|
Post by Erulaan D'Anhoor on May 22, 2008 19:10:47 GMT -5
I like the PvP declaration idea....
you can just go ahead and label yourself a weenie that will shrivel up and snivel at the slightest threat. Perfect. Seriously. I can see some great RP stemming from this.
Label me FULL ON! I don't care how many times I get killed in PvP as long as I can talk a good game while getting my ass handed to me :-P
|
|
|
Post by Sojourn on May 22, 2008 19:27:41 GMT -5
I like the PvP declaration idea.... you can just go ahead and label yourself a weenie that will shrivel up and snivel at the slightest threat. Perfect. Seriously. I can see some great RP stemming from this. Label me FULL ON! I don't care how many times I get killed in PvP as long as I can talk a good game while getting my ass handed to me :-P Personally I like full PvP anytime, anywhere as well, but for me the issue isn't who's a weenie and who's the bravest. The issue at hand is that with full PvP and no limitations whatsoever, there is going to be drama and chaotic OOC conflict that is detrimental to the community as a whole. Without some strict and clear rules, eventually we might lose alot of great rpers because some griefing idiots decided to go on a PvP rampage with the mentality of "Oh, I did it cause my character is evil," or, "I RPed it first before attacking." I have seen this happen many times from both a player standpoint and a DM standpoint and neither of those cases bring back fond memories. So in order to prevent this and keep the community as stable as possible without potential frustrations and OOC wars, there needs to be more than just a rule that states: "Full PvP with RP reason".
|
|
|
Post by Erulaan D'Anhoor on May 22, 2008 21:01:35 GMT -5
agreed with above.
set the rules as to what griefing is and let folks duke it out :-)
|
|
kiu
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by kiu on May 23, 2008 2:59:10 GMT -5
NWN is a violent game by design. If people want to hold hands in a circle and sing Cum_Bay_Yah, then they're playing the wrong game. I've seen the type who complain about every little aspect, including PvP, and PP - these are the same types who play Chutes & Ladders and complain every time they get a chute and complain every time someone else gets a ladder. So what do we do? remove the chutes? remove the ladders? and then call it what, chutes and ladders without chutes or ladders?
On the other side of the coin, yes there are always going to be lamers and abusers. I can only hope that besides what ever rules are laid out, that the DM's have the power and wherewithal to enforce them, and get rid of the nutheads who ruin it for everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourn on May 23, 2008 14:08:39 GMT -5
NWN is a violent game by design. If people want to hold hands in a circle and sing Cum_Bay_Yah, then they're playing the wrong game. I've seen the type who complain about every little aspect, including PvP, and PP - these are the same types who play Chutes & Ladders and complain every time they get a chute and complain every time someone else gets a ladder. So what do we do? remove the chutes? remove the ladders? and then call it what, chutes and ladders without chutes or ladders? This is a bad analogy because no one is saying to remove the violence or even remove the PvP. We (or I at least) am saying that the rules regarding PvP should be a little more strict - instead of no rules at all, we should make a rule that states before initiating PvP, one needs to send the other a tell asking if they agree. If they do, fine. If they don't, then at least respect their wishes. I don't think this is too much to ask.
|
|
|
Post by DEV Driller on May 23, 2008 15:51:09 GMT -5
Quoting myself here. But to clarify. The server would be set to No PvP. Plus all the little work arounds that players use to bypass these settings would be fixed. Then certain areas would be set to Full PvP. These areas can be bypassed and would not be essential for the story/quest lines. You enter them with full knowledge that you could be attacked without warning. I feel this would be the best compromise for all involved. -driller I like the ideal of PvP anywhere, but as we all know tempers will flare and he said she said and the next thing you know it is a big administrative headache trying to sort it all out. My suggestion is to allow PvP only in designated areas like arenas, certain pubs, wilderness areas etc. Where the player knows full well that they could be waylaid without warning. -driller
|
|
Gekko
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by Gekko on May 24, 2008 21:41:40 GMT -5
Quoting myself here. But to clarify. The server would be set to No PvP. Plus all the little work arounds that players use to bypass these settings would be fixed. Then certain areas would be set to Full PvP. These areas can be bypassed and would not be essential for the story/quest lines. You enter them with full knowledge that you could be attacked without warning. I feel this would be the best compromise for all involved. -driller I like the ideal of PvP anywhere, but as we all know tempers will flare and he said she said and the next thing you know it is a big administrative headache trying to sort it all out. My suggestion is to allow PvP only in designated areas like arenas, certain pubs, wilderness areas etc. Where the player knows full well that they could be waylaid without warning. -driller I disagree. I think having optional PvP areas would ruin what is the Sword Coast. If you can go somewhere easily with the knowledge that you have no chance of getting absolutely owned, then that's no fun, for example, heading from the Friendly Amn Inn to Beregost. I think roads with no guards should be PvP. All roads with no guards. That said, I believe that you need RP reason to attack someone, and you must state it before attacking. Assassinations should be planned before hand and given OOC consent, and if they disagree, then you may still attack them, although you may get utterly pwned. I speak from experience also. Just my 2c.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourn on May 24, 2008 22:13:27 GMT -5
Assassinations should be planned before hand and given OOC consent, and if they disagree, then you may still attack them, although you may get utterly pwned. I basically agree with your other points except this one, which is a bit confusing...if you aren't given OOC consent, then you may still attack them? Whats the point of having OOC consent then?
|
|
|
Post by Iceshard on May 24, 2008 22:15:20 GMT -5
I think we have all learned here that the PvP battle rages on, and no matter which way you flop you wont make everyone happy. If driller wants to set certain areas to PvP then by all means he will do so and those who are gung ho about killing each other will just hang around in those areas. But for the weak, loner types they will find the walk around areas free of the Pc Bandits.
