|
Post by Lady Frost on Jun 27, 2017 19:23:39 GMT -5
Sorry for the thread necromancy but is this still on the table to implement? I feel it is important since this is a mandated PVP server meaning you consent to PVP. The aggressor could still get their "pound of flesh" and the victim would fell less victimized. It would in my opinion ease the need for dm intervention and possibly less griefing complaints. I've seen you say this twice now. I'm not sure where you heard it - and you declined to discuss it the last time I mentioned it -, but it's incorrect. Consent is not required for PvP; only RP is required. Would you clarify what you mean if I'm not understanding. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by FlyingMidget on Jun 27, 2017 19:36:06 GMT -5
I think they're commenting on the fact logging into the server means you consent to PVP as in the first line of the PvP rules thread.
At least that's my take on it.
FM.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Jun 27, 2017 20:23:48 GMT -5
Ah, so I've just been reading the words wrong? Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Jun 28, 2017 0:42:21 GMT -5
I think the intent is to point out a reason for change of the rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 0:53:22 GMT -5
PVP ruling needs a massive reform.
|
|
|
Post by FORSETIS on Jun 28, 2017 6:31:08 GMT -5
PVP ruling needs a massive reform. Nah. Its fine.
|
|
|
Post by Asgardian Grey Hawk on Jun 28, 2017 8:02:41 GMT -5
Pvp rules are fine as is. They are unique.
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Jun 28, 2017 10:02:25 GMT -5
I dunno, the rule about roleplaying while killing or robbing other players seems to take PvP a bit far. Player characters, sure, that makes sense, but players?
|
|
|
Post by Asgardian Grey Hawk on Jun 28, 2017 10:03:46 GMT -5
It's all to why need supervision or need to ask permission if this is a role play server.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 10:47:01 GMT -5
PVP ruling needs a massive reform. Nah. Its fine. If it PvP were fine we would maintain population numbers, and/or grow, and certainly not loose people over, it PvP. It PvP is not fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 11:17:12 GMT -5
Styr thinks that the starter town should be no PvP. Everything else works ok as far as he is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by FlyingMidget on Jun 28, 2017 11:39:03 GMT -5
Styr thinks that the starter town should be no PvP. Everything else works ok as far as he is concerned. If the team was leaning this way, I'd prefer the starter town to be a by consent or dm approval only rather then out right No-PvP. Got a DM to over see it? Great ! if not, flick a message asking for consent (and if consent isn't given the other player has to back down from any antagonizing rp and perhaps move away from that general area). I dunno, I just don't like no PvP zones. Then again the above approach might be nifty for most city and town areas as well and probably would cut down on the headache of people getting upset someone murdered them infront of X/Y/Z Purple Dragon/Guard/Witness NPC's. FM.
|
|
|
Post by Charon's Claw on Jun 28, 2017 11:42:24 GMT -5
The starter town WAS a No-PVP zone in the past due to some jack-wagon griefer. I don't miss it being a No-PVP zone due to many reasons, the least of which is people making threats, antagonizing without the threat of retaliation as they hid beneath the inexplicable safe zone. I realize that attacking isn't the answer to everything, and having played political PCs in the past who have maneuvered by never even lifting a finger personally I prefer not even directly attacking in PVP. However, without the potential danger the safety net makes others... oddly bold and empowered for no discernible RP reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 11:50:20 GMT -5
The starter town WAS a No-PVP zone in the past due to some jack-wagon griefer. I don't miss it being a No-PVP zone due to many reasons, the least of which is people making threats, antagonizing without the threat of retaliation as they hid beneath the inexplicable safe zone. I realize that attacking isn't the answer to everything, and having played political PCs in the past who have maneuvered by never even lifting a finger personally I prefer not even directly attacking in PVP. However, without the potential danger the safety net makes others... oddly bold and empowered for no discernible RP reason. Well, it is not as if they did not have 90% of the server to answer those threats made by mouthy PCs and even set up ambushes in the wilds. It is also easier to police than always having a DM watching for PvP in GG. GG is really low level land, and high/epic characters business there should be anything but combat.
