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

My recollection (and forgive me as Im old and it has been years now).

UD was implemented sometime around 2009-2010ish. Prior to that all UD races spawned in BG with the rest of us (that was some awkward AFK-running).

At first travel was open/free, but difficult. At the time we had very minimal gear, +1/+2 ish, and the path to the UD was long and difficult. (uphill both ways, ya whippersnappers!)

This lasted for some time, actually. At times there was some funny business, but by and large there were some cool things that happened. My bro had his elf captured and perma-killed by some drow. That was a server first, and the RP around it was awesome. The Tolerance is Treason thing was born, those were good times too.

There were some memorable drow amongst the surfacers in those days. I want to say Mithari was one? I could have that wrong, but there were a couple living amongst Beregost if I recall correctly.

Eventually the raids from both sides got a little wonky. Surfacers went and destroyed a temple or something in the UD, the Drow came and burned Beregost down or something like that. It was a real shit-show. At that point travel between the two worlds was stopped completely, save with DM intervention (and the occasional party-transition exploit ).

When travel was opened back up, the rules (as we have them now) were put into place. That was probably about 2012ish?

It was tamer then than it is now but part of that is the scale of the population.

Planehopper wrote:My recollection (and forgive me as Im old and it has been years now).

UD was implemented sometime around 2009-2010ish. Prior to that all UD races spawned in BG with the rest of us (that was some awkward AFK-running).

At first travel was open/free, but difficult. At the time we had very minimal gear, +1/+2 ish, and the path to the UD was long and difficult. (uphill both ways, ya whippersnappers!)

This lasted for some time, actually. At times there was some funny business, but by and large there were some cool things that happened. My bro had his elf captured and perma-killed by some drow. That was a server first, and the RP around it was awesome. The Tolerance is Treason thing was born, those were good times too.

There were some memorable drow amongst the surfacers in those days. I want to say Mithari was one? I could have that wrong, but there were a couple living amongst Beregost if I recall correctly.

Eventually the raids from both sides got a little wonky. Surfacers went and destroyed a temple or something in the UD, the Drow came and burned Beregost down or something like that. It was a real shit-show. At that point travel between the two worlds was stopped completely, save with DM intervention (and the occasional party-transition exploit ).

When travel was opened back up, the rules (as we have them now) were put into place. That was probably about 2012ish?

Yes.

That's in line with what I heard.

-------

My concern with current script is that it is deeply flawed and does not address the problem and the reason for the rules being in place. It shuts off possible ways to interact with the server, but does not prevent toxic behavior.

So I think it would be the best idea to kill the script in its current form and replace it with something else.

One of the possible approaches I mentioned - is detecting grinding attempt. Meaning if you kill too much stuff at one area as otherworlder, xp shuts down. This is still far from perfect, but it would be better than current situation.

Statements like "The rule has ALWAYS existed" is a non-argument and dogmatic thinking. If it always existed, that does not mean it is necessary, and it is important to understand WHY the rule is here. As I said the rule is here due to PVP incidents, and by know the actual reason seem to be forgotten by many people.

Honestly, sometimes it resembles fictional monkey experiment.

NegInfinity wrote: Basically, as a player I don't give a damn if somebody cheats. Catch them, ban them via cd key, assume they're dead. Done. I do give a damn when fixing a non-problem causes inconvenience for the players that weren't cheating/exploting/whatever to begin with. False positives shouldn't ever happen.

Now.

This is a RP server. Actions should have RP consequences. You went to the surface, you ran into paladin patrol you died. Whoops. Or you went to UD, ran into Drop patrol, you died. Also whoops. Possibly with a permastrike in both cases.

This is something I'd like to see, not a random brainless script making decision.
------------

Speaking of which, do you know what would be a good way to deter surface grinding, but allow combat xp?

Tweak dynamic spawn system to account for present of otherworlders and shut down spawns if they stay too long in one area.

Or make xp shutdown delayed. Like if a character spend too much time fighting in one area, their xp is zeroed until they go elsewhere, but only if they're "otherwolrders".

Either way would be much better than current solution. You'll still be able to explore the other side, but will have to move without "running around as headless chicken" thing.

I feel that there should be a possibility of exploring and getting rewards for it, because this is an RP server. I don't feel the same way about ability to grind, though.

I agree with this, and this is an RP server, so it should encourage RP along with IC consequences. However the rules including the enforced mechanic is counter-productive to rp. Also, any RP reason should be a valid enough reason to go to either side.

NegInfinity wrote:My concern with current script is that it is deeply flawed and does not address the problem and the reason for the rules being in place.

It addresses the issue of ooc grinding on the other side.

It shuts off possible ways to interact with the server, but does not prevent toxic behavior.

You can still interact with the server. You can RP all you want even kill mobs. You wont get any xp for, that is all. This rule does not prevent you to rp

So I think it would be the best idea to kill the script in its current form and replace it with something else.

I disagree,

One of the possible approaches I mentioned - is detecting grinding attempt. Meaning if you kill too much stuff at one area as otherworlder, xp shuts down. This is still far from perfect, but it would be better than current situation.

