open people.
<<randomly killing PVP open people.
<<PVP open people.
Must be my "open" personality that's so "annoying"
oh?
<<Apparently all of the characters who had killed me were much higher than I and were known for randomly killing PVP open people.
<<much higher than I and were known for randomly killing PVP open people.
<<known for randomly killing PVP open people.
<<randomly killing PVP open people.
<<PVP open people.
Must be my "open" personality that's so "annoying"
<<Shortly thereafter, I hid outside the bank while I stepped away
Well, there's the problem right there. If there's one thing you should know about Crossing, it's that the bank demands blood. And if you're Open and standing around outside it, it WILL feed on your carcass.
The bank will find a way. It always finds a way.
Well, there's the problem right there. If there's one thing you should know about Crossing, it's that the bank demands blood. And if you're Open and standing around outside it, it WILL feed on your carcass.
The bank will find a way. It always finds a way.
Umm, why did you quote me and someone else and then say we were contradicting each other? I'm not really trying to align my posts to anyone else's except my own :)
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
>>Must be my "open" personality that's so "annoying"
>>Karl Marx
I've gone about a year and a half Open now, and another character of mine has been Open since coming out of the Character Manager several months ago and I haven't had significant problems from it.
I don't know if you'll believe me though since I'm a counter-revolutionary.
>>Karl Marx
I've gone about a year and a half Open now, and another character of mine has been Open since coming out of the Character Manager several months ago and I haven't had significant problems from it.
I don't know if you'll believe me though since I'm a counter-revolutionary.
>And yet it remains unjustified, and contested. You DO choose your conflicts based on who you steal from, and who that person may know. Every time you steal from a player, you run the RISK of being caught. This risk should play out like any other, and navigating the treacherous waters successfully should not result in being arbitrarily eaten on the other side.
>I have shown why the present system all but eliminates RP for any but the high end players. I have yet to hear why not being subject to random assassination following a successful theft results in bad RP or policy-playing.
Yes, you are right. YOU choose the conflicts based on who YOU steal from, but THEY are not making a choice. They are a participant in a situation you have created, and you are involving them in a situation that they could rightfully attack you for. This is what necessitates the open setting; you have involved yourself in a situation that has the ripe potential for conflict. If the result is you get ganked by some random HLC, give it a chance to RP out.
Once again, for emphasis:
>>The important part is that you don't get to cherry pick only the conflict you want, that way lies policy-playing and bad RP.
I quote it again because that is exactly what you have been advocating over the course of this discussion, whether you know it or not.
>I have shown why the present system all but eliminates RP for any but the high end players. I have yet to hear why not being subject to random assassination following a successful theft results in bad RP or policy-playing.
Yes, you are right. YOU choose the conflicts based on who YOU steal from, but THEY are not making a choice. They are a participant in a situation you have created, and you are involving them in a situation that they could rightfully attack you for. This is what necessitates the open setting; you have involved yourself in a situation that has the ripe potential for conflict. If the result is you get ganked by some random HLC, give it a chance to RP out.
Once again, for emphasis:
>>The important part is that you don't get to cherry pick only the conflict you want, that way lies policy-playing and bad RP.
I quote it again because that is exactly what you have been advocating over the course of this discussion, whether you know it or not.
>>If you can't go Open without posses forming to take you out, assuming that's not what you intended, you have some major rehab to do to your character's image.
Have you lived in the Crossing? Stand in the Empath guild, outside the bank, or outside the Warmage guild open and tell me how long you last. In an ideal world your comment has merit, but here, no.
Have you lived in the Crossing? Stand in the Empath guild, outside the bank, or outside the Warmage guild open and tell me how long you last. In an ideal world your comment has merit, but here, no.
<<They are a participant in a situation you have created, and you are involving them in a situation that they could rightfully attack you for
Absolute, 100% agreement, it is a risk you take that could result in being strung up by your target. The problem is that if "they" don't catch me, why does random person Z et al have the right to kill me? I'm not arguing against confrontation with the people I get caught stealing, I'm rather arguing against forced induction into the elanthian octagon even if I don't get caught.
