|
Post by DEV Driller on May 25, 2008 10:22:23 GMT -5
Are you volunteering? -driller 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 crabbypatty on May 25, 2008 12:33:53 GMT -5
I agree with you, that the dms shouldn't have to spend their time babysitting, and also that some areas should have PVP disabled entirely. But I think you can imagine that by not having a guideline for those areas that do allow PVP you aren't giving your self less work as a dm, but perhaps more. I can think of several reasons an area should be restricted from PVP, but at the same time would lose a lot of flavor by not allowing it. I just thought that this discussion was to establish a guideline, so that players have an understanding of what is expected. This is, after all, a highly debated topic. I think that for PVP to work without mangling anyone's fun either both parties need to be RPing it, or neither party should RP it. Because someone trying to RP may want to avoid someone not RPing entirely, but have no choice. Player 1: /dm Player 2 is trying to PVP me, and I want no part of it. DM: /t 'Player 2' Don't PVP Player 1 That shouldn't take too much time out of your REAL DMing
|
|
|
Post by Erulaan D'Anhoor on May 25, 2008 14:19:28 GMT -5
on my old server we had full pvp zones and pvp disabled zones.
If you were caught working around the disabled PvP, like using aoe or purposefully dragging mobs over other parties, you were first given a warning, then given the boot if it continued.
In the full PvP the only rules were no gate camping, and no griefing. All you need is a really good definition for griefing, and PvP is fairlt ironclad.
if this server goes to the "invite only" pvp there will be hell to pay for all involved.(my opinion based on many years as an admin/player/dm)
|
|
kiu
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by kiu on May 25, 2008 15:48:21 GMT -5
I think it's good to at least have this discussion and gather various points of view. That way the powers that be can make a determination that best serves the consensus. Still, not all will be completely happy, but that's the way it goes, right?
|
|
|
Post by DM Sin on May 25, 2008 17:01:55 GMT -5
Very true Kiu, unfortunately not everyone can be pleased. The problem lies when a DM isn't available or on at that point in time which is sort of why we are finding out what the players views are so we can build some rules/guidelines regarding PvP so that there is no bad blood so to speak but also keeps it in a way that is still fun and playable. We'd rather be concocting ways of massacring parties in dungeons than sorting out PvP gripes hehe
|
|
|
Post by Sojourn on May 25, 2008 20:05:44 GMT -5
On the subject with different areas that are pvp/non pvp...how about making it so that areas that would not make sense for fights or assassinations to break out to be non PvP...while those that aren't guarded could be full pvp?
For instance...inside town where guards are walking everywhere would be no pvp...because it would make sense that fights won't break out for fear of being caught. However, areas further from town could be PvP...such as the wilderness...and in such places you would be on your extreme guard, from both monsters and other PC's. I think this would make rp sense, and add an element of danger to venturing far from town.
|
|
|
Post by crabbypatty on May 26, 2008 1:27:09 GMT -5
I have to disagree with you, Sojourn, respectfully. I think an area that is guarded, such as a town, might very well be the most important place to allow PVP. For one, why else have guards? Players/armies don't launch attacks on remote uncontrollable areas, but on towns/cities/villages where control might be influenced by factions and what not. Allowing PVP would encourage organized attacks as well as a dedicated defensive. And as for fear of being caught: I think this would spice up NPC involvement when say a guard is scripted to intervene with feuding players. Think about it: the quick tongued human and the drunken dwarf squabble in the bar over spilt ale, a verbal exchange leads them outside to settle matters, and the local peacekeepers step in after a couple punches are thrown. I do, however, think that interiors of the towns, like bars and inns should be made non-pvp, to act as a safe-haven from unwanted hostility, with exceptions of course depending on the intentions of the module designer for those particular areas.
