Previous
One thing I've noticed is that anyone who disagrees with rifkinn inevitably seems to 'not get it'. Or otherwise has something wrong with, and invalidating, their opinion of this system.
BADGOPHER
MARTINCOTY77
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 08:03 AM CDT
>>If we just had the "closed' and "Guarded' stance- there would be no issue.
That would make it way worse. Pretty much every situation 'could' come down to someone reporting then unless it's completely clear cut. Right now, the open crowd reduces those occurrences.
Anyways, it feels like most ideas and opinions have been discussed and the most positive response of all the ideas I have seen is that you have to treat other's by the PvP stance your character is in.
Maybe it's time for a GM comment, Yes it's already coded and releasing with 3.1, no it's never happening, maybe in 2018 when time allows.
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
That would make it way worse. Pretty much every situation 'could' come down to someone reporting then unless it's completely clear cut. Right now, the open crowd reduces those occurrences.
Anyways, it feels like most ideas and opinions have been discussed and the most positive response of all the ideas I have seen is that you have to treat other's by the PvP stance your character is in.
Maybe it's time for a GM comment, Yes it's already coded and releasing with 3.1, no it's never happening, maybe in 2018 when time allows.
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
IPECAC
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 09:57 AM CDT
Ugh, the sky is falling.
Closed and Open, this is the way the profile system should have been designed from the start, and this is what it should be updated to if the GM's ever deem it worthy of a revision.
>>Leave my stance alone.
If you don't want to potentially randomly die, go closed. If you want to PvP, go open. If you want to PvP for a little while, go open for a little while, then go back to closed once the timer is up. It's not like it's a permanent decision for your character. Everybody wants to have their cake and eat it too, but that grey area is where things become muddled and abuse happens. With a clear "yes or no" system, the stances become more clearly defined and much of the ambiguity is dissolved.
>befriend clear all
You are now friendless.
Closed and Open, this is the way the profile system should have been designed from the start, and this is what it should be updated to if the GM's ever deem it worthy of a revision.
>>Leave my stance alone.
If you don't want to potentially randomly die, go closed. If you want to PvP, go open. If you want to PvP for a little while, go open for a little while, then go back to closed once the timer is up. It's not like it's a permanent decision for your character. Everybody wants to have their cake and eat it too, but that grey area is where things become muddled and abuse happens. With a clear "yes or no" system, the stances become more clearly defined and much of the ambiguity is dissolved.
>befriend clear all
You are now friendless.
DR-ANNWYL
Re: Open Closed Guarded ::Nudge::
03/17/2014 10:04 AM CDT
The bickering with each other goes elsewhere.
Address the points of the posts, not the posters!
Annwyl
Message Board Supervisor
If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing me at DR-Annwyl@play.net.
DISCOTEQ21
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 02:44 PM CDT
<<Anyways, it feels like most ideas and opinions have been discussed and the most positive response of all the ideas I have seen is that you have to treat other's by the PvP stance your character is in.>>
Stated again for emphasis, I have yet to see someone disagree with this.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Stated again for emphasis, I have yet to see someone disagree with this.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
DARKEVILWHATEVER
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 03:52 PM CDT
When PvP profile was being implemented one of the GMs suggested the everyone was considered "closed" pre PvP Profile. For years and years, then, we knew that closed people can be violent. They can attack unconsented. And they can also combat responsibly adding color and excitement to the game; and thus was the habit of the game for well over a decade before profile was released.
The addition of Guarded was probably a miscalculation, although it sure seemed like a sound idea on paper.
People are cowards. And we lie to ourselves and everyone around us to avoid that truth. We believe our own fairy tales; and there is no better fairy tale than the Guarded option. Obviously if some friends and I are playing out a storyline that includes violent interactions, closed stance is fine because we all know each other. We can kill each other all day long, because we're all in on it. The legal consequences of violent interaction with ANYone other than our closest friends would never be left to chance.
After years of observing Guarded in practice, it turns out that Guarded stance is not instructive. It gives no specific instructions for outsiders to follow. It is a non-stance. It's unhelpful. It's ambiguous. It's ephemeral. It's useless. It is not, nor has it ever been useful for identifying an individual's playing preferences. It is only useful for those who choose to be Guarded, because they can tell themselves fairy tales about how uncowardly they are by adopting an empty appellation; a designation that is confusion itself. That's the real cowardice. But it's natural; it is our nature, and I find it perfectly acceptable for players to pick the emotionally and physically safest option. The reality of Guarded stance is that it protects the self-image of the player wearing the title, without offering an iota of helpful, instructive data to the rest of us.
If DR wants to optimize PvP Profile, like any other dimension of the game, management may want to have a review of it - after all, a fresh look at it may be due - it's been years.
For PvP Profile to be optimized it has to finally be made more clear. The strongest way to do that is to remove Guarded. When Guarded is removed, Closed will mean what it meant before profile was launched. If people want to be open PvP they can do that as well. Both designations will have crystal clear meanings. There will be no confusion. The amount of confusion that has been outlined in nearly 200 posts (in addition to countless previous threads expressing the same confusion) should be an indication to management that some adjustment may be helpful (in the same vein as 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, etc.). Reviews of system mechanics seems like a no-brainer, but I'm guessing little time has been spent imagining a review of Profile.
Removing Guarded is a wise adjustment, it's worse than superfluous, there's a real diminishing return to it. Ultimately, players' expectations will be re-managed, and everyone will adjust to the new paradigm. Most importantly, in the end, there will be little or no confusion about the TWO choices we have for our PvP Profile.
Side-note: For the record, my open noob has to go pretty far out of his way to get people to attack him - advancing and attacking usually does the trick. Sometimes dying is preferable to abject boredom.
The addition of Guarded was probably a miscalculation, although it sure seemed like a sound idea on paper.
People are cowards. And we lie to ourselves and everyone around us to avoid that truth. We believe our own fairy tales; and there is no better fairy tale than the Guarded option. Obviously if some friends and I are playing out a storyline that includes violent interactions, closed stance is fine because we all know each other. We can kill each other all day long, because we're all in on it. The legal consequences of violent interaction with ANYone other than our closest friends would never be left to chance.
After years of observing Guarded in practice, it turns out that Guarded stance is not instructive. It gives no specific instructions for outsiders to follow. It is a non-stance. It's unhelpful. It's ambiguous. It's ephemeral. It's useless. It is not, nor has it ever been useful for identifying an individual's playing preferences. It is only useful for those who choose to be Guarded, because they can tell themselves fairy tales about how uncowardly they are by adopting an empty appellation; a designation that is confusion itself. That's the real cowardice. But it's natural; it is our nature, and I find it perfectly acceptable for players to pick the emotionally and physically safest option. The reality of Guarded stance is that it protects the self-image of the player wearing the title, without offering an iota of helpful, instructive data to the rest of us.
If DR wants to optimize PvP Profile, like any other dimension of the game, management may want to have a review of it - after all, a fresh look at it may be due - it's been years.
For PvP Profile to be optimized it has to finally be made more clear. The strongest way to do that is to remove Guarded. When Guarded is removed, Closed will mean what it meant before profile was launched. If people want to be open PvP they can do that as well. Both designations will have crystal clear meanings. There will be no confusion. The amount of confusion that has been outlined in nearly 200 posts (in addition to countless previous threads expressing the same confusion) should be an indication to management that some adjustment may be helpful (in the same vein as 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, etc.). Reviews of system mechanics seems like a no-brainer, but I'm guessing little time has been spent imagining a review of Profile.