That is the appeal to the greater good I was referring to, because no one can know that I did the deed unless they catch me at it, or witness it. The only witness is omniscience, and the punishment, or non-punishment, results regardless of whether I get away with it. Ultimate moral justice wrapped in a nice little bow. It doesn't get any more clear than this.
Do you engage in tussles with random people? or do you choose who you wish to create a conflict with? Does that person have a choice in the matter? or are they necessarily forced into confrontation by your actions? Say you finish your dispute, or whatever it was, and 2 hours later you are struck down randomly by an arrow. Now explain how the arrow has anything whatsoever to do with the original conflict, or how you can "give it a chance to RP out".
That is what I'm talking about, this disconnect between actions (stealing) and necessary consequences (arrow from the shadows). The only way to connect the two is with an appeal to the greater good, in saying that a bad thing was done, so a bad result is deserved. This ignores the entire contest between stealth and perception, between shark and mark, and pushes it into the realm of arbitrary punishment based simply upon an internal moral choice. This is the god's punishing thievery, nothing more, nothing less. You accept this as the way of things, and feel it justified. I do not, and feel it is an encroachment upon the free actions of the players, and an unnecessary burden for thieves given the disparity between the difficulty(and cost) in training perception and stealing.
The fine for first offense in Aesry is over 2 plat. I'm a citizen of crossing, and have gotten up to 1 plat fines there. You have to be very lucky to not get caught and still get even close to mindlocked on a stealing run. Whens the last time you paid for dust bunnies in the empath guild? The change we pull off players is garbage, you know it and I know it. It's for the enjoyment of being a thief that we steal, not to ruin people's day anonymously. If you catch me, fine, lets RP it out, but this rubbish of being open to "any and all conflicts regardless of consent" for hours after a successful (i.e. stealthy) grab is a deal-breaker for the class. Traders have belts, people can carry tons of copper, you can guard coins, hide, the options are out there.
Sure, someone with 1000 stealing will clean you out, but thats the guy that doesn't give two s---s whether he's pvp open. Hes probably the guy ganking all the other thieves. The problem remains, and it's just no fun to be a low- to mid-level thief in this environment. This nonsense idea that me slipping a few gold from your purse should be punishable by assassination ad nauseum is just simply ruining the experience of being a thief. You haven't lost anything you can't recoup with the next box you pop, while I've lost my identity as a professional.
Am I really alone in seeing this as a problem? Can I get an AMEN!?
Absolute, 100% agreement, it is a risk you take that could result in being strung up by your target. The problem is that if "they" don't catch me, why does random person Z et al have the right to kill me? I'm not arguing against confrontation with the people I get caught stealing, I'm rather arguing against forced induction into the elanthian octagon even if I don't get caught.
That is the appeal to the greater good I was referring to, because no one can know that I did the deed unless they catch me at it, or witness it. The only witness is omniscience, and the punishment, or non-punishment, results regardless of whether I get away with it. Ultimate moral justice wrapped in a nice little bow. It doesn't get any more clear than this.
Do you engage in tussles with random people? or do you choose who you wish to create a conflict with? Does that person have a choice in the matter? or are they necessarily forced into confrontation by your actions? Say you finish your dispute, or whatever it was, and 2 hours later you are struck down randomly by an arrow. Now explain how the arrow has anything whatsoever to do with the original conflict, or how you can "give it a chance to RP out".
That is what I'm talking about, this disconnect between actions (stealing) and necessary consequences (arrow from the shadows). The only way to connect the two is with an appeal to the greater good, in saying that a bad thing was done, so a bad result is deserved. This ignores the entire contest between stealth and perception, between shark and mark, and pushes it into the realm of arbitrary punishment based simply upon an internal moral choice. This is the god's punishing thievery, nothing more, nothing less. You accept this as the way of things, and feel it justified. I do not, and feel it is an encroachment upon the free actions of the players, and an unnecessary burden for thieves given the disparity between the difficulty(and cost) in training perception and stealing.
The fine for first offense in Aesry is over 2 plat. I'm a citizen of crossing, and have gotten up to 1 plat fines there. You have to be very lucky to not get caught and still get even close to mindlocked on a stealing run. Whens the last time you paid for dust bunnies in the empath guild? The change we pull off players is garbage, you know it and I know it. It's for the enjoyment of being a thief that we steal, not to ruin people's day anonymously. If you catch me, fine, lets RP it out, but this rubbish of being open to "any and all conflicts regardless of consent" for hours after a successful (i.e. stealthy) grab is a deal-breaker for the class. Traders have belts, people can carry tons of copper, you can guard coins, hide, the options are out there.
