Previous
If you are guarding an individual and someone advances them. They arrive at melee with you, is that consent? I might not understand how guard works, but that how i observed it.
GOOFYALBERT
DIMINISHEDANGEL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 07:51 AM CDT
>>If you are guarding an individual and someone advances them. They arrive at melee with you, is that consent? I might not understand how guard works, but that how i observed it.
Not a GM, but I wouldn't imagine consent would be granted from that alone, unless the person you are guarding is your spouse. One player initiated conflict with another player; you are an independent third party who just happens to be guarding one of the conflicting players.
Other circumstances (the guarded being your spouse, you having warned the advancer you're guarding, the advancer being an insulting arse) might grant consent, but I don't think the simple advance would grant consent. Advancing grants consent under the consent help guidelines, but that specifies someone advancing on you.
*******
Malkien
Not a GM, but I wouldn't imagine consent would be granted from that alone, unless the person you are guarding is your spouse. One player initiated conflict with another player; you are an independent third party who just happens to be guarding one of the conflicting players.
Other circumstances (the guarded being your spouse, you having warned the advancer you're guarding, the advancer being an insulting arse) might grant consent, but I don't think the simple advance would grant consent. Advancing grants consent under the consent help guidelines, but that specifies someone advancing on you.
*******
Malkien
LEEJ82
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 07:56 AM CDT
<<Advancing grants consent under the consent help guidelines, but that specifies someone advancing on you.
Involving yourself in a conflict also opens consent against you in a lot of cases.
A ruling would be nice, but I'd guess it's going to be "Yes, they're interfering in the fight, they've involved themselves." That or it's mech abuse.
Involving yourself in a conflict also opens consent against you in a lot of cases.
A ruling would be nice, but I'd guess it's going to be "Yes, they're interfering in the fight, they've involved themselves." That or it's mech abuse.
BEVERAGEK
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 08:24 AM CDT
Hmm, that is tricky because technically you're involving yourself in their fight, not the other way around. So the fact they're trying to advance on the person they have consent on, and you interposing yourself in the way, that is a very unique situation in my opinion.
I would say that in good faith you should wait for them to place first strike on you(the guarder) before you(the guarder) attack them(the advancer).
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
I would say that in good faith you should wait for them to place first strike on you(the guarder) before you(the guarder) attack them(the advancer).
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
DIMINISHEDANGEL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 08:38 AM CDT
>>A ruling would be nice, but I'd guess it's going to be "Yes, they're interfering in the fight, they've involved themselves." That or it's mech abuse.
My understanding was that he was asking if he had consent to attack, not worrying if consent had been placed on him, but after rereading I see he is non-specific.
I think it would essentially work the same. You've involved yourself in a third party conflict; consent's a gray area. Use of WARN COMBAT is suggested.
*******
Malkien
My understanding was that he was asking if he had consent to attack, not worrying if consent had been placed on him, but after rereading I see he is non-specific.
I think it would essentially work the same. You've involved yourself in a third party conflict; consent's a gray area. Use of WARN COMBAT is suggested.
*******
Malkien
TILTINGVAGABOND
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 09:01 AM CDT
Question first: Mechanics wise, if Joe attacks Bob and Sue is guarding Bob... does Joe hit Sue if he succeeds the defense check or does Joe hit Bob?
Opinion second: If you have consent on Bob and Sue steps in to guard Bob...
1st move = profile Sue
If sue is guarded or open - Bash Sue, then Bob. If Sue is closed, bash her anyway.
Is sure reports post her here. She has no business getting involved if she is closed.
In short, kill em both. Just be sure you had consent on Bob or that Bob was open in the first place.
Player of Diggan, Ranger & Halfing of Aesry
Opinion second: If you have consent on Bob and Sue steps in to guard Bob...
1st move = profile Sue
If sue is guarded or open - Bash Sue, then Bob. If Sue is closed, bash her anyway.
Is sure reports post her here. She has no business getting involved if she is closed.