Removing Guarded is a wise adjustment, it's worse than superfluous, there's a real diminishing return to it. Ultimately, players' expectations will be re-managed, and everyone will adjust to the new paradigm. Most importantly, in the end, there will be little or no confusion about the TWO choices we have for our PvP Profile.
Side-note: For the record, my open noob has to go pretty far out of his way to get people to attack him - advancing and attacking usually does the trick. Sometimes dying is preferable to abject boredom.
ISHARON
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 04:16 PM CDT
>>Locutis1: 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.
It seems like you could accomplish the same thing by simply treating all guarded players as closed -- because they're the same from a policy perspective. Call the guarded players delusional cowards if it makes you feel superior, but if the risk of a PvP warning is too high, treat them as closed and assume you need iron-clad consent.
I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. Let us assume that, as some claim, policy players are more likely to be PvP guarded than closed. Let's also assume that if the guarded option weren't available, the majority of policy players would choose to be PvP closed (since being PvP open would remove their ability to report in most cases). Wouldn't it become more difficult for you to predict who is a policy player based on PvP stance alone?
>>Locutis1: 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.
As I said earlier, even though it has no policy implications, I see some utility in being able to communicate something about the player's willingness to engage in PvP, even if some players aren't 100% honest.
>>Darkevilwhatever: The strongest way to do that is to remove Guarded. When Guarded is removed, Closed will mean what it meant before profile was launched. . . . Both designations will have crystal clear meanings. There will be no confusion.
All of the PvP policy threads that existed before profiles suggest that it's naïve to believe that the confusion would go away if only players could not label themselves guarded. Instead of arguing about whether policy players are abusing the guarded stance, we'd simply be arguing about whether they are abusing the closed stance.
>>Discoteq21: Stated again for emphasis, I have yet to see someone disagree with this.
I don't think many people would object to this approach. I think it's just seen as futile, because the PvP open players who would benefit most from it are often the same people who say, "Reporting is the devil." (Enforcing this policy would require open players to report when closed/guarded players attacked them without consent.)
>>Locutis1: 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.
This, too, has been discussed at length several times. I don't necessarily see a strong link between your RP stance and your PvP stance; they're intended to be independent. The current official descriptions of the RP stances describe your interest in role-playing and your commitment to remaining in character. It doesn't say anything about PvP or conflict. Someone who is RP heavy/PvP closed can legitimately say, "I want to remain in character at all times, but I am going to try to role-play in a way that avoids PvP, because I'm not interested in PvP." For many RP heavy/PvP guarded players, they are saying, "I want to remain in character at all times. My role-playing interests include PvP conflict, but only if that PvP arises for IC reasons." This has sometimes been described as the "RP open" PvP stance.
Unfortunately for role-players who enjoy PvP, there are players who will attack you in the game for OOC reasons (whether it's a desire to grief, eagerness to flex their newly bought characters' muscles, an OOC grievance with you, the player, or just plain boredom). That sort of RP-less PvP is often unsatisfying to the heavy role-player regardless of who wins.
The prevalence of griefing was confirmed in Leilond's DragonRealms PvP Preference survey, in which 15% of participants said that they PvP "to inflict suffering on another player." That result doesn't reinforce the link between being PvP open and role-playing.
Incidentally, the primary distinction between the RP heavy stance and the RP medium stance is that RP medium players "feel comfortable talking about mechanics and ranks or making veiled references to things outside of the game, such as the boards, lag, or IM clients," whereas RP heavy players "would prefer that even veiled references to things outside of the game's environment and setting or openly discussing things such as mechanics be avoided."
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
It seems like you could accomplish the same thing by simply treating all guarded players as closed -- because they're the same from a policy perspective. Call the guarded players delusional cowards if it makes you feel superior, but if the risk of a PvP warning is too high, treat them as closed and assume you need iron-clad consent.
I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. Let us assume that, as some claim, policy players are more likely to be PvP guarded than closed. Let's also assume that if the guarded option weren't available, the majority of policy players would choose to be PvP closed (since being PvP open would remove their ability to report in most cases). Wouldn't it become more difficult for you to predict who is a policy player based on PvP stance alone?
>>Locutis1: 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.
As I said earlier, even though it has no policy implications, I see some utility in being able to communicate something about the player's willingness to engage in PvP, even if some players aren't 100% honest.
>>Darkevilwhatever: The strongest way to do that is to remove Guarded. When Guarded is removed, Closed will mean what it meant before profile was launched. . . . Both designations will have crystal clear meanings. There will be no confusion.
All of the PvP policy threads that existed before profiles suggest that it's naïve to believe that the confusion would go away if only players could not label themselves guarded. Instead of arguing about whether policy players are abusing the guarded stance, we'd simply be arguing about whether they are abusing the closed stance.
>>Discoteq21: Stated again for emphasis, I have yet to see someone disagree with this.
I don't think many people would object to this approach. I think it's just seen as futile, because the PvP open players who would benefit most from it are often the same people who say, "Reporting is the devil." (Enforcing this policy would require open players to report when closed/guarded players attacked them without consent.)
>>Locutis1: 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.
This, too, has been discussed at length several times. I don't necessarily see a strong link between your RP stance and your PvP stance; they're intended to be independent. The current official descriptions of the RP stances describe your interest in role-playing and your commitment to remaining in character. It doesn't say anything about PvP or conflict. Someone who is RP heavy/PvP closed can legitimately say, "I want to remain in character at all times, but I am going to try to role-play in a way that avoids PvP, because I'm not interested in PvP." For many RP heavy/PvP guarded players, they are saying, "I want to remain in character at all times. My role-playing interests include PvP conflict, but only if that PvP arises for IC reasons." This has sometimes been described as the "RP open" PvP stance.
Unfortunately for role-players who enjoy PvP, there are players who will attack you in the game for OOC reasons (whether it's a desire to grief, eagerness to flex their newly bought characters' muscles, an OOC grievance with you, the player, or just plain boredom). That sort of RP-less PvP is often unsatisfying to the heavy role-player regardless of who wins.
The prevalence of griefing was confirmed in Leilond's DragonRealms PvP Preference survey, in which 15% of participants said that they PvP "to inflict suffering on another player." That result doesn't reinforce the link between being PvP open and role-playing.
Incidentally, the primary distinction between the RP heavy stance and the RP medium stance is that RP medium players "feel comfortable talking about mechanics and ranks or making veiled references to things outside of the game, such as the boards, lag, or IM clients," whereas RP heavy players "would prefer that even veiled references to things outside of the game's environment and setting or openly discussing things such as mechanics be avoided."
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
2DUMBARSE
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 04:34 PM CDT
I'm dreaming of a PvP Pink Bunny stance where the stancer is treated as PvP closed except in situations where killed by stuffed pink bunny throws, in which case the PvP stancer has no recourse.
Sorry, my facetiousness knows no bounds.
Sorry, my facetiousness knows no bounds.
DISCOTEQ21
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 05:26 PM CDT
>>Discoteq21: Stated again for emphasis, I have yet to see someone disagree with this.
I don't think many people would object to this approach. I think it's just seen as futile, because the PvP open players who would benefit most from it are often the same people who say, "Reporting is the devil." (Enforcing this policy would require open players to report when closed/guarded players attacked them without consent.)>>
No this would work, because the guarded players who play guarded appropriately would not have an issue, the policy players would get smoked. Even opens who never report, probably would find it within their hearts to report bought trash just to get them back.... at the very least the RISK opens would do this would deter said policy players. Lets just call it a deterant.