No one will win this war unfortunatly.
|
|
Gekko
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by Gekko on May 25, 2008 2:13:51 GMT -5
Assassinations should be planned before hand and given OOC consent, and if they disagree, then you may still attack them, although you may get utterly pwned. I basically agree with your other points except this one, which is a bit confusing...if you aren't given OOC consent, then you may still attack them? Whats the point of having OOC consent then? I was thinking along the lines of RP deaths, sorry. On the RP server I regularly play, when you die you are "subdued" by default, you don't actually die, so no XP loss, but if you ignore the fact you were RPly killed, then you will get the DM smoted. Basically, your plot with a few other players requires that you assassinate this character. The character disagrees with you RPly killing him, so if you do attack him, he can actually kill you, not just subdue you. You then pay for the fact you failed and lose XP. If that still confuses the hell out of you, that's fine. I'm terrible at explaining things As I stated before, I don't want everywhere to be PvP areas, but some places should resonate evil and pwnage, especially around Beregost. Whose to say that PvP areas cant be toggled depending on in-game drama, such as evil players disrupting cart routes? An area that used to be pvp-less could become pvp so players can actively stop the evil-doers.
|
|
|
Post by crabbypatty on May 25, 2008 2:36:55 GMT -5
I think Gekko brings up a good point that along side RPing a legitimate reason to PVP with someone, you should INFORM (instead of seeking consent from) them of your intentions OOC to be sure there is no confusion. That would allow someone the chance to RP their character with another player, and be unmistakably sure that the other party intends to fight them, regardless of whether they agree. So long as the encounters are RPed, there should be no mistake that both parties contributed to a developed hostile environment.
It is actually a good method, given a couple considerations: Players shouldn't be allowed to PVP the first time they meet one another. It should be after a string of encounters with that player, after both parties are aware via ooc of one or the other's intention to PVP, and obviously stem from a RPed nature. Two players/characters that are unknown to each other should never be engaged in a PVP that one player doesn't desire.
So long as players are made aware via ooc BEFORE being physically encountered (like when the players are in separate areas), and the actual PVP fight is the result of SEVERAL RPed encounters there should be no mistake. If we're allowed to engage in a PVP without encountering each other multiple times, then we start treating each other like module creatures. And hopefully we all have greater importance than typical mobs.
In regards to this scenario: How is one player suppose to know the other is dong evil (disrupting cart routes in this example) unless he actually witnesses it. Such a thing would have to be pre-scripted with the PC in mind, or part of a DM-assisted event. I like the thinking, and I hope that many encounters like this are provided in the module, I just thought it might be worth pointing out that PCs must not maintain a mentality of 'My purpose is to seek out and destroy opposing players' I think that is when bad blood arises.
|
|
Gekko
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by Gekko on May 25, 2008 5:18:03 GMT -5
You said word for word exactly what I was trying to say Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by DEV Driller on May 25, 2008 5:59:23 GMT -5
Who is going to keep track of this? The DMs? You and the other player? Do you see where I am going with this? From a player standpoint I believe in PvP anywhere at all times. From a DM standpoint, I say turn it off. That is why I say limit it to certain areas. The DMs should be concentrating on quest and storylines not being a referee. But, I am not the final word on this by any means. So keep voting . Thanks, -driller I think Gekko brings up a good point that along side RPing a legitimate reason to PVP with someone, you should INFORM (instead of seeking consent from) them of your intentions OOC to be sure there is no confusion. That would allow someone the chance to RP their character with another player, and be unmistakably sure that the other party intends to fight them, regardless of whether they agree. So long as the encounters are RPed, there should be no mistake that both parties contributed to a developed hostile environment. It is actually a good method, given a couple considerations: Players shouldn't be allowed to PVP the first time they meet one another. It should be after a string of encounters with that player, after both parties are aware via ooc of one or the other's intention to PVP, and obviously stem from a RPed nature. Two players/characters that are unknown to each other should never be engaged in a PVP that one player doesn't desire. So long as players are made aware via ooc BEFORE being physically encountered (like when the players are in separate areas), and the actual PVP fight is the result of SEVERAL RPed encounters there should be no mistake. If we're allowed to engage in a PVP without encountering each other multiple times, then we start treating each other like module creatures. And hopefully we all have greater importance than typical mobs. In regards to this scenario: How is one player suppose to know the other is dong evil (disrupting cart routes in this example) unless he actually witnesses it. Such a thing would have to be pre-scripted with the PC in mind, or part of a DM-assisted event. I like the thinking, and I hope that many encounters like this are provided in the module, I just thought it might be worth pointing out that PCs must not maintain a mentality of 'My purpose is to seek out and destroy opposing players' I think that is when bad blood arises.
|
|
Gekko
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by Gekko on May 25, 2008 7:14:29 GMT -5
Should someone abuse this, they just take a screenshot and post it on the forums with the chatlogs. It's not hard to deal with it, and it's been working out fine for years on the server I play on NWN with more than 70 players at a time. And it can't hurt to have different DMs with different responsibilities
|
|
|
Post by Erulaan D'Anhoor on May 25, 2008 9:02:27 GMT -5
This is how inform potential targets. I click them to "dislike". then a little message comes up in the chat window. "Erulaan D'Ahnoor now dislikes you". Fair warning has been given.
|
|