I guess to answer the question presented by the topic, "How do I like my PVP?" I would have to say that I prefer the ABILITY to PVP anywhere, but not for any reason. There's an endless combination of events that could lead to me wanting to fight any player that steps onto the sword coast. But the problem arises from the fact that some players may lack the decency to allow a good PVP instance to unfold naturally in time with another player. The reason I have said before that PVP should not be permitted in the first instance of two strangers meeting is because no player could reasonably expect his character to have a mentality that he is going to fight whomever whenever, at least not in the civilized setting of the sword coast to which we are confined. That would, after all, make them no different than the module creatures set to hostile by default. And if you remember, those creatures die and don't come back. That is why players should be expected to act beyond the scope of mere hostiles, and to PVP for RP purposes, even if they don't intend to fully RP their characters. *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by Sojourn on May 26, 2008 14:29:35 GMT -5
I would have to disagree with you on the no pvp on first instance thing. What if you are playing a good aligned character and you run across a drow PC? It would make sense to fight right away...not taking into consideration that drow is Drizzt or similar (which is rare).
Another example is if you are a paldin of Ilmater and you run across a black guard of Loviatar. These two factions hate each other with a passion, and I simply can't imagine them crossing paths without crossing swords.
Many other examples exist, but I won't list them all because I think you get my point.
|
|
|
Post by crabbypatty on May 26, 2008 15:52:17 GMT -5
I do see your point. As for the drow example, I would have to say that I would expect a 'good' aligned character not to be the one initiating the fight, however I would see it as completely satisfactory for the drow to be willing to engage immediately, and therefor the 'good' character to defend himself.
And I too, can imagine many instances where it would be completely forthright, but again I don't think that it is those players who will RP these instances who need guidance/discipline on the matter of PVP. Even when we have established guidelines (or I guess I should say 'if') for what we will do with PVP, I believe there will be many acceptable exceptions to whatever rules are laid out. After all, there will only be problems when the players involved aren't seeing eye to eye, and we can't pre-define all those times.
And I'll be the first to tell you I don't know much about FR lore and all the many warring clans/guilds/factions that are about the lands. I just loved BG and hope this thing runs smoothly.
|
|
|
Post by mayhemmonkey on Jun 10, 2008 19:04:02 GMT -5
Personally, I am willing to PvP anytime anywhere. I prefer for it to be for an RP reason. But if someone decides to Random me, then thats fine to. ( as long as I win lol )
But I do think that PvP should have an RP reason Unless it is an OOC fight that 2 people set up OOC.
The Problem with the consent rule is the loud mouths that run their traps and then Deny consent. Applied consent is the best option in my opinion. Applied consent could be gotten from:
1: Insulting someone IC or OOC 2: Stealing someone's kill or loot from a kill 3: Pick Pocketing someone 4: Being in a guild 5: using Hostile actions towards a character (Attacking them, or casting spells on them) 6: Certain Areas such as arenas ( or maybe certain Taverns )
|
|
Zero
Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by Zero on Jun 11, 2008 7:44:18 GMT -5
I agree with mayhem let someones actions govern there consent. Makes pvp a little bit more rp based
|
|
lorgin2003
Senior Member
Dyn-o-miiiiite!!!
Posts: 373
|
Post by lorgin2003 on Jun 11, 2008 9:58:17 GMT -5
in my opinion, you only have to know the answer to one question. "what if this situation was happening in real life?" the answer to that question always defines what should happen in game. if i'm playing a fairly realistic character (within the D&D universe) then he should react realistically. there's no realistic way to refuse PvP via tells. there are no tells in real life, and shouldn't factor into anything that happens in game. if the PvP conflict is an IC one, then it MUST be sorted out IC.
one example of how this was ignored happened on one of the servers i played on in nwn1. my character was an epic level CN ranger/rogue/SD. a no-nonsense grizzled old soldier. a new player joined, and his low level rogue quickly began hurling insults, being completely disrespectful to any and everyone who happened by. my character was on the recieving end of most of it. when i sent him a tell asking if he was up for PvP, his response was "not really because your character is much higher level than mine." since the rules were that PvP was only acceptable with both party's OK, i couldn't do anything about it. i felt like i had been forced to betray my character.