>>The prevalence of griefing was confirmed in Leilond's DragonRealms PvP Preference survey, in which 15% of participants said that they PvP "to inflict suffering on another player." That result doesn't reinforce the link between being PvP open and role-playing.<<
That is not a fair assessment of the results of the survey.
<<The reality of Guarded stance is that it protects the self-image of the player wearing the title, without offering an iota of helpful, instructive data to the rest of us.>>
I loved this Ragran post, the entirety of it, in fact Ragran this is my favorite post you've ever made.
>>After years of observing Guarded in practice, it turns out that Guarded stance is not instructive. It gives no specific instructions for outsiders to follow. It is a non-stance. It's unhelpful. It's ambiguous. It's ephemeral. It's useless. It is not, nor has it ever been useful for identifying an individual's playing preferences. It is only useful for those who choose to be Guarded, because they can tell themselves fairy tales about how uncowardly they are by adopting an empty appellation<<
Just to restate more stuff I loved about it. Look folks it seems kind of clear to me, I'm not sure what the problem is. Make guarded folks forced to treat everyone as guarded (except closed, they are still closed to guarded). Make closed folks treat everyone as closed.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
I don't think many people would object to this approach. I think it's just seen as futile, because the PvP open players who would benefit most from it are often the same people who say, "Reporting is the devil." (Enforcing this policy would require open players to report when closed/guarded players attacked them without consent.)>>
No this would work, because the guarded players who play guarded appropriately would not have an issue, the policy players would get smoked. Even opens who never report, probably would find it within their hearts to report bought trash just to get them back.... at the very least the RISK opens would do this would deter said policy players. Lets just call it a deterant.
>>The prevalence of griefing was confirmed in Leilond's DragonRealms PvP Preference survey, in which 15% of participants said that they PvP "to inflict suffering on another player." That result doesn't reinforce the link between being PvP open and role-playing.<<
That is not a fair assessment of the results of the survey.
<<The reality of Guarded stance is that it protects the self-image of the player wearing the title, without offering an iota of helpful, instructive data to the rest of us.>>
I loved this Ragran post, the entirety of it, in fact Ragran this is my favorite post you've ever made.
>>After years of observing Guarded in practice, it turns out that Guarded stance is not instructive. It gives no specific instructions for outsiders to follow. It is a non-stance. It's unhelpful. It's ambiguous. It's ephemeral. It's useless. It is not, nor has it ever been useful for identifying an individual's playing preferences. It is only useful for those who choose to be Guarded, because they can tell themselves fairy tales about how uncowardly they are by adopting an empty appellation<<
Just to restate more stuff I loved about it. Look folks it seems kind of clear to me, I'm not sure what the problem is. Make guarded folks forced to treat everyone as guarded (except closed, they are still closed to guarded). Make closed folks treat everyone as closed.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
FLINT-TIPPED
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 07:46 PM CDT
My character is open but I agree with Flavius' viewpoint. Guarded has a place in pvp stances.
There are players that will play policy/abuse policy whether they're closed, guarded or open (and/or ignorant of the pvp stance settings). The pvp stance is there for 2 reasons: as a guide as to what other players can expect when interacting with your character and to aid GMs in assessing blame and levying punishments. In my opinion if you find yourself racking up lots of pvp/consent warnings the problem might not be with the system.
Vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
There are players that will play policy/abuse policy whether they're closed, guarded or open (and/or ignorant of the pvp stance settings). The pvp stance is there for 2 reasons: as a guide as to what other players can expect when interacting with your character and to aid GMs in assessing blame and levying punishments. In my opinion if you find yourself racking up lots of pvp/consent warnings the problem might not be with the system.
Vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
DISCOTEQ21
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 07:52 PM CDT
<< In my opinion if you find yourself racking up lots of pvp/consent warnings the problem might not be with the system.>>
No the problem is a single violation sucks pretty hard in its own right, while dieing is meh. Let alone multiple vios.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
LOCUTIS1
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 09:46 PM CDT
<It seems like you could accomplish the same thing by simply treating all guarded players as closed -- because they're the same from a policy perspective. Call the guarded players delusional cowards if it makes you feel superior, but if the risk of a PvP warning is too high, treat them as closed and assume you need iron-clad consent.
With "guarded" being a statement telling me what the other person is like, there is that statement floating around in my head, and it influences me on my decision when it comes to deciding if i'm going to interact with that person.
I have never taken you as someone who would be short sighted in looking for possible insinuations that someone could be making, choosing the worst one, and then trying to imply thats exactly what the person thinks with a statement like this.
<Call the guarded players delusional cowards if it makes you feel superior,
If nothing is changed, well nothing is changed, and i'll just carry on as i have since this stance came out.
<As I said earlier, even though it has no policy implications, I see some utility in being able to communicate something about the player's willingness to engage in PvP, even if some players aren't 100% honest.
And yeah, this is how i view the stances, and how it should be used, but there is a problem with it. If guarded is taken away, and you choose a closed stance, All it would mean is, that it would be up to you to express if you are open to PvP in one instance, or not in another.
Would this solve the problem i've expressed 100%? No, it wouldn't, but in my view, and in others, it would help. And most of all, i wouldn't feel as concerned about being unlucky enough that my character runs the risk of being damaged by the scenarios that its been pointed out that can exist, with some of the previous posts.
<One thing I've noticed is that anyone who disagrees with rifkinn inevitably seems to 'not get it'. Or otherwise has something wrong with, and invalidating, their opinion of this system.
In regards to the person saying to take away "open" and leave guarded and closed, i didn't expand on why i dont believe hes understanding my opinion, because the idea of taking away the Open stance, well was pretty self explanatory to most people.
As for you, i said what i said again, because you seem more intent on just trying to prove my ideals wrong rather than the topic at hand. you have said that, "you don't bother with the system at all", so im kinda at a loss as to why you're buying into this discussion if you dont use it. But i'll just leave it at that, you're just wanting to argue for arguments sake, you waited for a good 5 pages at least of comments before you saw someone else disagreeing with me in a way you could again make a statement directed at a personal attack at me rather than the topic at hand.
Rifkinn
GNIKOLEYCHUK
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 11:19 PM CDT
>>> LOCUTIS1: If guarded is taken away, and you choose a closed stance, All it would mean is, that it would be up to you to express if you are open to PvP in one instance, or not in another.
In principle this idea is fine. . The problem is not everyone advocating your point of view supports this. I have supplied a few relevant quotes:
>>> CLERIXHAX: I am in favor of removing guarded completely and keeping Closed/Open with the caveat that if a Closed attacks another character, they're set to Open for a certain amount of time.
>>> CLERIXHAX: You either embrace PvP, or you don't want anything to do with it. Not this, I only want to PvP when it's on my terms, when I know I can win, when I'm all ready, when there's nobody else to retaliate against me, when I have all my of spells/forms/khri up, all my experience is drained.
>>> CLERIXHAX: 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.
>>> URITEL: 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.
It is sort of hard to debate the value of getting rid of the guarded stance when the people who advocate it don't agree in the implications of doing so. Furthemore, as Isharon said, "It seems like you could accomplish the same thing by simply treating all guarded players as closed".
ISHARON
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/17/2014 11:54 PM CDT
>>Locutis1: I have never taken you as someone who would be short sighted in looking for possible insinuations that someone could be making, choosing the worst one, and then trying to imply thats exactly what the person thinks with a statement like this.