In short, kill em both. Just be sure you had consent on Bob or that Bob was open in the first place.
Player of Diggan, Ranger & Halfing of Aesry
BEVERAGEK
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 09:11 AM CDT
In your example I think the poster would be Sue in this situation. I could be wrong though.
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
TILTINGVAGABOND
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 09:43 AM CDT
Ah, that does complicate things a bit.
No we are back to Joe. Is Joe open, if so keel him... Is Joe guarded, if so keel him... Is Joe is closed, if so keel him.
Sue is guarding Bob. That is her right both mechanically and IC. At that point any attack on Bob is an attack on Sue.
Joe shouldn't be closed in any of these situations anyway.
Joe should be smart and wait til Sue goes to the lil girls room... then smite Bob.
Player of Diggan, Ranger & Halfing of Aesry
No we are back to Joe. Is Joe open, if so keel him... Is Joe guarded, if so keel him... Is Joe is closed, if so keel him.
Sue is guarding Bob. That is her right both mechanically and IC. At that point any attack on Bob is an attack on Sue.
Joe shouldn't be closed in any of these situations anyway.
Joe should be smart and wait til Sue goes to the lil girls room... then smite Bob.
Player of Diggan, Ranger & Halfing of Aesry
LEEJ82
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 09:51 AM CDT
Oy.
If A advances on B and B is guarded by C, A will reach melee with C and pole range with B in most cases.
The question becomes, does A have consent on C and does C have consent on A if either/both of them are Guarded?
The answer is, as written, consent is granted when you intercede in someone else's fight. So A has consent on C. But consent is also granted through intent (i.e. advancing on someone), so theoretically C has consent on A.
But it's a complicated problem and an actual policy answer would be great since this is a fairly cut-and-dry issue.
If A advances on B and B is guarded by C, A will reach melee with C and pole range with B in most cases.
The question becomes, does A have consent on C and does C have consent on A if either/both of them are Guarded?
The answer is, as written, consent is granted when you intercede in someone else's fight. So A has consent on C. But consent is also granted through intent (i.e. advancing on someone), so theoretically C has consent on A.
But it's a complicated problem and an actual policy answer would be great since this is a fairly cut-and-dry issue.
DIMINISHEDANGEL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 10:10 AM CDT
>>But consent is also granted through intent (i.e. advancing on someone), so theoretically C has consent on A.
There's the problem though. A's intent was meant for B, not C. IMO, the simple act of unintentional engagement doesn't grant consent.
Now, if there was a bunch of smack-talking all around (as there often is) between all three parties and A just happened to advance on B instead of C, sure, consent. But if A and B are in conflict and C's just been idle but happens to be guarding B and comes back to find himself engaged? B picked the fight, not C.
Under that scenario, I would be inclined to say that they should sort it out themselves. If that doesn't happen and a GM gets involved (as is often the case), I think B should get a warning for trying to play policy loopholes. If you've enraged someone enough to justify them advancing on you, they should have consent on you and not have to worry about your quiet buddy.
*******
Malkien
There's the problem though. A's intent was meant for B, not C. IMO, the simple act of unintentional engagement doesn't grant consent.
Now, if there was a bunch of smack-talking all around (as there often is) between all three parties and A just happened to advance on B instead of C, sure, consent. But if A and B are in conflict and C's just been idle but happens to be guarding B and comes back to find himself engaged? B picked the fight, not C.
Under that scenario, I would be inclined to say that they should sort it out themselves. If that doesn't happen and a GM gets involved (as is often the case), I think B should get a warning for trying to play policy loopholes. If you've enraged someone enough to justify them advancing on you, they should have consent on you and not have to worry about your quiet buddy.
*******
Malkien
BEVERAGEK
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 10:25 AM CDT
I like Diggan's simple yet effective approach :)
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
TILTINGVAGABOND
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 10:52 AM CDT
Listen folks, the policy is pretty simple and really it's just like the play ground in grade school.
1) Stand up for yourself. Don't be a bully about it.
