PVP Question

[Blackman D]

How would it make it hard on them? If their character was a hothead, it likely wouldn't think far enough ahead to worry about the results of their actions. "Shoot first, ask questions later". And if we are worried about it on the player vs. player level, and not character vs. character, would make people think twice about what characters they really want to play and how they want to play it. If you (player) can't handle people possibly retaliating and kicking your ass on more favorable terms for them, you may want to think harder about playing a hothead that picks fights.

exactly

and most people who play the hotheaded meat shield are usually the ones who dont care about pvp in the first place

granted its the ones who pick fights and cant handle ICly or OOCly when they get their asses handed to them are the ones who will be the issue, but since they are already an issue now they would only continue to be an issue with a change

But remember, that hot-headed character wants to kick that person's ass right now... but that person is hiding behind the consent rule until they get the upper hand. Is it really fair for that?

no more consent rules would fix that...

[stevebarracuda]

First of all, if someone IC threatens you, or sets you hostile for whatever reason, if you respond in a Tell "I don't consent to this PvP," they have to stop, immediately. That's a rule that won't change. It prevents griefing, and the needs to stay firm so that inexperienced players or players who strictly don't want to be involved in any type of PvP are protected.

Second, if you've added your name to the PvP Club, then it's open season on your toon. So, on that point, there should be an alphabetical list of players that anyone can refer to. That really shouldn't be so hard to maintain on these boards.

Third, if you threaten a rogue with hostilities or set them hostile, and they "sneak into the shadows," that's PvP consent right there. It's already in the rules. The initiator would rightly keep wary of their surroundings for quite some time, or at least until they transition from the area!

Fourth, if a player/toon only PvP's when they have the upper hand, then that is a form of griefing. If they cry foul when you come around in the same area in a few minutes to enact full buffed revenge, then they were just trying to grief you first of all. Screen shot and report to a DM.

Fifth, if you take an out from PvP, then go OOC/Tell a bunch of buddies to run over real quick to the Cloakwood so you can buff up and ruin someone before they transition, the new "friends" would have to start the hostilities process to fit the rules for PvP as they stand.

Sixth, the whole point here is to work out a better form of reality when it comes to PvP IG and IC. There needs to be some extra window of time to follow through on PvP actions, depending on the type of PC your playing.

And, if 2 or more players want to turn the PvP encounter into a 12 hour, 24 hour drawn out affair (beyond the area transitioning rule), then they need to work it out OOC via Tells, just like the rules already state.

[CrispyWalrus]

First of all, if someone IC threatens you, or sets you hostile for whatever reason, if you respond in a Tell "I don't consent to this PvP," they have to stop, immediately. That's a rule that won't change. It prevents griefing, and the needs to stay firm so that inexperienced players or players who strictly don't want to be involved in any type of PvP are protected.

This actually hasn't been the case for a long time now. Consent was changed from OOC (as you describe) to IC RP. If someone IC threatens you, you had either kowtow to them or leave quickly both IC. You need to take the RP out given if you do not consent. There is no "I don't consent" but your character gets to stick around or worse mouth off. That in itself is ignoring the RP out given you and consenting. If you are the aggressor it is nice to send a brief tell after the RP out noting that was their RP out but it is not required just neighborly player to player courtesy if you so choose.

[c2k]

First of all, if someone IC threatens you, or sets you hostile for whatever reason, if you respond in a Tell "I don't consent to this PvP," they have to stop, immediately. That's a rule that won't change. It prevents griefing, and the needs to stay firm so that inexperienced players or players who strictly don't want to be involved in any type of PvP are protected.

This actually hasn't been the case for a long time now. Consent was changed from OOC (as you describe to IC RP) If someone IC threatens you, you had either kowtow to them or leave quickly both IC. You need to take the RP out given if you do not consent. There is no "I don't consent" but your character gets to stick around or worse mouth off. That in itself is ignoring the RP out given you and consenting.

Its still OOC is you take the consent out just to comeback 5 minutes later ready to shred everyone in your path.

[Blackman D]

Fifth, if you take an out from PvP, then go OOC/Tell a bunch of buddies to run over real quick to the Cloakwood so you can buff up and ruin someone before they transition, the new "friends" would have to start the hostilities process to fit the rules for PvP as they stand.

technically with the current updated rules if someone takes an out from a pvp and comes back with help, the extra help needs not do anything, the original two would have to restart hostilities and etc and the extra help would only need standby to defend their buddy should it come to that, but since they are now the aggressors it probably will unless the original aggressor backs out

and that could go back and fourth for a while till one side has rogues as back up and only appears to be alone

[stevebarracuda]

This actually hasn't been the case for a long time now. Consent was changed from OOC (as you describe) to IC RP. If someone IC threatens you, you had either kowtow to them or leave quickly both IC.