"Call the guarded players delusional cowards if it makes you feel superior"
That was a reference to Ragran's post, in which he characterized the guarded stance as a "fairy tale" that cowardly players tell themselves to protect their self-image.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
"Call the guarded players delusional cowards if it makes you feel superior"
That was a reference to Ragran's post, in which he characterized the guarded stance as a "fairy tale" that cowardly players tell themselves to protect their self-image.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
CLERIXHAX
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 07:18 AM CDT
> It is sort of hard to debate the value of getting rid of the guarded stance when the people who advocate it don't agree in the implications of doing so. Furthemore, as Isharon said, "It seems like you could accomplish the same thing by simply treating all guarded players as closed".
The responses you decided to quote were completely in context to the discussion at hand. The fact that you're now re-quoting those to support players not even agreeing is straw man at best. There's a lot of ambiguity in policy, and there has been for a very long time. If open players want to engage in PvP with a guarded player, and they don't have iron clad consent they're playing Russian Roulette with a warning. When dealing with a Closed character, it's pretty cut and dry. If they're closed, they don't want to PvP. If they do want to PvP they're in the wrong stance.
PvP Profile help in game helps explain this, I'd suggest trying it in game and reviewing the Closed status, since those are some of the responses you decided to post to twist the argument in your favor.
The responses you decided to quote were completely in context to the discussion at hand. The fact that you're now re-quoting those to support players not even agreeing is straw man at best. There's a lot of ambiguity in policy, and there has been for a very long time. If open players want to engage in PvP with a guarded player, and they don't have iron clad consent they're playing Russian Roulette with a warning. When dealing with a Closed character, it's pretty cut and dry. If they're closed, they don't want to PvP. If they do want to PvP they're in the wrong stance.
PvP Profile help in game helps explain this, I'd suggest trying it in game and reviewing the Closed status, since those are some of the responses you decided to post to twist the argument in your favor.
MARTINCOTY77
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 07:36 AM CDT
A few very incorrect concepts. are being brought up that are completely illogical:
1. Taking away open is the same as taking away guarded.
What this would do is make it so a person that was previously open can no longer attack another previously open person. A bad step. It would also increase GM involvement which is the un-goal here.
2. If guarded had to treat others as guarded PvP open players who would benefit most from it are often the same people who say, "Reporting is the devil."
This is incorrect and we already have a case study of several years in opens avoiding guarded people when it comes to PvP for 'fear' of a warning. The same will certainly hold true of a policy player that is guarded - I mean, they are a 'policy player'. I would literally stop almost all of it in its tracks because of the 'what if they report' factor.
3. Guarded is the same as closed if gaurded goes away it does nothing.
While I'll admit it would become the new guarded, and I think I admitted that before. It would not be the same. Closed particularly states you try to avoid PvP, closed would not be able to attack without consent, so the picking on little opens would no longer exist. Also opens would not PvP with closed.
4. Open is a gateway to death
The only thing open does, is that it makes you be accountable for your actions. No one looks at the good side of open either, in an all open scenario it also means you have alot of backup, alot of people whom can help. No one looks at the bad side of guarded either, you literally can get no help from other players. It's literally the most backwards policy in the entire history of multiplayer RP games. Hey I am guarded, my friends now have to watch me die. that's great RP.
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
1. Taking away open is the same as taking away guarded.
What this would do is make it so a person that was previously open can no longer attack another previously open person. A bad step. It would also increase GM involvement which is the un-goal here.
2. If guarded had to treat others as guarded PvP open players who would benefit most from it are often the same people who say, "Reporting is the devil."
This is incorrect and we already have a case study of several years in opens avoiding guarded people when it comes to PvP for 'fear' of a warning. The same will certainly hold true of a policy player that is guarded - I mean, they are a 'policy player'. I would literally stop almost all of it in its tracks because of the 'what if they report' factor.
3. Guarded is the same as closed if gaurded goes away it does nothing.
While I'll admit it would become the new guarded, and I think I admitted that before. It would not be the same. Closed particularly states you try to avoid PvP, closed would not be able to attack without consent, so the picking on little opens would no longer exist. Also opens would not PvP with closed.
4. Open is a gateway to death
The only thing open does, is that it makes you be accountable for your actions. No one looks at the good side of open either, in an all open scenario it also means you have alot of backup, alot of people whom can help. No one looks at the bad side of guarded either, you literally can get no help from other players. It's literally the most backwards policy in the entire history of multiplayer RP games. Hey I am guarded, my friends now have to watch me die. that's great RP.
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
ORBITAL303
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 08:08 AM CDT
Honest question here, not trying to snark.
I am open because I personally find it realistic for roleplay - I am not particularly interested in PvP at all but I will roll with it if it occurs.
Whenever the Open vs. Guarded/Closed debate happens, it pretty much always seems that the discussions about it are about what could happen and dislike of retaliation without the opportunity for first strike, as well as the uncertainty of the OOC consequences of IC actions (e.g. getting a warning when you were just trying to RP).
My question is: how many of you folks concerned with this have been issued PvP warnings recently? Is this a thing that actually happens on a regular basis still, or is it theorycrafting about a potential but not regularly occurring situation?
I have honestly never seen someone get a PvP warning myself, but I chalk that up to Opens playing with Opens mostly and there being consent if a non-open jumps in. I did see a situation happen where a closed player was killed for running their mouth, and basically they were told they asked for it (which I tend to agree with).
I also think that a lot of people who consider reporting for unconsented PvP sometimes don't know that roleplay is involved in the situation. Example, a villain shows up and starts something, and conflict happens. They start the fight to incite some conflict based RP after things calm down. The people that the fight was instigated against don't see any RP happening and largely choose to ignore the situation, feeling that the conflict is OOC trolling because there was no RP preceeding it.
It is a weird aort of situation. I feel like the villain here would feel like it is a good reason to be open, because it fosters spontaneous RP like this without worrying about if they will get in trou le. The targets will likely feel that it is a good reason to be guarded, because it would dissuade unwanted interruptions.
I am pretty sure though that PvP profiles are not being used the way they were intended when they came about. The playerbase has created their own sets of rules for when they should theoretically apply. They were designed to make things more clear, and we as players have taken them and clouded stuff up.
- Starlear
I am open because I personally find it realistic for roleplay - I am not particularly interested in PvP at all but I will roll with it if it occurs.
Whenever the Open vs. Guarded/Closed debate happens, it pretty much always seems that the discussions about it are about what could happen and dislike of retaliation without the opportunity for first strike, as well as the uncertainty of the OOC consequences of IC actions (e.g. getting a warning when you were just trying to RP).
My question is: how many of you folks concerned with this have been issued PvP warnings recently? Is this a thing that actually happens on a regular basis still, or is it theorycrafting about a potential but not regularly occurring situation?
I have honestly never seen someone get a PvP warning myself, but I chalk that up to Opens playing with Opens mostly and there being consent if a non-open jumps in. I did see a situation happen where a closed player was killed for running their mouth, and basically they were told they asked for it (which I tend to agree with).
I also think that a lot of people who consider reporting for unconsented PvP sometimes don't know that roleplay is involved in the situation. Example, a villain shows up and starts something, and conflict happens. They start the fight to incite some conflict based RP after things calm down. The people that the fight was instigated against don't see any RP happening and largely choose to ignore the situation, feeling that the conflict is OOC trolling because there was no RP preceeding it.