2) If you hurt someones feelings say sorry. Period.
3) Don't be a tattle-tale. No one likes a tattle-tale
4) Play hard. Train hard. Party Hard.
4) BE NICE. We're all stuck on the same rock called Earth (or Elanthia)
It's really that simple. All these policy clarifications, and rules, and news items etc are really just a royal pain in the donkey.
+If you guard someone during a PvP conflict, you are saying "Hell yeah, bring it.",
+If you have someone guard you, you are saying "I'm down for this, but you better go through my friend Bubba here"
+If you find yourself attacking someone and they are guarded, you are saying "Kamikaze!, Death before Dishonor! Woot! FTW! Dewm!1!"
In short, I think a lot more people would find a whole new aspect of this game and find enjoyment in flexing their text. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes you lose exp, sometimes you lose an arrow or two when someone runs like a coward!!!! But I digress.
Push your personal boundaries folks, you just might make a friend in a Multi-Player game. Odd I know.
Player of Diggan, Ranger & Halfing of Aesry
1) Stand up for yourself. Don't be a bully about it.
2) If you hurt someones feelings say sorry. Period.
3) Don't be a tattle-tale. No one likes a tattle-tale
4) Play hard. Train hard. Party Hard.
4) BE NICE. We're all stuck on the same rock called Earth (or Elanthia)
It's really that simple. All these policy clarifications, and rules, and news items etc are really just a royal pain in the donkey.
+If you guard someone during a PvP conflict, you are saying "Hell yeah, bring it.",
+If you have someone guard you, you are saying "I'm down for this, but you better go through my friend Bubba here"
+If you find yourself attacking someone and they are guarded, you are saying "Kamikaze!, Death before Dishonor! Woot! FTW! Dewm!1!"
In short, I think a lot more people would find a whole new aspect of this game and find enjoyment in flexing their text. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes you lose exp, sometimes you lose an arrow or two when someone runs like a coward!!!! But I digress.
Push your personal boundaries folks, you just might make a friend in a Multi-Player game. Odd I know.
Player of Diggan, Ranger & Halfing of Aesry
LEEJ82
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 10:53 AM CDT
<<There's the problem though.
Yes, hence why I think a ruling needs to be made.
Although preferably guard mechanics would be changed so you were informed at pole range and could choose to back off at that point, no harm no foul.
You begin advancing on Diggan!
You close to pole arm range on Diggan!
You notice Leilond moving into position to guard Diggan!
That would be ideal.
But since that will probably be a ways off, a ruling would be nice as the current mechanics stand.
Yes, hence why I think a ruling needs to be made.
Although preferably guard mechanics would be changed so you were informed at pole range and could choose to back off at that point, no harm no foul.
You begin advancing on Diggan!
You close to pole arm range on Diggan!
You notice Leilond moving into position to guard Diggan!
That would be ideal.
But since that will probably be a ways off, a ruling would be nice as the current mechanics stand.
GERSTEINJ2
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 11:00 AM CDT
fwiw, there is one guild that is capable of knowing this already. When a thief marks someone, you can see if someone else is guarding them.
Explore the Final Frontier - the unknown calls
YAMCER
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 03:16 PM CDT
<<fwiw, there is one guild that is capable of knowing this already. When a thief marks someone, you can see if someone else is guarding them.>>
I think someone guarding someone else should show up when you ASSESS Combat.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
I think someone guarding someone else should show up when you ASSESS Combat.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
GOOFYALBERT
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 03:58 PM CDT
<If A advances on B and B is guarded by C, A will reach melee with C and pole range with B in most cases.
Sorry for not being clear. I was asking from the perspective of C and was wondering if C gets consent on A. A didnt type "advance C" but ended up engaged with C anyway. I think the answer is consent wouldnt be given since A never intended to target C. I am still unsure. Thank you everyone for your posts.