Sure, someone with 1000 stealing will clean you out, but thats the guy that doesn't give two s---s whether he's pvp open. Hes probably the guy ganking all the other thieves. The problem remains, and it's just no fun to be a low- to mid-level thief in this environment. This nonsense idea that me slipping a few gold from your purse should be punishable by assassination ad nauseum is just simply ruining the experience of being a thief. You haven't lost anything you can't recoup with the next box you pop, while I've lost my identity as a professional.
Am I really alone in seeing this as a problem? Can I get an AMEN!?
>>Just having a bit of fun there, nothing personally denigrating. You must admit they line up nicely on opposite sides of the issue, though :)
I often find myself agreeing with others' conclusions using completely different frameworks with my arguments. I don't really mind.
It's true that a lot of people here accepted your assumption without questioning it. That doesn't make your assumption true.
>>I understand your argument, and I have repeatedly explained why it is falsely constructed. Your both just saying the same thing over and over, repetition doesn't equal justification.
"Being set to PvP Open is not a punishment" is not a conclusion. It's an assertion. I'm contesting your assumption. You haven't justified it. Your entire post relies on this assumption.
The assumption is wrong.
As you said, repetition doesn't equal justification. You haven't justified your assumption. If you had, this conversation would have been about policy and game design. It might have changed Zeyurn's mind, rather than merely tiring him out with yet another whinefest about griefers. Instead, it's about a pretense at RP and some abstract concept of nonsensical justice, and now people are tired of the thread and there's no one higher up who will listen to the argument anyways.
I often find myself agreeing with others' conclusions using completely different frameworks with my arguments. I don't really mind.
It's true that a lot of people here accepted your assumption without questioning it. That doesn't make your assumption true.
>>I understand your argument, and I have repeatedly explained why it is falsely constructed. Your both just saying the same thing over and over, repetition doesn't equal justification.
"Being set to PvP Open is not a punishment" is not a conclusion. It's an assertion. I'm contesting your assumption. You haven't justified it. Your entire post relies on this assumption.
The assumption is wrong.
As you said, repetition doesn't equal justification. You haven't justified your assumption. If you had, this conversation would have been about policy and game design. It might have changed Zeyurn's mind, rather than merely tiring him out with yet another whinefest about griefers. Instead, it's about a pretense at RP and some abstract concept of nonsensical justice, and now people are tired of the thread and there's no one higher up who will listen to the argument anyways.
<<What you seem to be missing, is that it's not an argument, but a statement of fact.
An expression of the status quo may very well be a fact, but this is the very thing my argument was attempting to change. It was a fact that thieves were not subject to being pvp open before the change, and that is no longer a fact. Facts, as you can see, do change.
An expression of the status quo may very well be a fact, but this is the very thing my argument was attempting to change. It was a fact that thieves were not subject to being pvp open before the change, and that is no longer a fact. Facts, as you can see, do change.
PvP Open is an OOC profile setting that reflects your play style. As a player. Stealing was one of the first methods of conflict initiation to automatically put you into the PvP stance you belong in.
It has nothing to do with gods, or being stealthy or a good thief, or punishment, or them being free to steal from you. It's an OOC indication that YOU as a PLAYER are playing in such a way to classify your play style as open to PvP and should be set as such.
Your experiences with being open are not the same as those I have had with my primary character or quite a number of noob characters who were open out of the CM. My biggest character, in fact, is the only one that has been killed in a way that could even be close to being called a random slaying. In 30 circles of necromancy, my open noob never so much as got aimed at.
This anecdotal story applies to everyone I know who is open as well.
Maybe the killings you received weren't all as random as you think they were. Just a guess.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
It has nothing to do with gods, or being stealthy or a good thief, or punishment, or them being free to steal from you. It's an OOC indication that YOU as a PLAYER are playing in such a way to classify your play style as open to PvP and should be set as such.
