|
Post by MilesAtma on Sept 2, 2006 9:10:00 GMT
I heard we (players) will have the opportunity to rename our items soon, and I can think of no better reason to rename them than to spot a successful pp. If you see one of your named items pop up in the chat box under another chars name as a found item, you should immediately take screen shot and begin the effort to track them down. Not a fool proof way to get your items back, but you have a better chance to track cd key and limit the amount of repeat offences I suppose. Reputation on server is far more important than one or three UR from successful attempt imo.
|
|
|
Post by electryx on Sept 2, 2006 9:57:23 GMT
IMO, players should never be responsible for enforcing any rules or taking any action with respect to "illegal" behaviour.
With respect to other behaviour which violates custom or commonly know etiquette, retribution of any kind should not be permitted either.
If we let individuals decide what is right or wrong based on their perception or interpretation of custom or etiquette and take action accordingly, all that happens is more drama than we had to begin with and the DM's end up dealing with it anyway. I think that to say that it's ok to PP a player who violates custom or etiquette to initiate PvP is making a large assumption that the "offending" player plays by the same custom/etiquette that you do and has the same understanding of it that you do. Further, some players are more mature than others. PvPing a player less mature who has breached some etiquette is akin to "teaching them a lesson". Is killing or pickpocketing a player the best way to teach how to behave according to etiquette the majority of us live by or is it simply retribution?
What making pickpocketing of other players "illegal" does is remove interpretation and perception and create one less area of the rules that requires subjective interpretation to enforce. More importantly, it puts the job of meting out justice squarely into the hands of those who should be responsible - the DM's.
In other games there are tools that assist players in dealing with unruly players, ie. A vote system that removes a player temporarily from a server if enough players vote on it.
Again, simply my opinion. My belief is that rules, like laws are based on the needs of the people subject to them. You can rewrite rules to clarify and make easily understandable, but nothing beats making a simple, easily enforceable rule.
Lastly, in another thread a very intelligent person remarked that HG can be a tough place to play and level without friends. It very quickly gets around who the @ssbandits are and they quickly find this place unsuitable or are frustrated into taking actions that result in their ban anyway.
-e
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 2, 2006 16:49:35 GMT
Since the mod itself is heavily PvM based, and since only PvP is permitted in terms of strict guidelines, this should be the same for PP as well, at the arena, etc. Recalling play at other places I've played where there was no ruling on PvP and/or PP, retailiation doesn't stop at the most recent PP-argument that has taken place. Players will log highbies and likely go out of their way to defame a player or make his/her life miserable on here, especially if the item PP was sought after for a long time. You can argue "well, you can easily goto "place" and loot around for a few hours and get it again", which might be true, but to a new/inexperienced player, like myself, that might not be as easily done. This might turn playing 'for fun' here, into 'working for an item', which does lower the enjoyability of the game and makes all that time of adventuring and finally finding an uber awesome item, a waste.
In summary, no real good comes out of letting PP stay within the 'grey-area' of ruling with respect to PvP (at any level, assuming), but it is an essential skill for PvM and should not be taken out of this module.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Sept 2, 2006 19:54:06 GMT
I heard we (players) will have the opportunity to rename our items soon, and I can think of no better reason to rename them than to spot a successful pp. You heard wrong. I'd have to make it exploit-proof, and I can too easily think of a zillion ways to cause trouble with that power. Funky
|
|
|
Post by whodat1 on Sept 2, 2006 20:11:08 GMT
To address the earlier posts, its irrelevant if you think A) PP is morally wrong and should be punished B) you don't think people should retaliate C) PP should not exist in a PVM server. These opinions, while valid, dont make a case.
Eliminating PP does nothing to alleviate pvp violations.
|
|
|
Post by electryx on Sept 2, 2006 22:41:12 GMT
To address the earlier posts, its irrelevant if you think A) PP is morally wrong and should be punished B) you don't think people should retaliate C) PP should not exist in a PVM server. These opinions, while valid, dont make a case. Eliminating PP does nothing to alleviate pvp violations. I guess my point all along is: Make a case for keeping it. Noone's done that yet. Lot's of ppl have posted why they don't want it in one form or another. Aside from people saying they need it to defend themselves against other rulebreakers (which I've already said I personally disagree with), noone has demonstrated how it will make the game better for me. All I can see is downsides, show me an upside is what I'm saying. I started this thread by saying: I'm still posting because it doesn't seem to me that very many ppl seem to be totally satisfied with an answer to that yet. Don't get me wrong, I'm a guest here, and overall this affects me minimally I hope. It's just something I find illogical: A no PvP server where PvP is allowed "sometimes" when "things" happen and pickpocketing is a part of that. EDIT: Having reread the entire thread, I think the difference between my opinion and some of the others is simply that some think that players should be able to take care of some issues themselves as Funky replied, and the core of my opinion rests on the fact that I don't for the reasons I mentioned above. The upside seems to be that it will be less of a hassle for the DM's to admin the server and not have to deal with every small incident themselves by allowing players to pp others to initiate PvP and gain a measure of justice/revenge upon those wreaking havoc upon them. I totally understand - it merely doesn't enhance my personal enjoyment of the game. -e
|
|
|
Post by DragonChyld on Sept 3, 2006 0:29:31 GMT
I have never PPed anybody, I have only been PPed a couple times and I do not know who did it, could have even been a mob..