Sorry for not being clear. I was asking from the perspective of C and was wondering if C gets consent on A. A didnt type "advance C" but ended up engaged with C anyway. I think the answer is consent wouldnt be given since A never intended to target C. I am still unsure. Thank you everyone for your posts.
YAMCER
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 04:09 PM CDT
<<Sorry for not being clear. I was asking from the perspective of C and was wondering if C gets consent on A. A didnt type "advance C" but ended up engaged with C anyway. I think the answer is consent wouldnt be given since A never intended to target C. I am still unsure. Thank you everyone for your posts.>>
Policy comes down to "advancing on someone grants that person consent." This would indicate that, yes, C was engaged and may attack.
Really if you are willing to attack A you shouldn't be up in arms when granting consent to C results in a fight as well.
Of course being able to assess when someone is guarding someone else would allow people to make that informed decision.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
Policy comes down to "advancing on someone grants that person consent." This would indicate that, yes, C was engaged and may attack.
Really if you are willing to attack A you shouldn't be up in arms when granting consent to C results in a fight as well.
Of course being able to assess when someone is guarding someone else would allow people to make that informed decision.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
MARTINCOTY77
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 08:41 PM CDT
I would say A and B have consent on C, and C has consent on both A and B.
If the guarded person is open, and C is attacking without official consent on A, then C still gets consent on B, because B is guarding.
If a report ensues and the defense of B was, "but I didn't know there was a conflict" etc, Then I would assume the ruling would be that, hey don't guard someone willy nilly unless you know what your getting into. If you guard an open person you are accepting the possibility of getting randomly attacked just as the open person is.
It all comes down to it was Player B's choice to guard, which is a conflict type move. IMO anyways..
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons
If the guarded person is open, and C is attacking without official consent on A, then C still gets consent on B, because B is guarding.
If a report ensues and the defense of B was, "but I didn't know there was a conflict" etc, Then I would assume the ruling would be that, hey don't guard someone willy nilly unless you know what your getting into. If you guard an open person you are accepting the possibility of getting randomly attacked just as the open person is.
It all comes down to it was Player B's choice to guard, which is a conflict type move. IMO anyways..
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons
SIMU-RIEL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 08:49 PM CDT
Okay, let me see if I can open up a can o'worms without having to eat any of 'em myself ...
Let's set the scene.
JoeSchmo is after Bubba and he has consent against him because Bubba cleaned out his pockets. Later on, Bubba and I are out in a hunting area. Bubba is my buddy and because I'm nice like that, I'm guarding him. Let's say everyone is GUARDED profile, since if we were all OPEN there wouldn't be anything to debate.
JoeSchmo finds Bubba and me. JoeSchmo advances on Bubba. Right now, at this moment in time, Bubba has consent against JoeSchmo (for advancing) and JoeSchmo still has consent on Bubba (for stealing). However, because I am guarding Bubba, suddenly, JoeSchmo is at melee with ME. Now, because he's at melee with ME, JoeSchmo and I suddenly have mutual consent on each other.
If JoeSchmo chooses to kill me, that satisfies his argument with Bubba and ends the conflict. If JoeSchmo chooses to kill me but fails to do so and I kill him instead, it still ends his conflict with Bubba.
If JoeSchmo says "whoa, Nelly, I change my mind, I don't want to advance on you!" and runs away like a little girl, his conflict with Bubba remains open and subject to retaliation. Now, however, I technically still have consent against JoeSchmo because he did advance on me. But because I'm such a nice person, I'd let him go. Your mileage may vary, however.
Hope that answered your question!
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
Let's set the scene.
JoeSchmo is after Bubba and he has consent against him because Bubba cleaned out his pockets. Later on, Bubba and I are out in a hunting area. Bubba is my buddy and because I'm nice like that, I'm guarding him. Let's say everyone is GUARDED profile, since if we were all OPEN there wouldn't be anything to debate.