It is a weird aort of situation. I feel like the villain here would feel like it is a good reason to be open, because it fosters spontaneous RP like this without worrying about if they will get in trou le. The targets will likely feel that it is a good reason to be guarded, because it would dissuade unwanted interruptions.
I am pretty sure though that PvP profiles are not being used the way they were intended when they came about. The playerbase has created their own sets of rules for when they should theoretically apply. They were designed to make things more clear, and we as players have taken them and clouded stuff up.
- Starlear
CLERIXHAX
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 08:34 AM CDT
>My question is: how many of you folks concerned with this have been issued PvP warnings recently? Is this a thing that actually happens on a regular basis still, or is it theorycrafting about a potential but not regularly occurring situation?
Without going into too much detail, yes, this happened and it happened recently.
It doesn't happen as often as it used to, a lot of people are way more hesitant to involve themselves in PvP with Guarded players because we've been burned before. You've probably seen the quotes from some Guarded players that will say something along the lines of "Even though I'm Guarded you can consider me Open as long as there's RP behind the conflict."
This can be true 99% of the time, but again if you don't have iron clad consent, regardless of the scenario being RP'd out. If they decide to Report, and you didn't have Iron Clad consent you've just earned a PvP Warning.
It's the fool me once shame on you mentality, and even though not every Guarded player acts like that. We have to treat all Guarded players as if they are. It's unfortunate, but it is a stereotype, however it's valid stereotype when if we're wrong, we can get a warning and potential time out of the game. Both sides have their offenders, Open players who will Gank open players just to grief, and policy playing Guarded.
The only difference is that attacking a Guarded player in hopes they don't report you serves a harsher penalty if you're wrong, than going Open and getting ganked while you're hunting. Both scenarios are rare, one just carries a much stiffer penalty.
Without going into too much detail, yes, this happened and it happened recently.
It doesn't happen as often as it used to, a lot of people are way more hesitant to involve themselves in PvP with Guarded players because we've been burned before. You've probably seen the quotes from some Guarded players that will say something along the lines of "Even though I'm Guarded you can consider me Open as long as there's RP behind the conflict."
This can be true 99% of the time, but again if you don't have iron clad consent, regardless of the scenario being RP'd out. If they decide to Report, and you didn't have Iron Clad consent you've just earned a PvP Warning.
It's the fool me once shame on you mentality, and even though not every Guarded player acts like that. We have to treat all Guarded players as if they are. It's unfortunate, but it is a stereotype, however it's valid stereotype when if we're wrong, we can get a warning and potential time out of the game. Both sides have their offenders, Open players who will Gank open players just to grief, and policy playing Guarded.
The only difference is that attacking a Guarded player in hopes they don't report you serves a harsher penalty if you're wrong, than going Open and getting ganked while you're hunting. Both scenarios are rare, one just carries a much stiffer penalty.
DISCOTEQ21
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 10:13 AM CDT
<<<A few very incorrect concepts. are being brought up that are completely illogical:
1. Taking away open is the same as taking away guarded.
What this would do is make it so a person that was previously open can no longer attack another previously open person. A bad step. It would also increase GM involvement which is the un-goal here.
2. If guarded had to treat others as guarded PvP open players who would benefit most from it are often the same people who say, "Reporting is the devil."
This is incorrect and we already have a case study of several years in opens avoiding guarded people when it comes to PvP for 'fear' of a warning. The same will certainly hold true of a policy player that is guarded - I mean, they are a 'policy player'. I would literally stop almost all of it in its tracks because of the 'what if they report' factor.
3. Guarded is the same as closed if gaurded goes away it does nothing.
While I'll admit it would become the new guarded, and I think I admitted that before. It would not be the same. Closed particularly states you try to avoid PvP, closed would not be able to attack without consent, so the picking on little opens would no longer exist. Also opens would not PvP with closed.
4. Open is a gateway to death
The only thing open does, is that it makes you be accountable for your actions. No one looks at the good side of open either, in an all open scenario it also means you have alot of backup, alot of people whom can help. No one looks at the bad side of guarded either, you literally can get no help from other players. It's literally the most backwards policy in the entire history of multiplayer RP games. Hey I am guarded, my friends now have to watch me die. that's great RP.
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
>>>>
This is a great post and worded very well.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
1. Taking away open is the same as taking away guarded.
What this would do is make it so a person that was previously open can no longer attack another previously open person. A bad step. It would also increase GM involvement which is the un-goal here.
2. If guarded had to treat others as guarded PvP open players who would benefit most from it are often the same people who say, "Reporting is the devil."
This is incorrect and we already have a case study of several years in opens avoiding guarded people when it comes to PvP for 'fear' of a warning. The same will certainly hold true of a policy player that is guarded - I mean, they are a 'policy player'. I would literally stop almost all of it in its tracks because of the 'what if they report' factor.
3. Guarded is the same as closed if gaurded goes away it does nothing.
While I'll admit it would become the new guarded, and I think I admitted that before. It would not be the same. Closed particularly states you try to avoid PvP, closed would not be able to attack without consent, so the picking on little opens would no longer exist. Also opens would not PvP with closed.
4. Open is a gateway to death
The only thing open does, is that it makes you be accountable for your actions. No one looks at the good side of open either, in an all open scenario it also means you have alot of backup, alot of people whom can help. No one looks at the bad side of guarded either, you literally can get no help from other players. It's literally the most backwards policy in the entire history of multiplayer RP games. Hey I am guarded, my friends now have to watch me die. that's great RP.
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
>>>>
This is a great post and worded very well.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
BLUTURTL1428
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 10:40 AM CDT
There is a really cool side to the DR population that people seem to forget about. On some level, we as players, tend to police ourselves pretty well. The jerk that goes around killing people randomly just because they are open will get dealt with by the player base, and pretty effectively. The issue is that if said jerk is "guarded" they can't be, and as players we have no recourse other than to involve gms. (which feels like running to the teacher and pointing at the slow minded kid that keeps pulling your ponytail and screaming "BULLY") Those are the people that make this discussion happen again and again.
If you are wondering how often it happens, a really good way to track it is to see how often this discussion has come up. Usually, it is not triggered by one event, but multiple until some one has enough and we are back to ranting and raving about how to make the game fair and playable for all style of players, and protect the PVP minded people from getting baited and thrown into warning situations.
The situation that started this thread was my fault, I compelled and empath, he said stop, I did it again and the players larger character killed me. (hello mech abuse) There was no RP and there really could have been because that person really did not know what the situation was that they walked into with their two or three characters (unless the jerk that they were healing was also played by them) My RP family went after the larger character, I didn't ask, they are just that awesome. The player KNEW that it was going to happen and even started messaging people about it. They came out of where they were, fought and died and then reported. The person that killed the character got a warning because they are guarded. This player then attacked me a second time when I was alone (yey for putting on armor) and I ran to a more populated spot where friends were willing to help if needed, and they threatened to report the person that guarded me then.
There was no consent on the jerk for the person that killed them, and even tho our RP would indicate this is how something is going to go, because that person is guarded, and my character is open, they can sit there and spam kill me if they want with no recourse. I could give my consent on them to my bonded spouse, and step completely out of the situation, but he was not playing at the time.
This entire issue could be solved by holding people that policy play accountable, or simply by people understanding that they should not be jerks.
I understand that there is a need for PVP profiles on some level, but if you are choosing to be guarded simply to not have to deal with your own actions, the system fails with you. Getting rid of that behavior would eliminate this discussion completely. As far as not wanting to be randomly killed hunting because you are "open", like I said, we, as players are very effective at policing that kind of behavior and the people that engage in it never last very long.
