>>And yet someone could still participate through PvP or just being annoying to the point where you should have consent.

Someone being annoying should never be consent. Being unable to come up with any way to deal with someone annoying you other than punching them in the face is a failing on you, not the system.

>>Closed signifies a character does everything they can to avoid PvP.

I agree, but it also doesn't mean you're immune to it if you're being an idiot. Or safe from PvP 100% no matter what.

CLOSED - This setting indicates that you prefer to do everything you can to avoid PVP. Please note that this setting does not PROTECT you from PVP, it merely states that you're not generally interested in participating. If you choose to do things that cause bad feelings or ill will, however, you may get involved in PVP whether you like it or not.

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

>I agree, but it also doesn't mean you're immune to it if you're being an idiot. Or safe from PvP 100% no matter what.

Stop being obtuse. Re - read the thread if you want to participate and have people take you seriously.

"The only way to resolve this and end this conversation once and for all is to get rid of Guarded all together."

Resolve what?

Rather than rage about that claim I will once again(we go through this what ever 2 years?) my position with Flavius.

Most of you know Flavius at least slightly. Been around forever- doesn't tend to incite crap, but usually up for a fun argument. Flavius is Guarded- and I have absolutely no interest in any other status. Guarded suits Flavius to a tea.

Someone want to assume that Flavius is Closed because he is Guarded- fine with me. I don't need to RP with that person- I am up for it- but its not necessary.

I have minimal interest in PvP- rarely get involved in it- but when I have, I have taken my lumps without complaint. When I get involved.

Here is the thing about how I play- I never check to see whether a character is Open/Guarded/Closed. I really don't care. If someone is being enough of a jerk to Flavius so I finally get fed up and get physically involved- I don't care what status he is. I just don't care.

Don't like me being Guarded- ignore me, avoid me- I don't care.

But if you want to have share some fun with Flavius- I am up with that.

If you are in doubt- then don't take the risk- I don't care.

>>You can learn a lot about 'polite' pvp practices.

The issue isn't the people who are polite in pvp.

It's the one idiot you encounter that just decides to wipe your EXP pool for no real reason and make you waste your time getting favors/refilling pools/etc.

I just never had the inclination for dealing with that. At the same time, I was comfortable taking my lumps if I had to. I just wanted some kind of reason behind it.

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

<<I remain convinced that the problem is at a player level. Specifically with people taking it personally.

This. When I first came back to DR a couple years ago I was in Crossing, had no idea who was big who wasn't, didn't matter. The whole "guarded/closed/open" crap was all new to me and I've never been big on pvp (because I suck). Well, there was a pally (that will remain nameless) that was just running his mouth constantly, so we get into a fight. I kill him, he comes back, starts running his mouth off even more. Things escalate again and he dies again. He assumed my barb was 150+ when in reality I was 112th, he was mid 90's (I forget the exact at this point), but he kept whispering with such anger and said that as soon as I went to Riss/Kresh to resume training he was going to kill me as much as possible with his big 150+ character. Of course it never happened, haven't seen that name running around at all even, but crap like that is why people want to go guarded.

Now, on the flip side, same time frame, I had no idea who Raikage was. He stole from me, wearing all his armor and stuff so he'd get caught, and instead of it just being a brawl to the death with me getting rolled over and over again, we challenged (his idea even, think he didn't wanna see some shmuck lose favors). Of course he one shot me with throwing blades but that was the end of it, he even dragged me into the auto empath. And that's how it should be but like the quote above, people take it personally and then have to get their big toons or gang or whatever have you and make things a huge mess. If it was always how Raik handled the business (good form and to the point without needless griefing) I think more people wouldn't "hide" behind the guarded stance. And to the people that are worried about griefing, my barb has been open for quite a while and I haven't had a single fight, I really feel like the current crop of peeps that enjoy pvp are good natured enough to not just go around trying to slam your face just because you're open.

Anywho, that's my pointless drivel from my very limited pvp interactions at 5am after my 12 hour shift. Hopefully it made sense though I don't really know what point I was trying to make. Oh! Yeah, get rid of guarded, make things simple, open or closed. Clear cut, no gray area, no question.