Statements like "The rule has ALWAYS existed" is a non-argument and dogmatic thinking. If it always existed, that does not mean it is necessary, and it is important to understand WHY the rule is here. As I said the rule is here due to PVP incidents, and by know the actual reason seem to be forgotten by many people.

Obviously it is not forgotten if the new mechanic is introduced. Nor the problems because of ooc behavior

I understand you dont like "The rule has ALWAYS existed" and that is not necessary or good enough. However, when i want to eat chinese i dont go to an italian restaurant.

Honestly, sometimes it resembles fictional monkey experiment.

Hidden: show

They started with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, they hung a banana on a string with a set of stairs placed under it. Before long, a monkey went to the stairs and started to climb towards the banana. As soon as he started up the stairs, the psychologists sprayed all of the other monkeys with ice cold water. After a while, another monkey made an attempt to obtain the banana. As soon as his foot touched the stairs, all of the other monkeys were sprayed with ice cold water. It's wasn't long before all of the other monkeys would physically prevent any monkey from climbing the stairs. Now, the psychologists shut off the cold water, removed one monkey from the cage and replaced it with a new one. The new monkey saw the banana and started to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attacked him. After another attempt and attack, he discovered that if he tried to climb the stairs, he would be assaulted. Next they removed another of the original five monkeys and replaced it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was attacked. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, they replaced a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey tried to climb the stairs, he was attacked. The monkeys had no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they were beating any monkey that tried. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys had ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been around here

Ye, we can be very philosophical about this.

NegInfinity wrote:

mrm3ntalist wrote: Ye, so that was known to him, or should have been. He chose to play on this server with that in mind. There is nothing new today on that matter nor this mechanic rule changes anything.

That's called being stubborn.

Rules and features should exist for a reason. If there's no reason for the rule, it should die. See YAGNI/KISS principles. "The rule always existed" is not a good reason.

Yes, rules and features should exist ONLY exist because there is a very GOOD reason for it, and if that reason no longer is there, then the rule or feature should be re-evaluated and considered abolished and removed.

Incarnate wrote:

NegInfinity wrote:

mrm3ntalist wrote: Ye, so that was known to him, or should have been. He chose to play on this server with that in mind. There is nothing new today on that matter nor this mechanic rule changes anything.

That's called being stubborn.

Rules and features should exist for a reason. If there's no reason for the rule, it should die. See YAGNI/KISS principles. "The rule always existed" is not a good reason.

Yes, rules and features should exist ONLY exist because there is a very GOOD reason for it, and if that reason no longer is there, then the rule or feature should be re-evaluated and considered abolished and removed.

If it doesnt get removed after being evaluated, will you accept it though?

mrm3ntalist wrote: It addresses the issue of ooc grinding on the other side.

I proposed a better alternative earlier. That does not punish everybody. Have you read it?

mrm3ntalist wrote: You can still interact with the server. You can RP all you want even kill mobs. You wont get any xp for, that is all. This rule does not prevent you to rp

It does limit number of ways in which I can interact with the environment.

Given that the server populace is low, number of environments is large, it is normal to spend a lot of time interacting with environment isntead. This script harms that part of the gameplay.

mrm3ntalist wrote: Obviously it is not forgotten if the new mechanic is introduced. Nor the problems because of ooc behavior

You haven't remembered planehopper's story yourself, therefore I have no reason to think that the new mechanic was put in place to address the original behavior that caused the rule to be created.

I also have no reason to think this was well thought out change.

mrm3ntalist wrote: However, when i want to eat chinese i dont go to an italian restaurant.

This is simply different way of expressing stubbornness.

You're one of the people who are supposed to be interested in well-being of the server, so when people are expressing concerns, it is good idea to listen.

mrm3ntalist wrote:

Incarnate wrote: Rules and features should exist for a reason. If there's no reason for the rule, it should die. See YAGNI/KISS principles. "The rule always existed" is not a good reason.

Yes, rules and features should exist ONLY exist because there is a very GOOD reason for it, and if that reason no longer is there, then the rule or feature should be re-evaluated and considered abolished and removed.

If it doesnt get removed after being evaluated, will you accept it though?[/quote]

I won't have a choice in the matter than to abide by it whatever the decision is, but re-evaluating the mechanic really isn't enough because this mechanic is made because of the rule you previously so conveniently quoted here - its the rules that are counter-productive to rp.

IF a character ANY IC reason to either go to Surface or to UD, it should be considered valid.
However using an IC reasons to grief / pvp-bait / otherwise OOC disrupt rp and gameplay - is completely different and should be handled directly with proper OOC punishment.

IF grinding is a problem cross-realm, then grinding on own realm is also a problem and ruins immersion.

NegInfinity wrote:You're one of the people who are supposed to be interested in well-being of the server, so when people are expressing concerns, it is good idea to listen.

+1

NegInfinity wrote:

mrm3ntalist wrote: It addresses the issue of ooc grinding on the other side.

