Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

24 hrs = 3 server resets

basically the way i would see a 24 hr rule is within that day which would be your normal play session or the 3 resets, most play long enough to see the server reset once, not at all or a few times during a day

granted it would still leave a chance for people to simply log off and not worry about it till the next day but people have to stop playing at some point, then the next day the hostilities would have to be restarted or rechecked to see if there is still an issue and then if there is the 24 hrs timer would start again

this would either give them a chance to say sorry and end the vendetta or let the other guy know he is still pissed and wanting to kill him or beat his face in

nwnolan wrote:Cristof they meant one IG day. But that's longer than 10 minutes, so your arguement is still the same.

an IG day is rather short i think, and then you have the UD that has no concept of day/night

This may not even be feasible, but is it possible to have the hostile setting expire automatically after a set time period?

And just to show my ignorance of PvP, can you simply eliminate the hostility setting by logging off, then coming back on? (whether its 30 seconds or 3 hours later?)

*edited to clarify my questions

Cristof wrote:This may not even be feasible, but is it possible to have the hostile setting expire automatically after a set time period?

And just to show my ignorance of PvP, can you simply eliminate it by logging off, then coming back on? (whether its 30 seconds or 3 hours later?)

Just select them and toggle it off from the dmfi toolbar. You can also do so clicking the shield instead of the sword next to their name on the player list.

I meant their hostile setting. In other words, does setting 'hostile' affect both parties equally?

If I set you to hostile - can you attack me, or do you need to set me to hostile as well.

If I set you to hostile, and you either set me to hostile (or it does so reciprocally) - can either one of us negate the hostile setting for both? I.e. We were initially hostile, but I want it to go away, so I set you back to neutral and you have to abide by that.

Perhaps this would be better addressed in another thread...as I stand by my opinion that remaining hostile (by any means) should remain until one party leaves the area. (Feel free to move or answer it elsewhere if it requires a complex answer.)

Cristof wrote:I meant their hostile setting. In other words, does setting 'hostile' affect both parties equally?

If I set you to hostile - can you attack me, or do you need to set me to hostile as well.

If I set you to hostile, and you either set me to hostile (or it does so reciprocally) - can either one of us negate the hostile setting for both? I.e. We were initially hostile, but I want it to go away, so I set you back to neutral and you have to abide by that.

Perhaps this would be better addressed in another thread...as I stand by my opinion that remaining hostile (by any means) should remain until one party leaves the area. (Feel free to move or answer it elsewhere if it requires a complex answer.)

It does-- if someone sets you hostile, then you have them as hostile too. The thing to remember too is that setting hostile is a game mechanic mostly done simply because some spells only affect hostile targets. The emoting and chat is what makes hostility obvious. Setting someone hostile is an OOC action and should be invisible IC. Simply attacking someone because they set you hostile is metagaming and against the rules.

I was thinking 24 hours, myself.

With HiPS, stealth, and invisibility, it's pretty hard to tell when a person has actually left the area. So it would be hard to use that as a measuring tool.

From Sam's point of view I don't really need to see any time measurement-- he would be waiting around the corner for Fred not plotting some far off future revenge scenario. Really if you just ran into the PvP situation how well did you even see the other PC? Memories are notoriously bad at such short term recall-- just look at conflicting first-hand witness reports police deal with daily. I don't think the time should be anywhere near as long as 24 hours or that such a random encounter be stretched out this way. To me a random encounter is usually over quick and limited in scope to where it occurs. Also if I submit a screen over a disagreement with it-- well there are no timestamps so that becomes problematic too.

Area is simple and clear and chances are the initial PvP incitement is still in the on screen chat too. If Sam sees Fred in the same area well then he can respond to the PvP initiation at any time as I see it until he or Fred moves on. At that point unless you are a tracker extraordinaire with an uncanny memory I think the encounter is over. Many area transitions (especially the outdoor ones) represent a significant distance between areas. I don't think it realistic that someone insults and threatens Sam in the farmlands of Baldur's Gate and then 23 RL hours later Sam sees them south of Beregost and gets a free sneak attack because they are still within 24 hours. I really think a normal random everyday PvP event needs to begin and end in the same locale.