However, I think letting pP stay in is fun. Plain and simple. This is a fantasy game set supposedly in a magical world in a time where things like PP and PvP were commonplace.
You can imagine that if you yourself were in that age and time and someone PPed you, and you caught them at it... I would imagine if you were able you would run em though, If you were not able you would go get yoru biggest baddest buddy (IE your highbe) and have him kill the bastard.
My thoughts on the subject.
~ DC
|
|
|
Post by whodat1 on Sept 3, 2006 4:42:35 GMT
This is a great point, it gets to the heart of the issue.
Pvp PP has no upside, nothing good about it, except as a means of ensuring mutual fear.
To put it in better perspective, address the recent incident sabregirl was involved in. The transgressor violates PVP rules, and PPs characters 20 levels his junior. (Is he doing this to gain valuable gear? No, he is using it to add insult to injury.) Then sabregirl arrives, and kills the transgressor.
Analyze the situation at this point - Transgressor = having fun, partially victorious, and will try different tactics to beat sabregirl once he pops. Level 20 group = not having fun sabregirl = not having fun After popping up, the transgressor then realizes what is happening - he is losing items. Now, he is not having fun, he is scared, and logs out.
PP is fear. The bully finds easy opponents because he is fearful. Death is not fear, death is a minute and a half to grab a coffee. But when fear is introduced into the equation, its no longer agreeable to him, and the confrontation ends.
There's always going to be bad people. People who get enjoyment at others expense, and will ruin other peoples good time. Theres nothing we can do to stop this, only dissuade it.
|
|
|
Post by MurphysLawAgain on Sept 3, 2006 7:25:56 GMT
Electryx, I think that the problem is not with PP - it is with the few idiots who misuse it. From your original post
The problem with the example you gave is that this lvl 40+ was behaving like a moron. There are other ways to do this, eg loot stealing, monster buffing / healing, PKing to name but a few. If we put extra rules to limit PP the real troublemakers will move to a new softer target. The rest of us will have a more restricitve server and everyone loses. Imho the best solution is to educate or manage the real idiots and keep rules to a minimum.
|
|
|
Post by lala on Sept 3, 2006 8:59:39 GMT
Hmm seems no-one is agreeing or arguing against what I am saying. There is no need to change the PP rule if we have a reputation system that penalises PP players, such as an extreme hike in cost of merchant gear or certain NPC factions become hostile until atonement. Attacking the faction would put them in jail so they need to then sneak around like the sneaky thieves they are ;D
This would balance PP and provide entertainment for others watching. The question is can a system be developed that differentiates between players and spawns.
|
|
|
Post by whodat1 on Sept 3, 2006 15:50:41 GMT
Your system punishes PP. Same idea as turning off PP. Now no one uses PP, they just attack their targets.
Your system automatically makes the judgment that any PP is wrong, and thats an incorrect assumption. In the recent example sabregirl would be punished for PPing, but she was fully justified for what was being done. The number of PP occurrences has no proportionality, in a legal or mathematic sense really, to pvp violations.
|
|
|
Post by lala on Sept 3, 2006 16:18:12 GMT
Your system punishes PP. Same idea as turning off PP. Now no one uses PP, they just attack their targets. Your system automatically makes the judgment that any PP is wrong, and thats an incorrect assumption. In the recent example sabregirl would be punished for PPing, but she was fully justified for what was being done. The number of PP occurrences has no proportionality, in a legal or mathematic sense really, to pvp violations. My suggestion does not disable PP but puts its use into perspectibve...... Personally PP should not be the mechanism to instigate justice.
|
|
|
Post by whodat1 on Sept 3, 2006 17:03:17 GMT
Your perspective is you use it and you should be punished. If someone wants to start trouble they don't go to town and start attacking the npcs, they do crimes they will get away with. If I cannot get away with PP why should I use it?
I understand that you, like many, feel that people should have no right to retaliate. But don't confuse that with PP.
If you eliminate PP, people will still retaliate. The problem is once the instigation route is eliminated, funky now has to punish people like sabregirl, holding her accountable for player killing - the exact same crime committed by the original transgressor. And you will have a hard time convincing me that is "justice".
|
|
|
Post by DragonChyld on Sept 3, 2006 19:54:15 GMT
Well said whodat
|
|
|
Post by lala on Sept 3, 2006 21:31:31 GMT
I can see we will disagree with PP but thats fine, world would be boring otherwise I am all for keeping in PP and have the penalty scale, not hit them heavy to begin with. And think of this wonderful situation of the Druid builds with rogue (which mine is setup to do if I want). 1. Set the player to hostile 2. Use Invuln 3. PP to initiate PvP 4. Petrify no save the opponent 5. Kill 6. PP and maybe feel sorry for the player or laugh, then port to town A pretty easy build to do and easy tactic.
|
|