JoeSchmo finds Bubba and me. JoeSchmo advances on Bubba. Right now, at this moment in time, Bubba has consent against JoeSchmo (for advancing) and JoeSchmo still has consent on Bubba (for stealing). However, because I am guarding Bubba, suddenly, JoeSchmo is at melee with ME. Now, because he's at melee with ME, JoeSchmo and I suddenly have mutual consent on each other.
If JoeSchmo chooses to kill me, that satisfies his argument with Bubba and ends the conflict. If JoeSchmo chooses to kill me but fails to do so and I kill him instead, it still ends his conflict with Bubba.
If JoeSchmo says "whoa, Nelly, I change my mind, I don't want to advance on you!" and runs away like a little girl, his conflict with Bubba remains open and subject to retaliation. Now, however, I technically still have consent against JoeSchmo because he did advance on me. But because I'm such a nice person, I'd let him go. Your mileage may vary, however.
Hope that answered your question!
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
MARTINCOTY77
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 08:56 PM CDT
Oh that is interesting, so guarding basically converts the consent to the guarder if JoeShmo kills the guarder. Never knew that one.
Or JoeSchmo could advance and then retreat and run once he sees Bubba is being guarded, now he has individual consent on each of them?
In the other example if JoeShmo is killed by the guarded person and ends the conflict, Does JoeShmo get to retaliate on the guarded person?
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons
Or JoeSchmo could advance and then retreat and run once he sees Bubba is being guarded, now he has individual consent on each of them?
In the other example if JoeShmo is killed by the guarded person and ends the conflict, Does JoeShmo get to retaliate on the guarded person?
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons
GOOFYALBERT
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 09:14 PM CDT
Thank you Riel! Your post tells me everything I wanted to know.
SIMU-RIEL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 09:40 PM CDT
<Or JoeSchmo could advance and then retreat and run once he sees Bubba is being guarded, now he has individual consent on each of them?
JoeSchmo would only have consent on Bubba in that case. I would, however, have consent on JoeSchmo because he had advanced to melee on me.
<In the other example if JoeShmo is killed by the guarded person and ends the conflict, Does JoeShmo get to retaliate on the guarded person?
No. If you try to kill me and I kill you instead, YOU do not have consent for my killing you because YOU started it. In this case, JoeSchmo advanced me, I therefore had consent to kill him and I did so. JoeSchmo doesn't get to retaliate, because HE is the one who started it. He gave me consent, and I was the injured party, as it were.
Hopefully that's clearer than mud!
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
JoeSchmo would only have consent on Bubba in that case. I would, however, have consent on JoeSchmo because he had advanced to melee on me.
<In the other example if JoeShmo is killed by the guarded person and ends the conflict, Does JoeShmo get to retaliate on the guarded person?
No. If you try to kill me and I kill you instead, YOU do not have consent for my killing you because YOU started it. In this case, JoeSchmo advanced me, I therefore had consent to kill him and I did so. JoeSchmo doesn't get to retaliate, because HE is the one who started it. He gave me consent, and I was the injured party, as it were.
Hopefully that's clearer than mud!
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
MARTINCOTY77
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 09:42 PM CDT
>>In the other example if JoeShmo is killed by the guarded person and ends the conflict, Does JoeShmo get to retaliate on the guarded person?
I mispoke here, I meant:
In the other example if JoeShmo is killed by the person guarding and ends the conflict, Does JoeShmo get to retaliate on the person (that was) guarding?
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons
I mispoke here, I meant:
In the other example if JoeShmo is killed by the person guarding and ends the conflict, Does JoeShmo get to retaliate on the person (that was) guarding?
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons
SIMU-RIEL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 09:48 PM CDT
<In the other example if JoeShmo is killed by the person guarding and ends the conflict, Does JoeShmo get to retaliate on the person (that was) guarding?
Nope. JoeSchmo started it, and he lost. That's it. And he lost the consent on Bubba because he came after me instead. It really does make sense if you think it through!
We'd like it better of course if everyone was just OPEN profile and then we could say "we don't care, unless there's harassment or mech abuse, it's your conflict, NOGM!" :P
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
Nope. JoeSchmo started it, and he lost. That's it. And he lost the consent on Bubba because he came after me instead. It really does make sense if you think it through!