CrispyWalrus wrote: I really think a normal random everyday PvP event needs to begin and end in the same locale.

not particularly a good idea on this because there are those who will talk shit to your toon within the safety of a town and for you to beat the guy up for it you would have to wait for him to leave that safe area, or just not care and beat their face in while in the city but then you will have guards to deal with

this is the main reason why it really needs to be extended, people think they can get away with things in safe areas but then they leave and hide behind the pvp rules when they get jumped for it

Blackman D wrote:

CrispyWalrus wrote: I really think a normal random everyday PvP event needs to begin and end in the same locale.

not particularly a good idea on this because there are those who will talk (#2) to your toon within the safety of a town and for you to beat the guy up for it you would have to wait for him to leave that safe area, or just not care and beat their face in while in the city but then you will have guards to deal with

this is the main reason why it really needs to be extended, people think they can get away with things in safe areas but then they leave and hide behind the pvp rules when they get jumped for it

I was referring to the scenario in the original post where someone tries to initiate PvP against someone whose skills may not lie in a straight-up fight and how that PvP scenario could be dealt with then and there. I do agree that their hostile words are PvP initiation and having locales where you cannot respond or else you metagame guards is quite lame. Someone mouthing off in town is as effective a fart in the wind imo. They can't start PvP there either so it's all pretty futile and silly iyam but it does happen. In reality the Fist are not omnipresent and the big city with its winding streets and dark alleys should be even easier to knife someone in the back.

I see this as a different scenario and agree that you should be able to respond if that is in your character. Honestly I am not sure how to set a rule with this. I do still think it should be resolved as quickly as possible. Knowing they can't act there either I would probably send an OOC tell that I consider this PvP and it will be if they persist in its initiation. IC I would likely go with a "Ye best apologize or else" threat and then if they do not "Watch your back-- this ain't over" *said with a glare and a pat of the blades on his hip* comment and take a screen. Unfortunately with frequent whining CYA is a must. With their incitement captured, it will be clear who started what when you do settle up.

EDITED: Spelling and clarification.

[This is my opinion, not the staff's]

I do agree with Bro2 on this with the 24h. If someone DO open the pvp with someone, he should be ready to take the consequences during that day.

There's just a little fail in this though. Nearly every intelligent character, when in a position of "weakness" (unbuffed, by example), would take the big buffed-cleric/fighter's OOC "RP OUT". The fighter or hipser or already-buffed-mage/cleric won't be able to attack a mage or a rogue when he has the advantage because of OOC rules. And then the wizard/cleric/fighter UMD would be able to come back 10 minutes later or an hour later buffed like a christmas tree and attack without letting the other a RP out.

That's the only fail in the 24 hour.

thats the problem with RP outs in the first place

this guy threatens that guy, this guy is already ready for a fight and that guy is unprepared or exhausted from a battle already but this guy has to let that guy have an opportunity to leave

that guy leaves rests and goes searching for this guy with a few buddies of his, now this guy is outnumbered, unprepared or whatever

so any RP out for most cases will end up that way which is why no one likes having to give RP outs, especially in the case of drow on the surface which that happens all the time

if you removed the RP out then people will only have to actually be able to escape which should have been the case from the start, people can HiPS, ethereal, simply haul ass etc. and omg they can say sorry i didnt mean to piss you off not in the face not in the face!

there are already plenty of ways a person can leave a situation without having to have ooc ruling on it, people just like crying

DM Passiflora wrote:Nearly every intelligent character, when in a position of "weakness" (unbuffed, by example), would take the big buffed-cleric/fighter's OOC "RP OUT". The fighter or hipser or already-buffed-mage/cleric won't be able to attack a mage or a rogue when he has the advantage because of OOC rules.

Yeah. Under the proposed rule change, everyone consenting to PvP would do so knowing that they're opening themselves up to the possibility of ambush for 24 hours.
Do we think this shifts the balance too much? I dunno. What do you all think?

I'm in favor of this change, though admittedly not for the "balance" aspect. I think it adds a sprinkle of realism in Player vs. Player disagreements, and conflicts. 24 hours should be more than enough time to exact whatever physical revenge you see fit, and if that fails, given the revised rules, you can always extend the window by negotiating in tells with the other player afterwards.

This also adds credit to the "Assassin" class, which has been needing a bit of love. Should give more players an appreciation for their mortality now, knowing they can't simply say No when their antagonism lands them between a rock, and a hard place.

Bit of a personal contribution, but it's pretty relevant. I've only initiated PvP one time on this server, and the RP-Out was exploited (He started buffing the second I sent him a tell, and consented once he was finished).. To have this rule changed in the way Mister Rogers suggests would spare other players similar exploitative hardships.

Reaver34567 wrote:Bit of a personal contribution, but it's pretty relevant. I've only initiated PvP one time on this server, and the RP-Out was exploited (He started buffing the second I sent him a tell, and consented once he was finished).

Uhmm.. hate to tell you but that is not an RP out...

If you set him hostile in advance and RP IC -- "You better run" (or whatever out you gave *draws his sword and steps forward menacingly*) and his response is to buff, then that is consent at the first buff-- no OOC tells needed or to wait for him to finish.