Your experiences with being open are not the same as those I have had with my primary character or quite a number of noob characters who were open out of the CM. My biggest character, in fact, is the only one that has been killed in a way that could even be close to being called a random slaying. In 30 circles of necromancy, my open noob never so much as got aimed at.
This anecdotal story applies to everyone I know who is open as well.
Maybe the killings you received weren't all as random as you think they were. Just a guess.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
You decide you want to take away someone's coin, at your time, at your will, at your convenience. You choose who you want the target to be. Low skilled, low circled, or whatever. You do not need consent to take away someone's coin. They may have hunted for hours and earned.
You choose when you want to take it away from them without consent. This is why you are forced into a stance that allows others to do the same. Why doesn't PvP actions currently make you Open? They haven't gotten to it yet, and the only way to perform PvP actions within policy on another player is to have consent. Do you need consent to rob people? No.
Whether being killed or stolen from is different is a matter of perspective. In the end, stealing from or killing someone takes away their time. Hopefully you learn a lesson from this.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
You choose when you want to take it away from them without consent. This is why you are forced into a stance that allows others to do the same. Why doesn't PvP actions currently make you Open? They haven't gotten to it yet, and the only way to perform PvP actions within policy on another player is to have consent. Do you need consent to rob people? No.
Whether being killed or stolen from is different is a matter of perspective. In the end, stealing from or killing someone takes away their time. Hopefully you learn a lesson from this.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
<<I often find myself agreeing with others' conclusions using completely different frameworks with my arguments. I don't really mind.
The conclusions weren't the same, they were polar opposites, that was my point. I don't care about the framework, only about the argument and it's conclusion.
<<The assumption is wrong.
What assumption? I'm not sure which assumption you are disagreeing with, as you haven't even stated it. You appear to have inferred it from your sentence, but the actual point is eluding me. I can only guess that my assumption is that an assertion is actually a conclusion. This is an irrelevant distinction. I contested this assertion/conclusion, and even the people who agree with you have contested it, as I demonstrated previously.
If I have misunderstood your assumption of my assumption, please enlighten me.
<<You haven't justified your assumption.
I would love to know what it is I am assuming.
<<now people are tired of the thread and there's no one higher up who will listen to the argument anyways.
I'm not forcing anyone to remain; if they are tired, start a new thread or go to sleep. I don't see how this has anything to do with me. Further, I am aware of the rejection of my argument by the higher authorities, and attempted to gracefully bow out. I have been directly challenged, repeatedly, since then, and again here by you. What's a guy to do?
The conclusions weren't the same, they were polar opposites, that was my point. I don't care about the framework, only about the argument and it's conclusion.
<<The assumption is wrong.
What assumption? I'm not sure which assumption you are disagreeing with, as you haven't even stated it. You appear to have inferred it from your sentence, but the actual point is eluding me. I can only guess that my assumption is that an assertion is actually a conclusion. This is an irrelevant distinction. I contested this assertion/conclusion, and even the people who agree with you have contested it, as I demonstrated previously.
If I have misunderstood your assumption of my assumption, please enlighten me.
<<You haven't justified your assumption.
I would love to know what it is I am assuming.
<<now people are tired of the thread and there's no one higher up who will listen to the argument anyways.
I'm not forcing anyone to remain; if they are tired, start a new thread or go to sleep. I don't see how this has anything to do with me. Further, I am aware of the rejection of my argument by the higher authorities, and attempted to gracefully bow out. I have been directly challenged, repeatedly, since then, and again here by you. What's a guy to do?
>>The conclusions weren't the same, they were polar opposites, that was my point. I don't care about the framework, only about the argument and it's conclusion.
The conclusion was that you were wrong. I'm not sure how you missed that.
>>I'm not sure which assumption you are disagreeing with, as you haven't even stated it.
You believe that being set PvP Open is a punishment.
From your original post, since I'm entirely too lazy to walk through all of your posts:
"However, [being set to PvP Open] because you chose [a particular action], is a punishment that does not fit the crime."
>>I don't see how this has anything to do with me.
I assumed you cared about this issue and wanted to see change, given that you said so. I apologize if I'm being presumptuous in this respect. It felt reasonable.
The conclusion was that you were wrong. I'm not sure how you missed that.
>>I'm not sure which assumption you are disagreeing with, as you haven't even stated it.