i've also been in rp situations that have happened to quick to allow time for tells to be sent. on another server, i had found mining auger. this attracted the attention of the local thieves' guild, and an assassin was sent to get it from me one way or the other. the assassin also happened to be PC(and a buddy of mine from several servers). we rped a conversation out. i figured that i had better make sure that the NPC who was storing the auger for me knew full well not to let the assassin have it, so i started to run. having to make a split second decision, he attacked me. it was the right decision, because that's realistically what would have happened. however, he felt so bad about not going through the proper tell procedures that he apologized for the next 20 minutes.
the way i look at it, the more powerful your character is, the more enemies they have made. if an NPC enemy can attack me, there's no reason that a PC enemy shouldn't be allowed to as well.
however, in the situation that was brought up about the group of PCs who hd been attacking other PCs, as well as the NPCs, the solution also can be found in the question of "what if this situation was happening in real life?" if a group of people go downtown and begin killing people who don't pay them money, the cops will who up eventually. if the group attacks the cops, the cops shoot to kill. so in the in game situation, the solution would be to have the guards deal with them. if they kill the guards, send in the D&D equivalent of the S.W.A.T. team. at that point, it's basically a "take no prisoners" type of deal. you have to go for the kill. if they complain just remind them that they've brought it upon themselves by their actions. there has to be consequences.
i've always felt better for having the PvP experience. even the time my 18th level fighter spent a good 5 minutes buffing and ended up getting one-shotted by a monk with his quivering palm. once i was able to pick my jaw up off the floor, i had a good laugh about it. then there was the time i got jumped in the woods by a goblin PC. he was hidden and sent a tell asking for PvP. obviously my answer was yes, but i felt that just asking ruined the moment. it took all the surprise out of the attack. there wasn't the mental panic that happens in those situations. there no sense of urgency or desperation. once he made the initial attack, my head was clear to form a strategy. granted, he beat me into pudding regardless, but it just wasn't the same. the fight very well could have just been an OOC duel for fun. had he just shanked me in the back, it would have made it a much more exciting experience.
subdual damage goes a long way in taking the sting out of a PvP loss. granted, there are times when the situation calls for an actual kill, such as assassinations and such. but for general use, being knocked out is much easier to bear than having to take a respawn penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Iceshard on Jun 11, 2008 22:36:37 GMT -5
Yeah subdual damage is always better than the kill damage. You can play it off like you were killed and someone drug you back to a temple or they healed you on the spot, that way you dont feel the XP penalty.
-Ice
|
|
|
Post by Sojourn on Jun 12, 2008 22:46:28 GMT -5
however, in the situation that was brought up about the group of PCs who hd been attacking other PCs, as well as the NPCs, the solution also can be found in the question of "what if this situation was happening in real life?" if a group of people go downtown and begin killing people who don't pay them money, the cops will who up eventually. if the group attacks the cops, the cops shoot to kill. so in the in game situation, the solution would be to have the guards deal with them. if they kill the guards, send in the D&D equivalent of the S.W.A.T. team. at that point, it's basically a "take no prisoners" type of deal. Yep, this quote is referring to my post, and in response to it, thats exactly what I did. I spawned about 20 town guards on the three PCs running on a killing rampage and pretty much mutilated them - they asked for it. However, DMs can't be on all the time, and certain people are just hard-headed and stubborn. What if 9 out of 10 times that they decide to PVP and a DM wasn't on...then there would be alot of havoc and a large number of pissed off players who were victims. This is precisely why we need PVP rules - so that when they break them, then its justification for action and punishment. If there are absolutely no rules, other than "PvP must have rp", then how can we punish them when they give you an rp reason everytime they grief? I fully understand the view points of all the people in this thread, and I agree with them - I too LOVE PvP anytime anywhere. But if you are looking at it from a maintenance/DM perspective, then you have to make decisions and use judements that would cause the least amount of conflict/hassle for the players/server as a whole. Its a shame a few bad eggs can ruin the whole flock, but if you compare this situation to real life - its exactly the same. If this were utopia and everyone is mature and respectful, then there would be no problems rping basically anything. But since its not, we have to make proper adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by DM Mystic on Jun 13, 2008 12:38:02 GMT -5
heck, if you want to kill innocents, cops, and swat teams; then play GTA 4. Here really isn't the place for it.
|
|