>>Actually that's called mech abuse, try again.

I don't know whether it is or it isn't. I know that if it IS, it's because the players think they know who plays both of those characters.

If it is...it was abused on both sides. Both sides did the exact same thing. NOT LIKE. EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Just one side had a set of guarded players and one side had a set of open ones.

>Asked and answered, scroll up

I should have read the whole thread before posting. Good points, but stealing is similar to first strike in that the other player is affected by the thief/attacker without a choice. I believe that is why stealing will lock a character open. If you are willing to start a PVP conflict, you should be OPEN.

>>I don't know whether it is or it isn't. I know that if it IS, it's because the players think they know who plays both of those characters.

If it is...it was abused on both sides. Both sides did the exact same thing. NOT LIKE. EXACTLY THE SAME THING.>>

It most definitely is. Besides being told as such, GMs could trace IPs and see that it is. Pretty simple?

And it wasn't the same thing. Empath A was ASKED why she died, and she told them. It was the decision of the other player to come in and kill the ALT. So, no.. nothing was handled poorly on Empath A side. Can't blame her for being well-liked by people?

However, empath B/ALT logged in, as the same player, to take care of an "issue" that the PLAYER had taken personally.

So, yeah.

NOT EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

:)

>>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.

>>Asked and answered, scroll up

This was the answer just FYI:

>>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.

And to put it in a non-scenario reason. Stealing is always a negative/first strike thing. Attacking someone else CAN be a negative/first strike but sometimes it can be in retaliation to something that granted consent. So what it comes down to is it's more difficult to say 'mechanically' that an attacker should be set open because there are too many variables to determine.

What would be fantastic is if actions taken against you could set you ineligible to be set open.

This is just an example so the times I indicate are just arbitrarily picked.
Person A steals from closed person B, a timer is set for person B to retaliate against person A for two hours. During this hour timer, person B can attack\kill\steal against person A without triggering (the currently non-existent but player proposed) first strike mechanic. So Player B has 2 hours to retaliate against person A without triggering the mechanic that would set him/her open.

This obviously doesn't take care of mouthing off, slapping, kicking etc, but stuff that should be included IMO is casting a violent spell, physical attacks, aiming, stealing, possibly others...

just an idea not sure how viable it is mechanics wise.


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

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

>>How is having 'friends' help you during conflicts different from a single person having an alt help them?

How about something called RP? Doesn't take RP to buy someone else's character and use them for your own gain. There was no RP in logging in an alt and killing Empath A.

And, once again.. Empath A didn't cry about it, as I've pointed out a number of times now. So she did just roll with it. But because she ROLEPLAYS and has FRIENDS from roleplaying, her friends ROLEPLAYED it out and came back to slap the person that pushed her around. And, I suppose without surprise, instead of handling it in an RP way (which I guess is expected at this point?), they decided to report. So they went from mech abuse to reporting on Empath B/ALT side, while Empath A roleplayed it out, and you're telling me that it's exactly the same thing?

Right-o.

Mech abuse = roleplay = reporting, in your book.

Noted!

>This doesn't seem like a childish distinction to you? I don't see the difference. One person playing two characters or two people playing two. I guess maybe as far as simu-rules go there's a distinction.

Ya there's a distinction.

If someone has to logon or bring their other character in to resolve a conflict which they aren't part of it's deemed as mechanics abuse. Especially if the other character wasn't even in the room or online at the time.

I've seen it happen before.

I've been witness to someone taking their Barbarian from Intercessors to Mutant Togballs to kill a guy because he was hunting in his Empath's room. I've also heard of a WM login their Thief to point and ambush slash a Ranger because the Warrior Mage was unable to search them, or keep them in the room long enough to kill.

All of those scenarios are Mech Abuse.

>>If someone has to logon or bring their other character in to resolve a conflict which they aren't part of it's deemed as mechanics abuse. Especially if the other character wasn't even in the room or online at the time.

Ok...you've distinguished that this is abuse. How is it different when two people do it instead of just one.

Same scenario, same lack of being there, same everything. Just it's two people now on two characters instead of one.

>>That's not up for you to decide.

It's not up to you, either, soooooooo.

>>They will never 100% go away, but a lot can be mitigated by removing the tools for mechanics to be abused in the first place.

This is already being done. GMs lock people open for abusing the guarded stance. GMs remove people's ability to report when they use it as a cudgel against other players, as well. Etc.

Making it a binary PvP always or PvP never isn't going to happen, because there's a much larger group of people who are more likely in the middle ground than you'd believe. Comparing it to other MMORPGs is an exercise in futility, as well, because the gross majority of those games have no real drawbacks to PvP deaths.

---

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.

>>So...by process of elimination there...there's no distinction between one person playing two character and two people playing two as far as lameness goes.

Eh, no real distinction in reality. But, at the same time, there are different policies being violated. You can't have your alts fight your own battles and you can't use your character to bait someone into a fight with someone else.

>>If a group member graverobs from someone...someone shouldn't have to go through an entire group to right that wrong. If a group member starts a fight with a single person, and that person only wants to deal with that group member...that's their right as a player.