We'd like it better of course if everyone was just OPEN profile and then we could say "we don't care, unless there's harassment or mech abuse, it's your conflict, NOGM!" :P
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
TILTINGVAGABOND
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 09:54 PM CDT
So... joe steals from me... i attack him, bob guards, i kill bob...
I don't still have consent on joe for stealing?
lame. bob got killed for getting involved. joe should still feel my wraith!
Player of Diggan, Ranger & Halfing of Aesry
MARTINCOTY77
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 10:11 PM CDT
Thanks for clearing that up Riel.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons
SIMU-RIEL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 10:11 PM CDT
<So... joe steals from me... i attack him, bob guards, i kill bob...
<I don't still have consent on joe for stealing?
<lame. bob got killed for getting involved. joe should still feel my wraith!
Wait, wait, I think I'm confused. Maybe you're not misspeaking or I'm mis-remembering.
Joe steals from you. You come after him, but get Bob. You kill Bob. You DO still have consent on Joe for stealing don't you? Crap. Let me think this through. See? THIS is why you should just play OPEN and not get all technical and stuff ...
Seriously, let me ponder this and run it by some other folks, so I am not steering anyone wrong. I can make an argument for both sides and I really don't want to call it alone.
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
<I don't still have consent on joe for stealing?
<lame. bob got killed for getting involved. joe should still feel my wraith!
Wait, wait, I think I'm confused. Maybe you're not misspeaking or I'm mis-remembering.
Joe steals from you. You come after him, but get Bob. You kill Bob. You DO still have consent on Joe for stealing don't you? Crap. Let me think this through. See? THIS is why you should just play OPEN and not get all technical and stuff ...
Seriously, let me ponder this and run it by some other folks, so I am not steering anyone wrong. I can make an argument for both sides and I really don't want to call it alone.
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
ORBITAL303
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 10:13 PM CDT
Joe is PvP open from stealing from you. Kill away!
- Starlear -
- Starlear -
SIMU-RIEL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 10:28 PM CDT
<Joe is PvP open from stealing from you. Kill away!
Duhh. Yes. I'm sorry. I got over-complicated somehow and missed the obvious.
That is correct. Joe is now OPEN, pound his butt. Or die trying.
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
Duhh. Yes. I'm sorry. I got over-complicated somehow and missed the obvious.
That is correct. Joe is now OPEN, pound his butt. Or die trying.
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
GOOFYALBERT
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 10:35 PM CDT
<Joe is PvP open from stealing from you. Kill away!
Well that depends on how long it takes you to catch up with him after he stopped stealing. He could be set back to guarded or closed..
Well that depends on how long it takes you to catch up with him after he stopped stealing. He could be set back to guarded or closed..
SIMU-RIEL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 10:42 PM CDT
<Well that depends on how long it takes you to catch up with him after he stopped stealing. He could be set back to guarded or closed..
No, now you're just dragging it out. :P If you didn't still have consent for the stealing you wouldn't have gone after him and got the guard instead. Because you wouldn't dream of walking the line of policy.
Unicorns!
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
No, now you're just dragging it out. :P If you didn't still have consent for the stealing you wouldn't have gone after him and got the guard instead. Because you wouldn't dream of walking the line of policy.
Unicorns!
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
BEVERAGEK
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/20/2011 11:53 PM CDT
Not to be a pain, buuuut...
So... joe shoots me... i attack him, bob guards, i kill bob...
I don't still have consent on joe for shooting me?
lame. bob got killed for getting involved. joe should still feel my wraith!
Replacements are in italics ;P
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
So... joe shoots me... i attack him, bob guards, i kill bob...
I don't still have consent on joe for shooting me?
lame. bob got killed for getting involved. joe should still feel my wraith!
Replacements are in italics ;P
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
SIMU-RIEL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/21/2011 12:34 AM CDT
<So... joe shoots me... i attack him, bob guards, i kill bob...