I proposed a better alternative earlier. That does not punish everybody. Have you read it?

Yeap. Its not better.

mrm3ntalist wrote: You can still interact with the server. You can RP all you want even kill mobs. You wont get any xp for, that is all. This rule does not prevent you to rp

It does limit number of ways in which I can interact with the environment.

Ye there always will be limits. I want to ERP in every corner, it doesnt mean it will happen nor that it doesnt restrict how i interact with the corner

Given that the server populace is low, number of environments is large, it is normal to spend a lot of time interacting with environment isntead. This script harms that part of the gameplay.

Server populance is higher than ever

mrm3ntalist wrote: Obviously it is not forgotten if the new mechanic is introduced. Nor the problems because of ooc behavior

You haven't remembered planehopper's story yourself, therefore I have no reason to think that the new mechanic was put in place to address the original behavior that caused the rule to be created.

...

I also have no reason to think this was well thought out change.

Like every other change, you can think it was well thought or not. Then every other player can think the same or not.

mrm3ntalist wrote: However, when i want to eat chinese i dont go to an italian restaurant.

This is simply different way of expressing stubbornness.

Exactly that. It goes both ways. One may not like eating italian - which is fair - so he doesnt have to go to there.

You're one of the people who are supposed to be interested in well-being of the server, so when people are expressing concerns, it is good idea to listen.

I listen, i got interested and i expressed my own opinion. You should follow your own advice as well. So do i.

mrm3ntalist wrote:

NegInfinity wrote: You're one of the people who are supposed to be interested in well-being of the server, so when people are expressing concerns, it is good idea to listen.

I listen, i got interested and i expressed my own opinion. You should follow your own advice as well. So do i.

I think what Neg is getting at here, is that you should be advocating for what people are expressing concerns for, in this case its those particular parts of the rules and this enforced mechanic.

mrm3ntalist wrote: If it doesnt get removed after being evaluated, will you accept it though?

I don't know.

Long story short, I'd need to be sufficiently sure that the proposal was actually reviewed and that it isn't the case where somebody quickly write off "No, it won't be changed" to make people shut up and stop talking about it.

I have few issues with that part of the rules, you see.

The whole "Valid RP reason" part sounds a lot like toxic attitudes displayed by some players when instead of cooperating with each other, they spend time judging character's of others and looking for reasons to accuse someone of being "poor roleplayer" or starting lore lawyering session. This is the attitude displayed by some little shit that ruined the BG experience for me in the very first time (as explained here: viewtopic.php?p=801235#p801235 ). If you do care about well-being of the server, those kind of attitudes should be avoided, because they ultimately make community toxic and cause people to leave.

With all that in mind, I can udnerstand desire to prevent "otherworlders" grinding on the other side, because it can be disruptive. I can also understand desire to prevent OOC pvp pissing matches. However, the script as it is now does not prevent any of that, and shuts down valid form of explorations gameplay.

That's why I suggested a "grind timer" approach earlier. That would allow you to explore, but wouldn't allow you to grind. I think it would be better idea than current script.

As for OOC pvp baiting, this is something that should be handled by DM, permastrikes, and IC consequences, like paladins raiding soubar.

Basically, by installing 0xp script wall, you shut down both good and bad possibilities. It means the solution should be refined to exclude bad possibilities only. The server also should be interested in promoting storytelling and positive consequences that improve storytelling and not shut down possibilities indiscriminately.

Which means that the script should be reevaluated, reasoning for the rule should be understood, it should be broken down into individual components, and those should be acted upon. "No drow on surface" and "no surfacers in UD" is not a good rule. It should be possible to get to the other side, try to blend in, and get killed horribly.

That's the way I see it.

Incarnate wrote:

mrm3ntalist wrote:

NegInfinity wrote: You're one of the people who are supposed to be interested in well-being of the server, so when people are expressing concerns, it is good idea to listen.

I listen, i got interested and i expressed my own opinion. You should follow your own advice as well. So do i.

I think what Neg is getting at here, is that you should be advocating for what people are expressing concerns for, in this case its those particular parts of the rules and this enforced mechanic.

No, noone should be just advocating about what people are expressing concerns for. Only listen. Then one can either agree or disagree.

mrm3ntalist wrote: Yeap. Its not better.

It is.

It does not indiscriminately affect large group of people.

mrm3ntalist wrote: Ye there always will be limits. I want to ERP in every corner,

We aren't talking about ERP here, so that is a false analogy.

mrm3ntalist wrote: Server populance is higher than ever

High populace is a thousand of people logged simultaneously. BG will never be able to achieve it.

NegInfinity wrote:

mrm3ntalist wrote: If it doesnt get removed after being evaluated, will you accept it though?

I don't know.

Long story short, I'd need to be sufficiently sure that the proposal was actually reviewed and that it isn't the case where somebody quickly write off "No, it won't be changed" to make people shut up and stop talking about it.

Does each and every player that plays here should be sufficiently sure about any changes? That is impossible.