DARKEVILWHATEVER
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 10:49 AM CDT
>>CLERIXHAX: I am in favor of removing guarded completely and keeping Closed/Open with the caveat that if a Closed attacks another character, they're set to Open for a certain amount of time.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 11:07 AM CDT
>>As far as not wanting to be randomly killed hunting because you are "open", like I said, we, as players are very effective at policing that kind of behavior and the people that engage in it never last very long.
Unless the global community gives favors and trains characters for people killed for the fun of it, I don't see how this really solves the particular problem you're presenting.
I wasn't a fan of being open when I was in prime because I'd be randomly killed after locking a bunch of skills. That's all there is to it. Having to spend time to relock skills was annoying, so I went back to guarded.
If your concern is that you might randomly get reported by someone guarded, just treat them as closed. If they're attacking you, you'd have consent on them even if they were closed.
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.
Unless the global community gives favors and trains characters for people killed for the fun of it, I don't see how this really solves the particular problem you're presenting.
I wasn't a fan of being open when I was in prime because I'd be randomly killed after locking a bunch of skills. That's all there is to it. Having to spend time to relock skills was annoying, so I went back to guarded.
If your concern is that you might randomly get reported by someone guarded, just treat them as closed. If they're attacking you, you'd have consent on them even if they were closed.
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.
CLERIXHAX
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 11:30 AM CDT
>If your concern is that you might randomly get reported by someone guarded, just treat them as closed. If they're attacking you, you'd have consent on them even if they were closed.
That's what we do, yet the system still has failing points. If you re-read Synamons post it explains why.
If you're open it's not like you can pretend a Guarded person doesn't exist if they decide to kill your family in front of your face. Nothing like immersion being ruined when you watch your "Brother/Mother/Sister/Aunt/Dad" murdered in front of your face and have to sit idly because you're worried about an OOC mechanism. For all RP purposes, defending them would be the appropriate action, yet you can't because the person doesn't want to die and isn't consenting.
That's what we do, yet the system still has failing points. If you re-read Synamons post it explains why.
If you're open it's not like you can pretend a Guarded person doesn't exist if they decide to kill your family in front of your face. Nothing like immersion being ruined when you watch your "Brother/Mother/Sister/Aunt/Dad" murdered in front of your face and have to sit idly because you're worried about an OOC mechanism. For all RP purposes, defending them would be the appropriate action, yet you can't because the person doesn't want to die and isn't consenting.
BLUTURTL1428
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 11:33 AM CDT
"Unless the global community gives favors and trains characters for people killed for the fun of it, I don't see how this really solves the particular problem you're presenting."
It doesn't. It is two separate things. I don't want to take away your "guarded" stance, I am guessing you do not use that to bait and report other players. What I was saying is that the random killing of open people is not going to be something that people have or will put up with for very long and it will be addressed. It is only an issue if the person doing the random killing is targeting lowbies and is guarded, that is the abuse of the system and my biggest issue with it.
"If your concern is that you might randomly get reported by someone guarded, just treat them as closed. If they're attacking you, you'd have consent on them even if they were closed."
Right, except when you have no recourse against that player. I could train Syn day and night and still not have a very good shot and doing much against Joshuan, that is the reality of playing an empath.
MARTINCOTY77
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 11:57 AM CDT
I personally know of 2 warning and 1 caution in the last few months from PvP (maybe 4 months ago was the one warning?) But that's just what I know so I'm sure it happens quite a bit more than that.
All 3 were guarded individuals whom were attacked from an open person without 'clear' consent and reported. IMO all 3 attacks were warranted in a true RP game, however as it stands DR is not a true RP game.
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
All 3 were guarded individuals whom were attacked from an open person without 'clear' consent and reported. IMO all 3 attacks were warranted in a true RP game, however as it stands DR is not a true RP game.
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 11:57 AM CDT
>>If you're open it's not like you can pretend a Guarded person doesn't exist if they decide to kill your family in front of your face.
You're technically in the same situation if you're closed, too.
Roll with the punches. Use warn. If you're still not comfortable attacking back, just have your character seethe with rage. Threaten the person, whatever. It's not like everything your character does must result in warfare. I've had plenty of situations where I've roleplayed being paralyzed with fear, hesitant to escalate a situation, concerned passerbys would be hurt, etc, as reasons to explain why I wouldn't do the obvious thing which would be attack someone.
Hell, if you want to meta it up, just have your character frustrated over the fact that you know even if you step in to prevent a dishonorable action from happening, people will still find fault in you, and that would only cause your family more problems.
It's not like your only option is PvP.
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.
You're technically in the same situation if you're closed, too.
Roll with the punches. Use warn. If you're still not comfortable attacking back, just have your character seethe with rage. Threaten the person, whatever. It's not like everything your character does must result in warfare. I've had plenty of situations where I've roleplayed being paralyzed with fear, hesitant to escalate a situation, concerned passerbys would be hurt, etc, as reasons to explain why I wouldn't do the obvious thing which would be attack someone.
Hell, if you want to meta it up, just have your character frustrated over the fact that you know even if you step in to prevent a dishonorable action from happening, people will still find fault in you, and that would only cause your family more problems.
It's not like your only option is PvP.
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.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 12:00 PM CDT
>>All 3 were guarded individuals whom were attacked from an open person without 'clear' consent and reported. IMO all 3 attacks were warranted in a true RP game, however as it stands DR is not a true RP game.
This would happen before PvP closed/guarded/open. This will continue to happen if the system moves to just closed/open (not that I see guarded going away). This will always happen.
There will be annoying players. There will be GMs/Hosts/Etc that make bad calls. Nothing will work perfectly in your favor forever if you risk interacting with people who are poor sports. This is also why I didn't stay Open, because what favor was I doing myself by having my exp pools wiped every so often? Yay moral victory?
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.
This would happen before PvP closed/guarded/open. This will continue to happen if the system moves to just closed/open (not that I see guarded going away). This will always happen.
There will be annoying players. There will be GMs/Hosts/Etc that make bad calls. Nothing will work perfectly in your favor forever if you risk interacting with people who are poor sports. This is also why I didn't stay Open, because what favor was I doing myself by having my exp pools wiped every so often? Yay moral victory?
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.
MARTINCOTY77
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 12:19 PM CDT
>>This would happen before PvP closed/guarded/open. This will continue to happen if the system moves to just closed/open (not that I see guarded going away). This will always happen.
>>There will be annoying players. There will be GMs/Hosts/Etc that make bad calls. Nothing will work perfectly in your favor forever if you risk interacting with people who are poor sports. This is also why I didn't stay Open, because what favor was I doing myself by having my exp pools wiped every so often? Yay moral victory?
First of all, everyone knows that nothing will ever be perfect, so stop shoving words in people's mouths that no one even said.
Secondly, you can also stop your argument of 'there will always be annoying people' that you repeated 7 times now. Stop repeating yourself, if you have nothing new to contribute besides cut and pasted your same post over and over, please bow out.
Thirdly, your second argument of 'having my exp pools wiped every so often' translates to 'I don't want to be held accountable for my actions. That's basically it. No one else that is open has these issues or it's very rarely.
Fourthly, "This will continue to happen if the system moves to just closed/open"
You need to follow a long a little bit better. Currently closed individuals get moved to guarded if they don't act closed. Guess where they move if there was no guarded? It doesn't take a rocket scientist but you have 1 guess. Hey look, in an closed/open world people get held accountable for their actions go figure.