|
|
|
Post by Grimnir Gurnison on Jun 28, 2017 11:50:37 GMT -5
There is one town that is a no PVP zone though strangely inside shops PVP is allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Charon's Claw on Jun 28, 2017 13:13:30 GMT -5
Well, it is not as if they did not have 90% of the server to answer those threats made by mouthy PCs and even set up ambushes in the wilds. It is also easier to police than always having a DM watching for PvP in GG. GG is really low level land, and high/epic characters business there should be anything but combat. Like I said, that's simply one reason. Not arguing that ambushing can't be done later, but well... sometimes one person is kind of a jerk and will go on and on and on and on and never shut up and has no reprecussions to him b/c they stay in the safety wall. This isn't only a high level vs low level issue, this could be one lowbie against 3 others of equal level or whatever combination you can think of. Also, what if there is a DM even on the spur of the moment that requires the PCs to be factioned and have to move against one another? The list goes on. Putting a kill all conflict net isn't really the answer. I doubt I'm gonna change yer mind, but I've some firsthand experience with this kind of silliness, and again IMO having it back would be worse than asking a little responsibility of players and, failing that, having a DM oversee the aftermath.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 13:29:55 GMT -5
Well, it is not as if they did not have 90% of the server to answer those threats made by mouthy PCs and even set up ambushes in the wilds. It is also easier to police than always having a DM watching for PvP in GG. GG is really low level land, and high/epic characters business there should be anything but combat. Like I said, that's simply one reason. Not arguing that ambushing can't be done later, but well... sometimes one person is kind of a jerk and will go on and on and on and on and never shut up and has no reprecussions to him b/c they stay in the safety wall. This isn't only a high level vs low level issue, this could be one lowbie against 3 others of equal level or whatever combination you can think of. Also, what if there is a DM even on the spur of the moment that requires the PCs to be factioned and have to move against one another? The list goes on. Putting a kill all conflict net isn't really the answer. I doubt I'm gonna change yer mind, but I've some firsthand experience with this kind of silliness, and again IMO having it back would be worse than asking a little responsibility of players and, failing that, having a DM oversee the aftermath. Eh, if they don't stop then that is when DM intervention comes into play. Use the existent IC law to defuse those situations easily and without drama. It is far easier to do that than to perform rulings that could not be taken kindly if the players are bad sports, or if they are new or not up to date with the rules. 1) Disturbance of the Peace 2) Incitement 3) Excessive Noise Also, after more than 10 years, it is clear that the problem persists. You have some good points, but to me it is obvious that something else needs to be done, other than trusting players to behave properly. If players asked DMs to watch PvP in town -always-, then that would be fine, but sometimes these incidents take place at hours where DM coverage is non-existant (Too late for America, too early for Europe).
|
|
|
Post by Charon's Claw on Jun 28, 2017 13:31:28 GMT -5
Agreed. I'm not saying the status quo is acceptable. I'm just saying a no PVP area is currently worse than the situation that sits now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 13:38:26 GMT -5
I don't think it can be any worse than it is right now. (For GG only ) Of all PvPs Holance has had, most have been in GG.
|
|
|
Post by erratic1 on Jun 28, 2017 13:51:19 GMT -5
Having Greatgaunt as an non PVP zone was one of the worst things I've been through whilst here as a player. Witnessing all of those pissing contests in town... not to mention people reacting in ways that would otherwise not be seen just because they knew they couldn't be smacked down for talking said smack. Then refusing to leave because they know if they do they'll have to fight.. so they stay in town for longer and longer, refusing to face up to a situation they may have started. Just no.
The PVP rules are okay for the most part. I believe some simpler and more concise rules need to be in place, but in general they're okay. If you start demanding people gain consent for PVP before it starts you'd have a lot more smacktalk without people facing any consequences.
I think there could be other areas of the rules adjusted or ammended to make PVP in towns and villages a much more risky choice. Players really do seem to think that there's not much threat from authority in places such as Greatgaunt of Skull Crag so they seem to think "I'm evil, I can get away with this." (For the MOST part, it's not just players of evil aligned characters). If there's no risk to the character, then people are going to do things all the more and feel like they can get away with it. It's all about consequences, or lack there of.
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Jun 28, 2017 14:20:48 GMT -5
I think what people have a problem with is no AI interaction of npc's. So if stuff goes down in front of NPC authority and a dm is not around to witness it.
The one attacked has to go through for lack of a better term "paperwork" to get any resolution. Even if witnessed by a dm, the onus is on the one attacked to file reports with the "proper authorities". Even if it is done it is rarely followed up so the aggressor gets to go on and on while the victim has to keep nagging to get any resolution. Or go ooc and file things with dm's and PA's.
Why is it if a player's attacks and npc, the other npcs go ballistic? Why can' t they react the same way if another player attacks? (I am referring to attacks in town with "NPC Witnesses").
Yes we consent to PVP but getting hit by surprise may satisfy the aggressor's rp but screw up the victims rp.
Another good reason to implement sub dual mode.
|
|
|
Post by mandene on Jun 28, 2017 14:21:19 GMT -5
I played on a server where pvp had to be concented to. If your PC talked smack, it was considered to be automatically concented to through your rp.
While it was less headache than here, it wasn't perfect and drama-free silver bullet solution. People tended to try to hide behind the "non-concent", even though their characters deserved to be smacked down.