And that's why I feel guarded won't change. If someone graverobs you, you're not going to be forced into picking between being closed and not trying to get your stuff back yourself or being open and having to potentially fight everyone who wants to fight you.

IMO the easiest solution for people who have issues with people set as Guarded are to just treat them as if they were Closed. It sounds like the people you're worried about are going to be playing pretty loose with policy no matter what their PvP stance, and you'll have a much better chance of enjoying yourself if you just ignore them completely. That seems like an easier system to implement than making less PvP options while also fitting all these policy conditionals into the mix.

---

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.

>>Once again, incorrect. Empath A did not "bait", Empath A was already healing said person and Empath B chose to ignore Empath A so Empath A slept Empath B. Empath A also didn't go and ask for help, but when asked what HAPPENED, friend decided to take action.

I'm speaking in broad strokes here. Not the intricate details. Empath A is used as bait all the time. This isn't even a questionable assertion. It happens, it's fun, that's what Empath A does. I'm not unreasonable in an argument but that's one point that I'm (for my point of view) not opening for debate. They take pride in it.

In this one instance, the cart came before the horse, yes. That said, I'm not trying to debate one instance of anything. I'm trying to explain why open/guarded/closed is having problems and this example is showing a lot of different viewpoints.

Some things that will help for further conflict resolution is not assuming you know things that you don't know. "Empath B ignored her." You don't know that...you're coloring your opinion and other people's with that. Empath B might not have noticed. Empath B, like just about every other empath in game MIGHT JUST HAVE A SCRIPT THAT THEY TURNED ON and didn't catch any comments made.

These are all methods you use to demonize a character and that in turns allows you to make a snap decision that wasn't really warranted. Everyone keeps screaming about mech abuse.

Mech abuse is bad. Mech abuse is the means by which players attain an unfair advantage over other players. Do you think that YOU should be enforcing the mech abuse policy?

Your answer will not be yes. If someone is obviously abusing something. Hey, that's what GM's are for. Everyone has this stigma about the GM's. Like you're a bad player if you say, "Jeeze, that guy is really breaking the rules there."

Instead...you scream about mech abuse, then traipse down the same dirt road as the first person and do the same thing. I don't know what resulted from it but I can tell that it wasn't good.

>>I wasn't the one making the statement Guarded isn't going away, that was you. The comment still stands, I never said if something is or isn't being changed. You're not staff, no need to act like it.

I'm entirely comfortable over handwaving away your argument over the semantics of saying "I think Guarded needs to be removed completely" vs "Even if guarded goes away (it won't)".

Now with that out of the way, let us continue beating this dead horse.

---

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.

That being said, I don't think it's particularly wrong to stomp on a known griefer in any manner. If they kill without reason, they can be killed without reason. Think of it as bloody tag. I gave Celesi the stiletto tickle yesterday, not for any other reason that he was feeling froggy and killing people that were open.

I'm really disappointed in that tactic, Erixx. I've taken my licks, I don't freak out. Nefidyne actually scared me with some of the things he was saying so I made a snap choice...it was a bad choice. I'm not so proud I can't admit it.

But the entirety of all my arguments surrounding this sort of behavior have been to STOP it. Myself included. Did you just twist what you thought I was arguing so you could attack me? Or are you really confused by what I'm saying?

>>From an RP perspective (not necessarily a policy perspective), it is legitimate for a person's family and friends (not alts) to want to intervene in a conflict that doesn't directly involve them. (That happens often in real life.) However, as a practical matter, there are a lot of situations where players get involved in their friends' conflicts for OOC reasons, even though the characters involved have no relationship. There is a big difference between, "You killed my sister," and "You killed my friend's alt." The latter is not role-playing.

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to be grumpy about that sort of thing.

HLC coming in to put a boot down on the fella that killed his little sissy is not the only recourse available. Shame them, stun them, steal from them and get caught on purpose (not to the extent you're harassing them mechanically, pick one not all) and let them know they've generally made an enemy of you but the bullying needs to stop.

People are leaving the game because of it. Whether you like them or not people add to the richness of the game environment. I would rather have a thousand people in game that I hated instead of 1 I like.

>>If there's not iron clad consent, and specific steps taken every time a player engages in potential PvP against a Guarded character, you run the risk of a warning.

There's only one specific step you need to use when engaging in PvP with a Guarded (or Closed) character: use WARN. Out of curiosity, has anyone here heard of a person getting a warning after using WARN appropriately? I have not, but I also don't pay much attention to such things or frequent the forums/chat rooms where they're discussed.


And now, some Quotes for Truth:

No amount of rule changing or policy adjusting is going to stop annoying people from being annoying. Blaming the guarded stance is not going to make annoying people less annoying nor will it make the people who play policy when they inject themselves into conflicts play policy any less than normal.

I don't think that getting rid of the "guarded" stance will have an effect on PvP or policy players, since closed and guarded are already identical from a policy perspective. The people who like to play policy are going to keep doing that. It won't take any of the guesswork out of determining who's likely to report.