<<If you don't want to PvP, stay closed.>>
Some people would prefer to just fight critters, not other players. Unfortunately, those who play necromancers are set to "guarded" automatically, and do not even have the option of playing as "closed".

Now, this does not mean said character should not be able to fight against invasion / npc characters. It can just means they don't want to play the game of "who has more bits in TM/HE".

Ones ability to RP or not is not determined by ones "open/closed" status, either. Too many people in both camps attribute one to the other.

>>I never knew the above existed though, what rules apply to "multiple first strikes while Guarded in a TBD period of time will set you Open"? Has anyone seen this work?

I don't think it was actually enabled. AFAIK, when it comes to PvP a GM as to set someone open if they're acting in an open manner. It isn't set up to work like stealing and being a accused of necromancy just yet.

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

>If I have been following correctly someone who is closed could also do the same thing. If you remove the guarded option closed will become the new guarded and some players will still play policy and just be wearing a closed tag. The funny thing about this thread is that I played in the late 90's and stopped playing DR before this system was released. These same complaints and issues existed back then. It seems the only thing that has changed is now we have open players who are free to attack each other without worrying about policy, which is a good thing for everyone.

However; if your character is set to a Closed status you're indicating you don't want anything to do with PvP at all. You want to avoid it at all costs, if a Closed player were to do this, and the Open player Reported him the GM's could request the Closed player to change their profile stance and/or possibly switch them to Open. This isn't the case for a Guarded player, they will remain Guarded.

Also, if Guarded were to be removed and a system were implemented that automatically changed a Closed to Open for 2-4 (arbitrary number) hours on their first offense it would be a moot case, and they wouldn't be hiding behind policy (at least as easily as they can now Guarded.)

>Hmm.. probably beating a dead horse here, but remind me why the attack mechanic is different from the stealing mechanic?

Player A attacks player B with a weak character, player B hits back. Player B is now open - player A brings in a higher character and proceeds to kill B. Grief ensues.

---

Don't forget to vote:

http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

>>Player A attacks player B with a weak character, player B hits back. Player B is now open - player A brings in a higher character and proceeds to kill B. Grief ensues.

I'm not seeing where that is a bad thing. It's part of weighing the consequences when you decide to retaliate. Guarded people do that as it is, attacking an open character because their alt had an issue with them. Then reporting when they get smacked back. We're just trying to eliminate the "report" option here because the player is hiding.

>>If someone steals from you, and you try to shoot them (striking first, even), does that mean you're open to all PvP ever?

Stealing could be set to be considered a first strike just like a first strike attack. In any course, the stealer is already set to open and you can do anything to them, even get revenge through

>>If someone attacks you, and you attack back, does that mean you're open to all PvP ever?

No, 1st strike was from your attacker and the attacker is set open, you have consent.

>>If someone's aiming a weapon at you, and you strike first to beat them to the punch, does that mean you're open to all PvP ever?

Aiming could be considered a first strike just like stealing. No, I don't think that is too harsh on the person Aiming, that is their choice and aiming to me is an act of violence.

>>If someone's slapping your character over and over, and you attack back, does that mean you're open to all PvP ever?

This is the only one that may end up as questionable since slapping is just humiliation and doesn't lead to immediate physical violence. (Funny IRL it would be consent though so on those grounds I could see kicking punching slapping etc setting someone open)

The ISSUE is that policy needs to be rewritten into something that is black and white and not gray.

Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

The distinction between stealing and killing is pretty wide. Oddly enough, stealing is not socially acceptable in any situation. Much like necromancers. They're not socially acceptable.

Killing is, on occasion, socially acceptable and even sometimes a measured and appropriate response. I can understand being locked open for the first two things. EVERYONE hates you when you do those things. Killing is a bit more ambiguous though and thus the trouble with it as usually it's completely different case by case.

