>>My character that has never been anything but open is now guarded to protect the people i care about.

Lolwhat

---

>befriend clear all
You are now friendless.

I may be in the minority, but I feel like I've witnessed more harassment from people in guarded PvP stance than open PvP stance across a few different characters.

Although I walk around PvP open and don't mind a random fight, I've never sought one that I can remember. I tend to prefer more structured fights, spars, where both parties are presumably putting their best foot forward. Despite being PvP open for as long as I can remember on my primary character, I don't think I've ever been forced into a random PvP conflict in which I didn't want to participate.

My necromancer was open from the start IIRC and was killed maybe once, about the same number of times my thief was killed without consent while he was set to guarded or closed before I learned about the PvP stance system. My point is people who want to be annoying are going to be annoying, but guarded PvP stance seems to facilitate it best. It's also superfluous like others have said. It's not like you can't just toggle closed to open if you're actually open to PvP during an RP situation (and/or "OOC: open to tango if you are"), and then back to closed when it's over.

I wonder if changing it would save GM time; it certainly sounds like it would have a quantifiable impact, good or bad.

>>>> It's not like you can't just toggle closed to open if you're actually open to PvP during an RP situation

You can only change your stance once every 48 hour so this isn't really an option.

>>>> I wonder if changing it would save GM time; it certainly sounds like it would have a quantifiable impact, good or bad.

It would force people to choose open or closed. The exact effect of that is uncertain at best. In order to deal with the problems presented here a policy that says "if you are closed you can't pvp" would need to be adopted and enforced (I know some people believe this is currently the case, I am not so sure it is). Otherwise the open crowd would be back here complaining about how they want to remove closed because people are abusing it. Would enforcing such a policy take more GM time than dealing with occasional guarded briefers? Once again, this is uncertain.



Actually, I have started to think that one of the previous discussions might eliminate the problem much better:

If both characters are open then the open policy applies to both players.
If one character is guarded and the other is open or guarded then the guarded policy applies to both players
If one character is closed then the closed policy applies to both platers.

In the scenario that provoked this debate both sides would have been on equal standing and would likely have received the same punishment if a report had occurred. Likely the policy player wouldn't bother reporting in the first place. The downside is I am pretty sure many open players are loathe to report and therefore would see this as not solving anything, which is a valid position I suppose.

>If both characters are open then the open policy applies to both players.
If one character is guarded and the other is open or guarded then the guarded policy applies to both players
If one character is closed then the closed policy applies to both platers.

Wow... This is likely the best idea I have heard yet.

<<
If both characters are open then the open policy applies to both players.
If one character is guarded and the other is open or guarded then the guarded policy applies to both players
If one character is closed then the closed policy applies to both players.>>

That was my idea and it is perfect, thanks for grabbing it synamon. It eliminates guarded people from having first strike opportunity and makes them play by the very policy they have chosen. It makes it just as risky for a guarded person to have pvp with an open person as vice versa. It encourages people to be open if they would like to pvp, and severely restricts pvp for closed people. The true "policy" playing guarded people (NOT A MAJORITY OF GUARDED PEOPLE MIND YOU!) would get a taste of their own medicine, and the open people would still be open as it currently is constructed. I actually feel like this would lessen reports and GM intervention in the long run.

- Buuwl

<<Basically what I'm getting from this is that it's a confused muddle (sorry, but even I'm not sure how on earth this would make 'Guarded people' own up to their actions unless the 'Open vs Open' people actually act on the unconsented PvP) and that the only real fix is going to be Systematic profile locking based on behavior, which I would in fact like to do! Otherwise any such system is going to require>>

I don't understand your entire post. What's this about open versus open?

---

Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:

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

<<Back then, there was a suggestion to have an "open vs. open" setting, which would only apply the "open" policy if both players were PvP open. (In other words, you're only PvP open to other open players.)>>

Exactly, that is how it is for open people now. The only issue is now, when your open closed people and guarded people can attack you as well. Closed people and Guarded people should have to play by the same policy they choose. I.E. if you gank an open as a closed or guarded person they could in effect report you.

---

Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:

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

I like Buuwl's suggestion by the way- simple and elegant.

But for everyone who keeps complaining about how some 'guarded' players abuse the system to attack open players.

The other alternative is to eliminate Open and make everyone Guarded.

As I understand it when a player chooses the Open stance, he is announcing "I am up for anything- RP, no RP, attack me with RP, attack me with 10 of your friends- I am open for anything"

Except apparently being attacked by a Guarded person without warning.