---

Help recruit more players! Is Vote!
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

I've enjoyed reading this thread, and for the most part am glad that the issue i pointed out has been able to be discussed, and that as a result a couple of other issues have been able to been brought up as well that it seems people would like to shine a light on, and hopefully have them looked at and gone past the point of just being a topic thats being used as something we as players discuss and debate here but move to the point where we get some feedback from GM's on weather or not they are going to look at it and why or why not they will amend,change or remove the issues.

One of the sideline issues for this topic is the comments made about how the severity of warnings seems to need a re going over, That in effect its been said that being on the receiving end on some consequences can actually destroy you character and whether or not they are too much of a penalty to receive, and Also the severity of warning can impede or limit your playing style and how you RP or play the game. But, thats not the main topic here.

The Issue i raised was that the guarded stance is causing more problems than its intended use for people. And a discussion and debate has been had on weather or not others agree or disagree with this, with boths sides of the argument having its supporters and fair reasons for supporting it.
One of the common themes that both sides agree on is that we agree that RP is involved in this regardless of what form RP takes. And that also we all play this game for enjoyment and what is essential, ( i don't think anyone that has made a post here, said that they themselves are incapable of being mature, so no allowances in policy need to be made for that) is common sense and maturity. The vast majority of us are mature people who play their characters with a sense of what is fair play and good sportsmanship ( im assuming that there might be a few people out there under 18 and have a little immaturity about their nature that can impede their ability to play with the same maturity that we have).

One other theme again that seems to be common on both sides, is that RP basically is just RPing your character with the same common sense behavior as we have in the real world with how we as individuals would react and behave given what ever moral code and values you have in the real world. Obviously RPing a psychopath is just childish and bad taste, as would RP someone with a mental disease.

With this in mind, we do need to cater to those of us who play such that, regardless, they don't PvP so any RP involving the potential of PvP they choose not to be a part of. And consideration to that needs to be in place in the form of some rules.

Me personally i'm someone who just RP's, end of story. Any and all consequences as a result of that i pay for, Like the example someone bought up, If i kill someone, i can expect that there is a possibility that a family member or even friend would come after me for revenge. But thats me.

To take it a step further regarding stances, i'm also of the opinion that, if your RP stanced to heavy, you are open. Why because RP isn't as much what you throw out to the environment, Its more, i beleive, how you react to the environment. And accepting any and all consequences is pretty much what i would see as a heavy stance on how you personally present yourself to the other participants of this game. but again, thats for another discussion.

So With regards to the guarded stance, i think that it has been shown that at least with those of us who read the boards and raise questions to the GM's about stuff ect. There is enough of us who agree that Guarded is not serving its purpose, if there wasn't any problems arising from having it in the game we wouldn't ask for it to be removed, but we have shown that it pose problems for us as players and also sets up unfair risks. My motivation for bringing this topic up, is not because ultimatly i want to try to stop the people that dont play with that maturity or good sportmanship IE. policy players or people who use it to mech abuse or set others up for a warning. Its because the grey area that exists as a result of it, effects my game play, and enjoyment of the game.

Now that this particular motion,debate or discussion has come to this point on the boards, can it go to the next step where we are given some feedback about whether or not GM's agree that its something that needs to be reviewed.

Rifkinn

<<There is enough of us who agree that Guarded is not serving its purpose>>

I feel that you and many others are misinterpreting the purpose of the other PvP stances.

Frankly if everyone was mature and used common sense there would be no need for a flag system and the basic consent policy would be just fine.

Since unconsented PvP will always be against policy on the prime server, the purpose of the flag system is to help limit some ambiguity when consent issues come up. But reports will always be generated due to the different perspectives on when and who has constent on a character.

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 feel that you and many others are misinterpreting the purpose of the other PvP stances.

No problem, i dont think i am.

Rifkinn

>>The character that had the sand to stand up to Mouthy Jo has what exactly? At what point does RPing a rough and tumble lowbie become too much hassle when you'll NEVER win. At what point does ALWAYS winning become boring? This is a broken state for both parties. No growth, no equanimity, no fun.

In the case of the Arkarms, as they are the local boogymen of choice this year - in past events, Liurilias, Rifkinn and myself have managed to knock down any one, and often groups of them at a shot. Yes, as a whole they possess a lot of heft and folks fear the idea of taking them on as a crew, HOWEVER, they aren't like some pack of sharks waiting for someone to smash for giggles.

Frankly, if you (anyone in this thread) is intimidated by the idea of an organized group willing to defend itself - team up. There's plenty of people out there that can hold their own, even against that power pack.

Samsaren

A post was removed.

Annwyl
Message Board Supervisor

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

i had a nice post that explained the situation that initiated this, as well as my characters personal experience with the "i am guarded and i will report you!" types. but i used letters inappropriately and it got pulled.

for me, this whole situation is summed up like this... My character that has never been anything but open is now guarded to protect the people i care about. so stupid. it would be really easy if people just didn't suck.


(this is way less words too, yey!)