Unfortunately, this isn't what actually happens in game. 90% of my experiences in PvP or witnesses to it where handled OOC via Tells or /// conversation.

I guess it stems from people not wanting to be "misunderstood" IC.

If someone IC threatens you, you had either kowtow to them or leave quickly both IC. You need to take the RP out given if you do not consent. There is no "I don't consent" but your character gets to stick around or worse mouth off.

That is what supposed to happen. But what mostly happens, because people have a hard time with understanding the rules is:

Instigator: "///my toon wants to kill your toon."
Victim: "I do not consent to pvp."

This is not an exaggeration on my part—I witnessed an exchange that literally went like that. Niether players left the area.

and that could go back and fourth for a while till one side has rogues as back up and only appears to be alone

Well, that would be a very interesting stand-off!

[CrispyWalrus]

Well I have not really seen that. I try to make my emotes and RP very descriptive and haven't been misunderstood I guess. I don't see a lot of PvP though-- maybe once a month and typically things go well enough all IC. Most times things don't escalate to PvP as it seems RP outs are taken whether by me or by another if I am the aggressor (rarely) as the RP is much more often better than the PvP. I don't mind tells to clarify things if it is not always clear but a bunch of OOC \\ or // or (( dropped into the middle of a RP session really irks me as it completely derails the RP.

If a player is wrong I gently suggest they read the little book in their inventory that they have probably never cracked and cite rules to them. Most times it is a lack of knowledge causing any hiccups to the PvP and most players are cool about it as most want to do the "right" thing. Occasionally you get a knucklehead who mouths off and refuses to follow the rules. At that point I grab a DM or if none are on a screen which I then PM to the DM alias. If I encounter them again things usually go a lot smoother.

[stevebarracuda]

...things usually go a lot smoother.

I think PvP between players who are really into the RP aspect of this server are hoping, or at least discussing in this thread, the possibility of making PvP more realistic to the situations and personality of our toons.

I just assume that we who care about changing the PvP consent window to a different "time frame" are asking for it because it furthers the RP, as well as just makes a bit more sense to dealing with hostilities.

Look, we all have anecdotes where some non-rule reading, poor RP having player just out right attacks you, then runs away, later sending you a Tell like: "LOL," or "hahahaha, that was awesome" after they've totally broken the rules (honestly, this just occurred to me yesterday...I gave him a warning...anyway...)

Since we are all already agreeing to "play nice" on this server in regard to PvP, I think it seems very possible that giving a larger window to enact PvP—and a better situation to reacting to hostilities—will be carried out with respect.

I still vote for letting hostilities last until a player makes an area transition. It's a larger window of opportunity for both sides to react more in character, as well as giving each equal ability to quit the hostilities without going all OOC on each other. I've said my piece, thanks.

[reylas]

I for one think we are trying to over complicate a very real part of playing on a rp fantasy server. PvP should be somthing that everyone should be aware of when they make their first character on this server. If we are going to RP our characters then lets do that, all the way. That includes Upsetting assassins and mages that will later want revenge. If you go around being a bully or being rude, then just except what that brings. Players abussing and killing characters for past misdemeaners is fine I think, why should not a character as in RL await to strike back when the advantage is in their court. If a meat head axe whilding bully goes around picking fights, then expect to be stabbed in the back in and ally down the track.
This is a fantasy setting right, please correct me if i am wrong, but do you not think that a population of champions that on any given day is resorting to violence to wipe out goblins,orcs,lizardmen,ect,ect,ect. would not also resort to violence much easier over a glass of spilt milk than moden day. Their will always be people that cry foul if they feel their little bubble is upset, I think that we can spoil a great thing if we try to cussion every one in cotton.

PS. i have had a player who was rude/ abussive to mine ic, he then tryed to ooc say he did not concent to pvp. well bad luck, the character you were rude to is chaotic evil and takes these matters very much to person. If i was ever told by any staff member that what I did was wrong by engaging in pvp, then i would have to seriously re think if my time spent here was of value.

[c2k]

Yeah, that's fine if they try to pick a fight and then try to back out... if they let you go.


What my gripe is about is when your character wants to smash the face of another character, but can't because of the consent rules, and then 2 minutes later(not even leaving the area) after that character gains position, they agree and sucker punch you. That's just abusing the consent rule because your character would never, in reality, let that unfortunate soul walk away.

[Krazy]

What my gripe is about is when your character wants to smash the face of another character, but can't because of the consent rules, and then 2 minutes later(not even leaving the area) after that character gains position, they agree and sucker punch you. That's just abusing the consent rule because your character would never, in reality, let that unfortunate soul walk away.