>>I'm not seeing where that is a bad thing. It's part of weighing the consequences when you decide to retaliate. Guarded people do that as it is, attacking an open character because their alt had an issue with them. Then reporting when they get smacked back. We're just trying to eliminate the "report" option here because the player is hiding.

"He did it! Why can't I!?" Is THE prevailing reason we're having a problem with this.

A little RL scenario for you that most of you are familiar with on one side of the coin.

So Empath A doesn't want Empath B to heal someone. Empath B ignores/doesn't hear Empath A. Empath A sleeps/messes with and otherwise annoys Empath B.

Empath B grabs ALT and kills Empath A with it. Empath A is open. She poked around, she got her hand slappep by ALT (who is guarded) and has a few friends come pay ALT a visit. Now ALT gets killed by someone completely out of the loop of the encounter.

I explained to ALT that Empath A and friends did exactly the SAME thing that he/she did.

No one is questioning what Empath B and ALT did is RP friendly. It was just killing someone because the situation was taken personally.

That said. Empath A IS open pvp and took the reprisal personally as well (if not their death than their inability to effect ALT in the same manner in which they effected her...I.E.-killdeathrawr).

Neither side handled this with grace. Empath A should have taken personal responsibility for their OWN CHARACTER and not sought outside help in the form of insta-death. RP it up, sure. Threaten, cajole, trick into...but never just "BAM! HaHa, that'll teach you to mess with me and my group of awesome!" It's lame. There's no other way to say that. Lame lame lame. I love the 'group' dynamic as an RP device but it needs to be tempered with some self restraint.

Now, because ALT's mindframe was relatively known (angry), this was seen as a personal attack. You messed with me, I have a character that can kill yours, I mess with you now.

As will most pvp conflicts gone sour, this was handled poorly at both ends, particularly by senior characters that should know better by now and play very PVP friendly toons.

The only distinction between the two (they did the exact same thing) is that Empath A said (with their pvp stance), "That's ok if you grab your alt and blast me one, I'm up for it, it's all in good fun." When they really thought, "It's ok if you grab an alt and kill me, because I'm just bait and you'll die a lot more than I will." And that's just not the way to do business.

Take PERSONAL responsibility for your characters. That's good advice for EVERYONE down the line. If your empath opens their mouth and gets it slapped shut, well RP them as a mouthy masochist or next time maybe just shut them up.

If you want to RP a group dynamic that all looks out for eachother...do it with a little class. Drag away wounded people, heal them, give them buffs. Don't be their bully.

>>"Take PERSONAL responsibility for your characters."

I agree with everything you said above relating to this. However, one thing to note..

Empath A did take personal responsibility for her actions. However, when people die, especially when it's someone of Empath A's stature, they're usually asked WHY they died. Empath A didn't go and say "hey go kill xyz", she said "I died because of this." She didn't whine, she didn't cry, and she didn't handle it poorly. Empath B/ALT were used as a tagteam of MECH abuse, then when they were attacked because ALT is fine to attack someone lower than them (especially an empath), but is happy to report when they get curbstomped. So it's like "Hey I'm fine using my ALT to curbstomp someone that my empath had an issue with, but when I get curbstomped.. OMG!!!11 REPORTZ!1!"

Use of guarded = lame, and should drop people down to PVP OPEN when they decide to engage in non-challenge pvp.

It's great that it's "socially acceptable" to kill someone, but that does not mean that the person should be able to kill someone, socially acceptable or not, "RP" out the death, then be able to go hide in guarded and report when the "RP" doesn't go the way you had hoped. I.E. - no auto win button available.

As far as harassment/griefing, then fine.. there can be cases where THAT can be reported WHILE you're open. But an occasional death? Usually for RP reasons? C'mon. Not that hard to find an empath/cleric or depart (especially with depart FULL) and be back to what you were doing in a reasonable amount of time.

>Unfortunately your opinion differs from policy on the matter. Closed and guarded basically limit participation in PvP in exactly the same way.

That's not my opinion, that's responses from help and from staff that I've encountered. via profile help pvp CLOSED - This setting indicates that you prefer to do everything you can to avoid PVP.