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Jun 28, 2017 14:26:37 GMT -5
I played on a server where pvp had to be concented to. If your PC talked smack, it was considered to be automatically concented to through your rp. While it was less headache than here, it wasn't perfect and drama-free silver bullet solution. People tended to try to hide behind the "non-concent", even though their characters deserved to be smacked down. I played where that although assassinations were allowed, they had to be approved by and witnessed by a dm. The aggressor had to rp to the dm's why they felt they needed to attack.
Also this place had subdual for instant smack downs. And allowed players time to rp their way out of it.
|
|
|
Post by DOT on Jun 28, 2017 14:43:43 GMT -5
Agree that starter town should be no PvP. It's a damn big server, why the border town that has a bath house that's nicer than the town itself? There's plenty if alleyways and unvisited areas.
I believe that people mostly pvp in gg because there's an increased likelihood their target will be there, and that it's just where people go. Warden hullacks not in hullacks, but in gg does not equal hullacks but equals gg wardens? That was just a stretch for an example.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Jun 28, 2017 14:43:51 GMT -5
I don't think anyone needs to have "permission" to attack someone else's character, but I think there should be some sort of statable standard to be met on things like "buy in" on the part of the target, alternative ways out, and some standard on what constitutes acceptable reason to attack. I'm not even going to say anything needs to be changed, but even a posted statement on what current practice is on those things might be a good first step.
|
|
spyd3r97344
Proven Member
Without a copy NWN EE......
Posts: 169
|
Post by spyd3r97344 on Jun 28, 2017 16:33:01 GMT -5
In regards to the mentions about GG and IG violence, sometimes the those of a criminal mind may attempt the same pre-meditated action because the Real penalties to them are Juvenile lock up with or with out the Highnoon cookie with your privileged daily feast whom you could possible get a Shiv in the gut for his cookie while the assailant gets away with it because no one was looking almost like crossing a line between Maximum security and minimum security for instance.
So thus a political idea more than a mechanical one, Ohhh Cookies!
|
|
spyd3r97344
Proven Member
Without a copy NWN EE......
Posts: 169
|
Post by spyd3r97344 on Jun 28, 2017 16:35:32 GMT -5
There could just as well be conspiracies of having Inmate do some X Government covert type work and such so they don't get there hands dirty. while it becomes the neighbors problem, which is a likely scenario for something sembia might try. (just a plot punt)
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Jun 28, 2017 18:07:25 GMT -5
Here is some of the things I believe may need to be reviewed some are my thoughts and from discussions from others who feel the same.
1. Instant hostile before striking.
You do not know your stalked. You get instant hostiled and bam you are attacked unprepared and the attacker uber ready and armed to the hilt strikes and kills you screwing up any possible rp you have planned. You may get lucky and have the player do an ooc raise (granted death amnesia still in play). If the player does not and you are alone then you need to respawn, fugue and get screwed out of xp.
2. If you are hostiled early you are not permitted to prepare yourself yet the attacker can.
In the above two scenarios you are usually not given time to talk or walk yourself away from possible PVP.
Even if the early hostile does not com to fruition, it is like a "Carte Blanche" for the attackers to strike.
So then you have to decide to go around buffed and armed all the time or risk causal to enjoy rp.
You have to decide if you wish to still be a loner (if that is your character's rp) or try and attach yourself to groups or go to populated areas which does not always work as people have plans and the area can clear out quickly.
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Jun 28, 2017 18:14:24 GMT -5
I usually just hostile people I might get into PvP with so that they could waste money using their consumables and desensitize them to the hostiling. Then when they're poor and not expecting it ... .... ..... ......
|
|
|
Post by hellscream123 on Jun 28, 2017 19:21:34 GMT -5
One issue is mechanical barriers of the game. See tabletop has the DM 24/7 of play time. NwN does not thus all interactions are hard to prove.
The system is flawed in that everyone tries to uphold it. Yet have varied ideas upon meaning, allowence and point of certain laws ooc and ic.
The hostile button is a tedious object. Without it, we cannot fight. Yet pressing it immediately shows oocly that you have an agressor. As a player that's freaking hard to ignore (he says teleporting to a trap i knew was there and Blue didnt once)
Victory becomes a strange blurred line eventually when the above gets mirred in the rules reguarding death, memory fugue and gossip. Leading both sides to oftwn get dissatisfied with the results.
PVP is important to a place where we can be utterly opposing factions, ideals and faiths character wise. Sub dual or non fatal fighting would allow for a much greater display of interaction but hits the wall of NwN being an old clunky tin box that's tricky to adjust (i assume)
But nwn just wasn't built for pvp. From the ground up it is a pve game. We play adventurers of varied history and fight monsters we choose, the system just plainly isn't geared for meaningful and complex pvp physical combat. High numbers win, hughest numbers come from ooc unfair tactics (jump splating and so fouth) and that i think is our greatest roadblock. This game isn't made for what we're talking about.
|
|