Exactly.

[reylas]

Yeah, that's fine if they try to pick a fight and then try to back out... if they let you go.


What my gripe is about is when your character wants to smash the face of another character, but can't because of the consent rules, and then 2 minutes later(not even leaving the area) after that character gains position, they agree and sucker punch you. That's just abusing the consent rule because your character would never, in reality, let that unfortunate soul walk away.

I can't seem to be able to think of a senario were this is not ok. All I am seeing is somthing like the bully Paladin or Pirate pushing his weight around and causing a seen. get into a verbal with a young hin/mage and they wisely talk there way out of the situation, knowing full well that he/she wil be eaten alive by the Paladin/Pirate. so they slinker off but the wait later on to get revenge. which could be done in all manner of ways.



Or are we saying that you can play a rude, fool mouthed, brash, abrassive twat, and then not concent to pvp when you have upset a character with your insults. Please do not tell me this is the case.

Please give me a senario

[Charraj]

PS. i have had a player who was rude/ abussive to mine ic, he then tryed to ooc say he did not concent to pvp. well bad luck, the character you were rude to is chaotic evil and takes these matters very much to person. If i was ever told by any staff member that what I did was wrong by engaging in pvp, then i would have to seriously re think if my time spent here was of value.

PvP rules say that continuous taunting, etc. is PvP consent.

What my gripe is about is when your character wants to smash the face of another character, but can't because of the consent rules, and then 2 minutes later(not even leaving the area) after that character gains position, they agree and sucker punch you. That's just abusing the consent rule because your character would never, in reality, let that unfortunate soul walk away.

We've tried to be pretty inclusive when saying what things constitute PvP consent. If your character wants to smash in the face of another character for continuous verbal abuse, he can.

Are there scenarios that aren't covered by the rules? Probably. The rules state that a single offhand remark is NOT PvP consent, for example. So if you're playing a hotheaded character who takes offense at a small remark, then I suppose the proposed rules change would disadvantage you. It disadvantages anyone who wants to start conflict, really.

Also, the current rules say that if you want to smash in the face of someone who's taunting you, you have to do so while he's taunting you. The proposed rules change would let you bide your time, and jump the taunter later on, when he's least expecting it.

[mute83]

I for one think we are trying to over complicate a very real part of playing on a rp fantasy server. PvP should be somthing that everyone should be aware of when they make their first character on this server. If we are going to RP our characters then lets do that, all the way. That includes Upsetting assassins and mages that will later want revenge. If you go around being a bully or being rude, then just except what that brings. Players abussing and killing characters for past misdemeaners is fine I think, why should not a character as in RL await to strike back when the advantage is in their court. If a meat head axe whilding bully goes around picking fights, then expect to be stabbed in the back in and ally down the track.
This is a fantasy setting right, please correct me if i am wrong, but do you not think that a population of champions that on any given day is resorting to violence to wipe out goblins,orcs,lizardmen,ect,ect,ect. would not also resort to violence much easier over a glass of spilt milk than moden day. Their will always be people that cry foul if they feel their little bubble is upset, I think that we can spoil a great thing if we try to cussion every one in cotton.

PS. i have had a player who was rude/ abussive to mine ic, he then tryed to ooc say he did not concent to pvp. well bad luck, the character you were rude to is chaotic evil and takes these matters very much to person. If i was ever told by any staff member that what I did was wrong by engaging in pvp, then i would have to seriously re think if my time spent here was of value.

But that same bully, should also be able to finish it there, right away, and not have to walk around and worrie if he will get killed when his back is turned. It goes both way.

I understand that there are people who don't want to participate in PvP, but sometimes those are the same people who would give you a perfect reason to fight them. Then they hide behind the consent rule. PvP is just part of roleplay. Let us do away with the encumbering and immersion breaking concept of PvP consent. What are people so afraid of? Perming? Noone is forced to be permed on this server. Consent seems like it is intended yo prevent grudging, but it can easily digress into litigation and before you know it the whole situation is spoiled. It gives the advantage to the people who want to face no consequences for their actions.

I recall the staff have said, if you dont want to PvP, dont put yourself in situations where it might happen.

[stevebarracuda]

I had an idea last night, but I don't know if it is possible or would fly with players, but here it goes:

You know how tigerbomb made the DMFI Locator allow you to toggle your current area, level and such? What about adding a toggle for "PvP Consent."

I know it is border line metagamey, but people have already signed up to the PvP Club here on the boards, and with this yes/no option active IG, those that hate all the PvP consent play acting can just go straight to the RP aspect of hostilities.

The default setting would be set to "Off", to protect the people who never use the tool. And, the PvP rules, as they stand now, would have to be followed.

???