I understand that there are griefers. I have seen plenty of them over time. But if players weren't Open, then the Guarded players couldn't game the system.

"But I want to be Open"- I get that. But if you are Open you are Open to being ganked by the Guarded Griefer. At least that is how I interpret Open.

I want to be Guarded.

I do not see why I should want or agree to changing to Open or Closed- since neither fits my intent- just so players who want to be Open- don't get ganked by players who are not Open.


Change to Guarded and the issue goes away away for you.

Like I said- I am completely comfortable with my stance- and I don't see why I should be told to change mine- because others don't like one of the consequences of being Open.

Kill em all. Let the Gods sort em out.

If you are guarded and griefing someone you are doing it wrong. Your pvp stance says you only want to pvp when the situation calls for it. Not because you walked into to a room and decided to shoot someone in the face. Open people are not guarded griefers play things to attach on a whim and then hide behind policy when it suits them. If you want to act that way, you should be open or be willing to accept the fact the open person can report you on the same level of policy you are hiding behind.

---

Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:

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

>>> And no im not trying to troll, I in all honesty want to know if there are these actual gaps in the current system which leaves grey zones, or are people just upset because there MIGHT be a grey zone in any given situation?

There is no grey zone in current policy. The open players don't like one of the implications of current policy. They don't like the fact that a guarded player can attack an open player and that other open players can be reported for attacking the guarded player in return. They feel that this leads to people "playing policy".

>>Gnikoleychuk: There is no grey zone in current policy. The open players don't like one of the implications of current policy. They don't like the fact that a guarded player can attack an open player and that other open players can be reported for attacking the guarded player in return. They feel that this leads to people "playing policy".

I think that's an accurate summary of how some open players feel about being attacked by guarded players. They don't like that their options are limited when dealing with guarded players. (By setting yourself to open, you give the entire player base wide latitude, while the guarded player can narrow the field by choosing when to grant consent.)

However, the "grey area" involves questions of whether consent is present. There's no question that if Guarded Player A physically attacks Open Player B, Player B has consent to retaliate. Questions arise when Guarded Player A behaves in a hostile manner without physically attacking anyone or when other players want to get involved in the conflict between Guarded Player A and Open Player B. The lack of iron-clad consent makes people wary of getting involved in conflicts with guarded/closed players.

The WARN COMBAT command is one tool that can be used when consent is questionable, but not everyone wants to use that all the time.

---

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!

Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

Again... this thread was started to raise a point, and to basically, put up for debate "can we just have "open and "closed" as the only two options you have when choosing a PvP stance.

The problem i encountered is, that for me, its a pointless setting, and i would just ignore it if it didn't effect me in an adverse way, but it does, as it does others, So thats why i'm suggesting to get rid of it all together.

One of the ways it affects me is because of policy, it can cause a grey area and also can be directly abused. And because of that, it can hold to a certain degree of "risk" to my character, therefore it affects how i would normally interact and RP with people. The risk's are such that, characters can have long lasting effects on his skills, it could restrict his game play, and it can cause lockouts amongst other things that (as its another point of debate) has also be pointed out are consequences that seem quite excessive.

and i'll quote this again as it explains really well one of the flaws.

<You basically hit the nail on the head "unless policy enforcement is being abused by people who are guarded." Does it happen always, of course not. Look at the options this presents though, say a guarded player and an open player are RPing, and they are having an argument that is escalating to the point where they are probably going to PvP. Can the open player attack first? Well sure, but at what level of confidence do they have that they aren't going to get reported for unconsented PvP? The guarded person certainly has the right to report the open person for attacking them if there wasn't any clear consent.

<Now look at the flipside, the guarded person is in complete control of the situation, they can attack first without fear of any such report. Also look at the penalties from each point of view, the guarded person has 0 possible penalty, except a text death if they lose the fight which is literally 0. The open person has the ability to get a warning, which is 6 months of no experience drain, and a warning on their record for life.

<I'm not sure when a warning is considered non-stackable with another warning but let's just say it's 6 months. 6 months of playing is a long time to not get into a conflict if you want to RP with anyone when the entire game's focal point is about combat and violence. If the open person gets a warning, they for sure aren't going to go anywhere near a guarded person for PvP and chance another warning that can hold a larger penalty. Does that make sense?


This wasnt about trying to stop policy players, or griefers.