You believe that being set PvP Open is a punishment.
From your original post, since I'm entirely too lazy to walk through all of your posts:
"However, [being set to PvP Open] because you chose [a particular action], is a punishment that does not fit the crime."
>>I don't see how this has anything to do with me.
I assumed you cared about this issue and wanted to see change, given that you said so. I apologize if I'm being presumptuous in this respect. It felt reasonable.
>>An expression of the status quo may very well be a fact, but this is the very thing my argument was attempting to change. It was a fact that thieves were not subject to being pvp open before the change, and that is no longer a fact. Facts, as you can see, do change.
Right, but you're basing your argument on an incorrect premise, that being open is a punishment. As the premise is not correct, any argument you make based on that premise, is, by definition, invalid.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
Right, but you're basing your argument on an incorrect premise, that being open is a punishment. As the premise is not correct, any argument you make based on that premise, is, by definition, invalid.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
<<This anecdotal story applies to everyone I know who is open as well.
This is a willful denial of reality. I can dash off 5 names in as many seconds of people I have personally witnessed killing random pvp open individuals, myself included, repeatedly. An entire event was disrupted by a few of them, ask the theren court. The bodies come into the empath guild with regularity. Ask any cleric, ask any mentor, hell, ask anyone you apparently don't already know.
<<Stealing was one of the first methods of conflict initiation to automatically put you into the PvP stance you belong in.
Thief: a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it.
The act is synonymous with the guild, it is WHO we are. Fine, make them pvp open permanently, maybe more targets will lower the death rate and make it manageable. You may as well make healing a pvp open action as well, along with raising, demonstrating animal lore, casting spells, gating, singing, etc. If you don't like being stolen from, guard your freaking coins. I get stolen from all the time, you don't see me crying on the forums about it, do you? You like it this way because it cuts down significantly on theft, not because it makes sense in any conflict resolution sort of way.
Do you even play a thief?
--
<<You choose when you want to take it away from them without consent
And they, or others, can make the exact same decision with regards to me. They can steal from me, catch me and kill me themselves, or have someone else kill me in reprisal. I am fine with all of these situations. I am NOT fine with being forced into a battleground I can not compete in if I simply steal from another player without getting caught. The act carries great risk, of course, I am not arguing we remove this risk. I am simply asking that success not be punished the same way failure is. I. can't. RP. as. a. thief. without stealing from other players. I can't steal from other players without being force-fed a sabre or a moonbeam by some random player who doesn't know, and doesn't care, why I am now open stance. The result? I don't steal at all, why bother? The profits are garbage, the reward is 100% death (thieves are part of the open community, the guild is no longer safe), the entire purpose behind the enterprise is, full stop, not worth the hassle.
You still get your pockets raped by thief-bots and ultra-high level thieves. Hows that RP workin for you? You wanna take a stab at a 150th circle thief, or a 50th circle one? As it stands, you only get the first option, and I suggest you keep your weapon in it's holster.
This is a willful denial of reality. I can dash off 5 names in as many seconds of people I have personally witnessed killing random pvp open individuals, myself included, repeatedly. An entire event was disrupted by a few of them, ask the theren court. The bodies come into the empath guild with regularity. Ask any cleric, ask any mentor, hell, ask anyone you apparently don't already know.
<<Stealing was one of the first methods of conflict initiation to automatically put you into the PvP stance you belong in.
Thief: a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it.
The act is synonymous with the guild, it is WHO we are. Fine, make them pvp open permanently, maybe more targets will lower the death rate and make it manageable. You may as well make healing a pvp open action as well, along with raising, demonstrating animal lore, casting spells, gating, singing, etc. If you don't like being stolen from, guard your freaking coins. I get stolen from all the time, you don't see me crying on the forums about it, do you? You like it this way because it cuts down significantly on theft, not because it makes sense in any conflict resolution sort of way.
Do you even play a thief?