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
>>There will be annoying players. There will be GMs/Hosts/Etc that make bad calls. Nothing will work perfectly in your favor forever if you risk interacting with people who are poor sports. This is also why I didn't stay Open, because what favor was I doing myself by having my exp pools wiped every so often? Yay moral victory?
First of all, everyone knows that nothing will ever be perfect, so stop shoving words in people's mouths that no one even said.
Secondly, you can also stop your argument of 'there will always be annoying people' that you repeated 7 times now. Stop repeating yourself, if you have nothing new to contribute besides cut and pasted your same post over and over, please bow out.
Thirdly, your second argument of 'having my exp pools wiped every so often' translates to 'I don't want to be held accountable for my actions. That's basically it. No one else that is open has these issues or it's very rarely.
Fourthly, "This will continue to happen if the system moves to just closed/open"
You need to follow a long a little bit better. Currently closed individuals get moved to guarded if they don't act closed. Guess where they move if there was no guarded? It doesn't take a rocket scientist but you have 1 guess. Hey look, in an closed/open world people get held accountable for their actions go figure.
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 12:33 PM CDT
>>First of all, everyone knows that nothing will ever be perfect, so stop shoving words in people's mouths that no one even said.
I'm just clarifying the point. I disagree with the general sentiment of "if we remove guarded, things will be easier and less confusing"
No, they won't be easier or less confusing.
>>Secondly, you can also stop your argument of 'there will always be annoying people' that you repeated 7 times now. Stop repeating yourself, if you have nothing new to contribute besides cut and pasted your same post over and over, please bow out.
Yeah, because this entire thread isn't a repeat of a repeat of a repeat.
>>Thirdly, your second argument of 'having my exp pools wiped every so often' translates to 'I don't want to be held accountable for my actions. That's basically it. No one else that is open has these issues or it's very rarely.
Hey, if you want to paint this imaginary facade where I was going around mouthing off at people and starting fights, only to have it bite me in the butt, you're free to do so. In reality, I'd be hunting in rock trolls or swimming in a river and someone would randomly kill my character for laughs.
While I'm not against my character taking lumps when applicable, I'm against randomly dropping dead because hey why not. Since Prime has had issues with people randomly killing other people for laughs, the guarded stance being more for my play style when I played in Prime.
>>You need to follow a long a little bit better. Currently closed individuals get moved to guarded if they don't act closed. Guess where they move if there was no guarded? It doesn't take a rocket scientist but you have 1 guess.
I don't recall this happening automatically at all for fighting, unlike how you get set Open for certain accusal/justice situations, stealing from players, etc. I'm pretty sure GMs can set people to Open, Guarded, Treefrog, Pants, Whatever, if that fits the way they are playing.
>>Hey look, in an closed/open world people get held accountable for their actions go figure.
...except what if your character isn't an openly aggressive angryman, but you're still interested in PvP if it isn't totally "hey you're here how about I shoot you boy that was fun"-style.
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'm just clarifying the point. I disagree with the general sentiment of "if we remove guarded, things will be easier and less confusing"
No, they won't be easier or less confusing.
>>Secondly, you can also stop your argument of 'there will always be annoying people' that you repeated 7 times now. Stop repeating yourself, if you have nothing new to contribute besides cut and pasted your same post over and over, please bow out.
Yeah, because this entire thread isn't a repeat of a repeat of a repeat.
>>Thirdly, your second argument of 'having my exp pools wiped every so often' translates to 'I don't want to be held accountable for my actions. That's basically it. No one else that is open has these issues or it's very rarely.
Hey, if you want to paint this imaginary facade where I was going around mouthing off at people and starting fights, only to have it bite me in the butt, you're free to do so. In reality, I'd be hunting in rock trolls or swimming in a river and someone would randomly kill my character for laughs.
While I'm not against my character taking lumps when applicable, I'm against randomly dropping dead because hey why not. Since Prime has had issues with people randomly killing other people for laughs, the guarded stance being more for my play style when I played in Prime.
>>You need to follow a long a little bit better. Currently closed individuals get moved to guarded if they don't act closed. Guess where they move if there was no guarded? It doesn't take a rocket scientist but you have 1 guess.
I don't recall this happening automatically at all for fighting, unlike how you get set Open for certain accusal/justice situations, stealing from players, etc. I'm pretty sure GMs can set people to Open, Guarded, Treefrog, Pants, Whatever, if that fits the way they are playing.
>>Hey look, in an closed/open world people get held accountable for their actions go figure.
...except what if your character isn't an openly aggressive angryman, but you're still interested in PvP if it isn't totally "hey you're here how about I shoot you boy that was fun"-style.
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.
SEBESTYEN64
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 12:54 PM CDT
Lock these characters that were part of the mech abuse out. Or, lock all characters on all of the player's accounts open. GM's could fix this, they surely know who these players are. Also, share the names of characters so that everyone knows to avoid them and share the names of characters that RP a conflict as guarded, then report and whine when they loose. The problem is with the players that abuse it, not the system itself. Guarded as defined describes my stance on CvC perfectly and that's not going to change.
~~~
True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
~~~
True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
2DUMBARSE
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 01:04 PM CDT
When I first learned about the PvP profile option after coming back from a break, I thought guarded was intended to give GMs a bit more leeway in determining whether the attacker should receive a warning if the killed character asked for it. If that's not the case, what purpose does it serve? From what I've read it, it sounds like it's there to let people know, "I'm open to the possibility of PvP in an RP situation" but many people just see it as just a bigger word for closed.
>I wasn't a fan of being open when I was in prime because I'd be randomly killed after locking a bunch of skills. That's all there is to it. Having to spend time to relock skills was annoying, so I went back to guarded.
>If your concern is that you might randomly get reported by someone guarded, just treat them as closed. If they're attacking you, you'd have consent on them even if they were closed.
I have a hard time disagreeing with you on most things, but this borders on circular reasoning. It's a valid concern but it doesn't really reinforce the usefulness of guarded. It sort of read like, "My character was killed when I was PvP open in prime, guarded is effectively like closed, which is clearly useful to the playerbase, and therefore guarded is useful."
On a separate note, what's the big deal with rehashing an old topic in a new thread? I don't see the problem unless a GM recently stated something along the lines of, "We're never changing PvP stances, no way, no how, no fluffy pink bunny PvP stance." I'd rather see guarded made more useful than completely eliminated, but I can't think of a way to make it more than just closed+.
>I wasn't a fan of being open when I was in prime because I'd be randomly killed after locking a bunch of skills. That's all there is to it. Having to spend time to relock skills was annoying, so I went back to guarded.
>If your concern is that you might randomly get reported by someone guarded, just treat them as closed. If they're attacking you, you'd have consent on them even if they were closed.
I have a hard time disagreeing with you on most things, but this borders on circular reasoning. It's a valid concern but it doesn't really reinforce the usefulness of guarded. It sort of read like, "My character was killed when I was PvP open in prime, guarded is effectively like closed, which is clearly useful to the playerbase, and therefore guarded is useful."
On a separate note, what's the big deal with rehashing an old topic in a new thread? I don't see the problem unless a GM recently stated something along the lines of, "We're never changing PvP stances, no way, no how, no fluffy pink bunny PvP stance." I'd rather see guarded made more useful than completely eliminated, but I can't think of a way to make it more than just closed+.
CLERIXHAX
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 01:08 PM CDT
>>If you're open it's not like you can pretend a Guarded person doesn't exist if they decide to kill your family in front of your face.