If we just had the “closed” and “open” stance, when it comes to consent rules, there is absolutely no difference on how i act or react to the possibility of PvP with either a closed or open player. I will treat them in both the exact same way. And it will be up to the person who is closed to conduct themselves in a way and manner to what he wants to express to the open player, what he sees as acceptable of what he will involve himself in.
I'm not sure what it is that guarded people are worried they are going to loose, or why people are objecting to this. Other than, they object to some of peoples beliefs or points they have raised. I haven't seen reasons to “keep” the guarded stance. Just statements arguing the support of not changing it.


Its also why, like i've said previously, that if your RP stance is Heavy, you should be open, RPing heavy for me isnt about how i said nahi, aye or how much history i know. Its more about your overall sense of immersion is to a different world . And violence death and conflict and all that, is very much a way of life for the world we a RPing in. But hey, that would be just too much to ask for... lol.

<There is no grey zone in current policy. The open players don't like one of the implications of current policy. They don't like the fact that a guarded player can attack an open player and hat other open players can be reported for attacking the guarded player in return. They feel that this leads to people "playing policy".

This is just oversimplifying what this is about. I do believe there are grey area's in policy. Also i could be reading you incorrectly and apologies if i am, but it seems you making those statements from a very judgmental, stereotyped and shortsighted opinion of what "open" people are like, or the reasons we play "open".


Rifkinn

>Has pvp policy moved too far in the direction of encouraging insular pvp-stance cliques and their resulting extremism and crazy?

Self selecting groups. The boards are only a small subset of DR, and the people posting in this thread are people who have extreme opinions and are attached to PvP as a whole in DR.

So no. It would be like going onto a conspiracy nuts board and going 'wow, all Americans are crazy'. You don't get there and stick around unless you already buy the line.

<<Self selecting groups. The boards are only a small subset of DR, and the people posting in this thread are people who have extreme opinions and are attached to PvP as a whole in DR.>>

Many posting here actually haven't been expressing extreme opinions and are rather working toward a possibly solution/fix to a very small but annoying flaw in the current system.

Imagine! those most attached to pvp as a whole are the one's bringing up the current pvp stance system, what an odd concept indeed.

---

Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:

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

<<<Guess we are reading different threads?>>

Or the same thread differently....

---

Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:

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

<Because some people don't like the fact that they are open to possibility being randomly killed when they are open but still like the opportunity to engage in PvP, remote or otherwise. This is legitimate concern for some players.


If your closed you can still engage in PvP. There is nothing to say a closed player cant PvP. And this is one of the misconceptions of what i see the profile system as representing. Chooseing a PvP stance, isnt to show you what you are restricted to do. Its a representation of what you believe the other person might do. If someone is stance RP light, im not going to walk up to that person assuming he wants to have a long discussion about the political state of Zoluren, I'll find someone who has RP stance Heavy.
But the guy who is set to light can go up and make the first moves to show that, today, he would like to see what its like to RP alittle heavier than normal.


6:15 am, no spell check...bed


Rifkinn

>If we just had the "closed' and "Guarded' stance- there would be no issue.

Sure there would, it would be DR from a long time ago where everyone who engaged in PvP would be hesitant under the guise of making sure they had iron clad consent in fear of a warning. There are players that don't like the guessing game, especially considering rulings for similar situations can be completely different all based on the mood and the GM you're in the consult with.

I know why this was created, but some times I think people forget the common sense aspect of it.

Being closed or guarded is not a license to be a jerk. I say this as a person who plays guarded. And I do it because there are certain people who are way over my circle who will kill JUST because you're set open and that just sucks.

I generally play as though I'm open. Rifkinn's my friend but I'm going to use him as an example for this post.

If I antagonize someone like Rifkinn, seriously I expect to get my butt kicked. You can't just open your mouth if you dislike someone and not expect to get your teeth kicked in. Period. Likewise, when I'm in a position of being the much higher level character and some nitwit is getting on my nerves, I will warn them simply, using in character tools (Bub, you're pushing your luck. Say it one more time and you're idiot flambe. Et cetera) And then I'm going to kick their teeth up between there ears.

I don't think I've ever checked someone's PVP stance before the scenario above played itself out. There's a lot of hair splitting going on in this thread where I believe common sense will clear it up.



--

In memory of Lisa/Martee. Passed 6/17/2013. A friend. A sister.

I didn't mean to come off holier than thou.

You're right, rules manipulators will take any situation and make it suck. I hope the intent of my message makes sense even if it was a little unintentionally conceited?


--

In memory of Lisa/Martee. Passed 6/17/2013. A friend. A sister.