--
<<You choose when you want to take it away from them without consent
And they, or others, can make the exact same decision with regards to me. They can steal from me, catch me and kill me themselves, or have someone else kill me in reprisal. I am fine with all of these situations. I am NOT fine with being forced into a battleground I can not compete in if I simply steal from another player without getting caught. The act carries great risk, of course, I am not arguing we remove this risk. I am simply asking that success not be punished the same way failure is. I. can't. RP. as. a. thief. without stealing from other players. I can't steal from other players without being force-fed a sabre or a moonbeam by some random player who doesn't know, and doesn't care, why I am now open stance. The result? I don't steal at all, why bother? The profits are garbage, the reward is 100% death (thieves are part of the open community, the guild is no longer safe), the entire purpose behind the enterprise is, full stop, not worth the hassle.
You still get your pockets raped by thief-bots and ultra-high level thieves. Hows that RP workin for you? You wanna take a stab at a 150th circle thief, or a 50th circle one? As it stands, you only get the first option, and I suggest you keep your weapon in it's holster.
>>I am NOT fine with being forced into a battleground I can not compete in if I simply steal from another player without getting caught.
What about the 5th circle noobs you steal from? Aren't you forcing them into a 'battleground' that they can't compete in? Not just you, what about the 100th Thief that steals from the 20th circler?
>>I. can't. RP. as. a. thief. without stealing from other players.
No, it sounds like you. can't. RP. the. consequences. as. a. result. of you stealing from other players.
>>The result? I don't steal at all, why bother?
Well the policy change certainly weeded out those who wanted their way all the time, everytime. Excellent stuff.
>>You still get your pockets raped by thief-bots and ultra-high level thieves. Hows that RP workin for you? You wanna take a stab at a 150th circle thief, or a 50th circle one? As it stands, you only get the first option, and I suggest you keep your weapon in it's holster.
No, I don't get stolen from by Thieves anymore. Maybe they're scared? Anyhow, I'd love to smash 150th circle thieves, it wouldn't be difficult at all against most.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
What about the 5th circle noobs you steal from? Aren't you forcing them into a 'battleground' that they can't compete in? Not just you, what about the 100th Thief that steals from the 20th circler?
>>I. can't. RP. as. a. thief. without stealing from other players.
No, it sounds like you. can't. RP. the. consequences. as. a. result. of you stealing from other players.
>>The result? I don't steal at all, why bother?
Well the policy change certainly weeded out those who wanted their way all the time, everytime. Excellent stuff.
>>You still get your pockets raped by thief-bots and ultra-high level thieves. Hows that RP workin for you? You wanna take a stab at a 150th circle thief, or a 50th circle one? As it stands, you only get the first option, and I suggest you keep your weapon in it's holster.
No, I don't get stolen from by Thieves anymore. Maybe they're scared? Anyhow, I'd love to smash 150th circle thieves, it wouldn't be difficult at all against most.
Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.
-GM Abasha
>You cannot be open and remain within any of the mainland cities without being repeatedly killed until you close your status.
I hate this mind set SO much. I have been open for about a year now and have been randomly PK'd all of 3 times... in a YEAR. :/ If you are getting spam killed as soon as you are forced open you have done something wrong.
>Isn't that the whole point of being a thief? to steal without getting caught?
If that's how you want to play, I suggest you use MARK more often.
>The new system is broken for people who want to RP a smart, careful thief without fighting every random bully.
Not at all. I steal from PC's all the time and have never been killed for it.
It is not a punishment to be set open, it is the result of your actions. You probably would have been killed anyway, the only difference is you don't get to report.
Being open for 2 hours should not affect your game play in any way unless you are playing in a manner that warrants action.
-Reverend Gidien
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
I hate this mind set SO much. I have been open for about a year now and have been randomly PK'd all of 3 times... in a YEAR. :/ If you are getting spam killed as soon as you are forced open you have done something wrong.
>Isn't that the whole point of being a thief? to steal without getting caught?
If that's how you want to play, I suggest you use MARK more often.
>The new system is broken for people who want to RP a smart, careful thief without fighting every random bully.
Not at all. I steal from PC's all the time and have never been killed for it.
It is not a punishment to be set open, it is the result of your actions. You probably would have been killed anyway, the only difference is you don't get to report.
Being open for 2 hours should not affect your game play in any way unless you are playing in a manner that warrants action.
-Reverend Gidien
"Under the sword lifted high, there is hell making you tremble. But go ahead, and you have the land of bliss."
~Miyamoto Musashi