<I don't still have consent on joe for *shooting me*?
The original question asked was if he still had consent for Joe having *stolen from him* which is what gave him consent in the first place.
In your example, Joe is shooting you, which he wouldn't be doing if he had stolen from you, so apparently the initial wronged party is you, because Joe is attacking you. You would then try to defend yourself for the attack, but Bob's guard would interfere and in the process you would kill Bob -- and now we're back to the initial situation, which is that Joe still shot at you and you weren't attacking him, you were defending yourself. You still have consent on Joe for the original attack since you have not yet attacked, only defended.
And on that note, I am going to bed. My eyeballs are bleeding. If questions remain, I'll get them tomorrow. :)
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
<I don't still have consent on joe for *shooting me*?
The original question asked was if he still had consent for Joe having *stolen from him* which is what gave him consent in the first place.
In your example, Joe is shooting you, which he wouldn't be doing if he had stolen from you, so apparently the initial wronged party is you, because Joe is attacking you. You would then try to defend yourself for the attack, but Bob's guard would interfere and in the process you would kill Bob -- and now we're back to the initial situation, which is that Joe still shot at you and you weren't attacking him, you were defending yourself. You still have consent on Joe for the original attack since you have not yet attacked, only defended.
And on that note, I am going to bed. My eyeballs are bleeding. If questions remain, I'll get them tomorrow. :)
SGM Riel Mystsong,
CE Team Leader
BEVERAGEK
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/21/2011 01:44 AM CDT
GOOFYALBERT
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/21/2011 04:38 AM CDT
<You rock Riel :)
I think it needed a bump, no matter how soon..
I think it needed a bump, no matter how soon..
MARTINCOTY77
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/21/2011 06:44 AM CDT
Ok, so C has consent on both A and B like originally said, thanks.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons
GANGREL
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/21/2011 12:47 PM CDT
Outside of abilities such as Mark, can you tell someone is being guarded before you get to melee with the guarder? Because I would think if you start advancing on A, but as you reach melee you're facing B, that could be satisfied with "Oops, sorry, I've got no problem with you, excuse me," and leave the combat. Depending on how eager to fight B is, that is.
Maybe "who is guarding (person)" could become one of those Things-You-Can-See-In-The-Room status messages, like spell effects and such. Could make some of these situations simpler.
Killing you softly with his song,
- Stormsinger Shavay
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams"
- Arthur O'Shaughnessy
Maybe "who is guarding (person)" could become one of those Things-You-Can-See-In-The-Room status messages, like spell effects and such. Could make some of these situations simpler.
Killing you softly with his song,
- Stormsinger Shavay
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams"
- Arthur O'Shaughnessy
RAB1DW0MBAT
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/24/2011 06:34 AM CDT
Why would you advance on someone in the first place? This is why we have ranged weapons and spells.
Where's Madigan?!?!
I'm so noble it hurts.
Where's Madigan?!?!
I'm so noble it hurts.
GERSTEINJ2
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/24/2011 07:49 AM CDT
backstab.
Explore the Final Frontier - the unknown calls
Explore the Final Frontier - the unknown calls
CHRISSY-QUE
Re: consent based on guarding someone.
08/26/2011 05:58 PM CDT
>>Outside of abilities such as Mark, can you tell someone is being guarded before you get to melee with the guarder?
APPLAUD <PERSON> <COPPER/BRONZE/SILVER/GOLD/PLATINUM> COIN
- Using this option allows you to throw a single coin to someone
who isn't visibly guarded or avoiding mischievous play.
[Note: Your victim's demeanor may affect your attempts to throw various things.]
APPLAUD <PERSON> <COPPER/BRONZE/SILVER/GOLD/PLATINUM> COIN
- Using this option allows you to throw a single coin to someone
who isn't visibly guarded or avoiding mischievous play.
[Note: Your victim's demeanor may affect your attempts to throw various things.]