Another example was when I originally came back to DR after an extremely long time away. I came back with a brand new character, and was going through a conflict with another character. My status was set to Closed because I was unaware of the new changes after returning. The conflict had someone come into my area while I was hunting and attempt to attack me. My response was killing the individual and letting them know if they attempted to disrupt my hunting again I would make it extremely unpleasant for them going forward.

I received a SEND from a GM letting me know that wasn't the behavior of a Closed character, and if I were to continue to Roleplay that way I would need to change my status to Open.

>Each time a situation like this gets brought up, the issue seems less about guarded and more about specific situations where someone uses guarded like they would have used report in the past.

>Just to now place two players comments off each other:

>Codaix: "The stealer is already set to open and you can do anything to them, even get revenge through."
>Clerixhax: "If a Closed is stomping Necromancers in town they're not really Closed. Closed is pretty cut and dry, not sure what you're having issues seeing."

My statement was in response to one of yours not a specific situation. You're using my comment to twist the argument to be in your favor. You're not including or quoting the entire context of the post along with the entire thread. You're pretty good with your straw man arguments.

>>Just to now place two players comments off each other

>>>Codaix: "The stealer is already set to open and you can do anything to them, even get revenge through."
>>Clerixhax: "If a Closed is stomping Necromancers in town they're not really Closed. Closed is pretty cut and dry, not sure what you're having issues seeing."

I don't get the point here?

Spelling out my statement a bit more I meant:

[if someone steals from you], The stealer is [automatically] already set to open and you can do anything to [retaliate against] them.

That's current policy and not sure what it has to do with stomping necros while closed?

GNIKOLEYCHUK>>seems to me that the GM proposed solution of setting people to open when they strike first, aim, target, slap or whatever else you want to add (similar to the stealing or accuse necromancy mechanics) would actually solve your problem regardless of wether guarded exists or not.

That would definitely be a step in the right direction for sure, but that GM statement was from 2010 so it's either been forgotten, denied, or never going to happen unless someone picks it back up. But that's what this discussion is about too, what are the possibilities and can we do at least 'something' better than the current setup.



Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

>>Empath B/ALT were used as a tagteam of MECH abuse, then when they were attacked because ALT is fine to attack someone lower than them (especially an empath), but is happy to report when they get curbstomped. So it's like "Hey I'm fine using my ALT to curbstomp someone that my empath had an issue with, but when I get curbstomped.. OMG!!!11 REPORTZ!1!"

And all of this was decided because people took it personally (I think because they assumed they knew the mindstate of Empath B/Alt). Is it mech abuse for someone to just come off the street and just whack Empath A for NO REASON WHATSOEVER?

Absolutely not. That's what PVP open is. It was taken as a PERSONAL attack because Empath A initiated a negative contact and ALT finished it. Empath A took it personally because there was a REASON for the killing that didn't seem RP'd enough to them. I don't need to explain to people that expecting someone to RP in a way that's conducive to you is a good way to be disappointed a lot.

I'm trying to show you that no matter WHAT Empath B/ALT did, it was still in the realm of OK for PVP open. Everything that Empath A/friends did in retaliation for it was NOT ok in regard to PVP guarded.

By going open you signify that if you draw attention to yourself in a negative light...yeah, someone's probably going to 'hire' someone to kill you for it. Move past it.

It's ok to lose some, guys. You know this.

it's somewhat funny that stealing from a player sets you open for a few hours, but no other crimes against a player will (murder, attempted murder, etc.). I think initiating any type of PVP should lock the character to open for a few hours.

>>No one is questioning what Empath B and ALT did is RP friendly. It was just killing someone because the situation was taken personally.

Actually that's called mech abuse, try again.

- Erixx

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Kindly address the points of a post and not the other posters.

Bickering here will end up with the thread shut down because you (general you) don't respect someone else's decision to post and you (general you) are taking comments (probably not even directed at you! (general you)) too personally.

See how that works?

Annwyl
Message Board Supervisor

If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing me at DR-Annwyl@play.net.