>You're technically in the same situation if you're closed, too.
>I'm pretty sure GMs can set people to Open, Guarded, Treefrog, Pants, Whatever, if that fits the way they are playing.
You hit the nail on the head. Thanks for reinforcing.
>You're technically in the same situation if you're closed, too.
>I'm pretty sure GMs can set people to Open, Guarded, Treefrog, Pants, Whatever, if that fits the way they are playing.
You hit the nail on the head. Thanks for reinforcing.
MARTINCOTY77
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 01:32 PM CDT
Ok - this is just a side-bar idea. but I'll state it quick and this is to deal with the 'oh no my experience!"
What if you just take the experience penalty away from death? Would that make open, better?
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
What if you just take the experience penalty away from death? Would that make open, better?
Codiax.
Vote: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
DISCOTEQ21
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 01:46 PM CDT
I think some good ideas have been presented and neatly outlined by codiax, I'd love to hear a GM thoughts on the issue, at the very least it would probably put some of this to bed if pvp stance tweaking is entirely off the table.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 02:01 PM CDT
>>It sort of read like, "My character was killed when I was PvP open in prime, guarded is effectively like closed, which is clearly useful to the playerbase, and therefore guarded is useful."
Here's how I see guarded.
If I'm minding my own business training in X, not talking or doing anything to anyone, don't just show up and pop me in the face because you can.
But, if I'm mouthing off and being an idiot, I'm aware I could get popped in the mouth.
>>What if you just take the experience penalty away from death? Would that make open, better?
If you take away the downsides to death, people would most likely be a lot more comfortable with it, yeah.
I don't think that's necessarily the solution, though. I like that death has weight to it. IMO, the problem might be that killing has no real weight to it. Unless you go on a serial killer spree and end up in the time out room (that still exists, right?), the only real problem you might face is a fine if you kill someone in a justice zone.
Then again, people tend to get outraged when they're thrown on a boat headed toward Qi in response to being a sociopath, so deportation is a fate worse than death and a violation worse than murder. Go figure.
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.
Here's how I see guarded.
If I'm minding my own business training in X, not talking or doing anything to anyone, don't just show up and pop me in the face because you can.
But, if I'm mouthing off and being an idiot, I'm aware I could get popped in the mouth.
>>What if you just take the experience penalty away from death? Would that make open, better?
If you take away the downsides to death, people would most likely be a lot more comfortable with it, yeah.
I don't think that's necessarily the solution, though. I like that death has weight to it. IMO, the problem might be that killing has no real weight to it. Unless you go on a serial killer spree and end up in the time out room (that still exists, right?), the only real problem you might face is a fine if you kill someone in a justice zone.
Then again, people tend to get outraged when they're thrown on a boat headed toward Qi in response to being a sociopath, so deportation is a fate worse than death and a violation worse than murder. Go figure.
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.
CLERIXHAX
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 02:26 PM CDT
>Here's how I see guarded.
>If I'm minding my own business training in X, not talking or doing anything to anyone, don't just show up and pop me in the face because you can.
>But, if I'm mouthing off and being an idiot, I'm aware I could get popped in the mouth.
The problem with that is "mouthing off and being an idiot" aren't grounds for consent. If someone popped you in the mouth, you could report them and they could get a warning.
>If I'm minding my own business training in X, not talking or doing anything to anyone, don't just show up and pop me in the face because you can.
>But, if I'm mouthing off and being an idiot, I'm aware I could get popped in the mouth.
The problem with that is "mouthing off and being an idiot" aren't grounds for consent. If someone popped you in the mouth, you could report them and they could get a warning.
DARKEVILWHATEVER
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 02:55 PM CDT
mouthing off and being an idiot can be consent. The problem is that where the line is drawn is a complete mystery - thus, the system, as it is, isn't effective enough. This is a problem that can be solved.
CLERIXHAX
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 03:01 PM CDT
True, I should have clarified. Mouthing off and being an idiot isn't always grounds for consent, it depends on the entire situation and GM interpretation. There's too much ambiguity in what is and isn't accepted as policy. It's still a crap shoot though, and I'd rather not get a warning.
Sure wish staff would let the players enforce that side of it, instead of trying to play babysitter. We could resolve a lot more issues without taking away time from the GM's.
Maybe even having a PVP ON/OFF flag. Every new character out the gen is set to PVP OFF. While you're PVP OFF you can't be attacked, and you can't attack other people. In order to attack someone you have to go PVP ON, but you can't go back. Let the players police the jerks, griefers, etc and let the GM's stick to more important matters like actual Harassment or Mechanics Abuse.
Sure wish staff would let the players enforce that side of it, instead of trying to play babysitter. We could resolve a lot more issues without taking away time from the GM's.
Maybe even having a PVP ON/OFF flag. Every new character out the gen is set to PVP OFF. While you're PVP OFF you can't be attacked, and you can't attack other people. In order to attack someone you have to go PVP ON, but you can't go back. Let the players police the jerks, griefers, etc and let the GM's stick to more important matters like actual Harassment or Mechanics Abuse.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 03:10 PM CDT
>>The problem with that is "mouthing off and being an idiot" aren't grounds for consent.
"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."
That's what is said under CLOSED. Now, GMs might not really enforce that in a way that I feel is reasonable, let alone in a way that you feel is reasonable.
At the same time, I think Guarded is a good place to show "Hey, I'd be up for PvP if I'm aware it's going to happen." I base this on the following.
"2. GUARDED - This setting indicates that you are open to PVP conflicts, provided you're aware they're coming."
Guarded essentially means "I'm up to PvP sometimes, ask me if I'm game."
So let's just take it at face value. Policy-wise, treat Guarded as Closed with the exception that the person might be up to PvP depending on their mood. In comparison, Closed means "I'm pretty much never up for PvP, ever" and Open means "I'm always up for PvP all day every day".
It also might not hurt to go "what counts as being open to PvP conflicts". Does that mean "Open to PvP conflicts vs Bob right now" or "Open to PvP conflicts vs Bob and his ten friends with a second round two hours later"? It sounds like some people who are Guarded are treating it like the former, while people who want to fight someone Guarded wishing it was the latter, and a GM essentially able to go either way.
So maybe there just needs to be some clarification on what "open to PvP means". I doubt it means "Open to everyone pounding on you at once because you and Bob got into a shouting match", but who knows.
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 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."
That's what is said under CLOSED. Now, GMs might not really enforce that in a way that I feel is reasonable, let alone in a way that you feel is reasonable.
At the same time, I think Guarded is a good place to show "Hey, I'd be up for PvP if I'm aware it's going to happen." I base this on the following.
"2. GUARDED - This setting indicates that you are open to PVP conflicts, provided you're aware they're coming."
Guarded essentially means "I'm up to PvP sometimes, ask me if I'm game."
So let's just take it at face value. Policy-wise, treat Guarded as Closed with the exception that the person might be up to PvP depending on their mood. In comparison, Closed means "I'm pretty much never up for PvP, ever" and Open means "I'm always up for PvP all day every day".
It also might not hurt to go "what counts as being open to PvP conflicts". Does that mean "Open to PvP conflicts vs Bob right now" or "Open to PvP conflicts vs Bob and his ten friends with a second round two hours later"? It sounds like some people who are Guarded are treating it like the former, while people who want to fight someone Guarded wishing it was the latter, and a GM essentially able to go either way.
So maybe there just needs to be some clarification on what "open to PvP means". I doubt it means "Open to everyone pounding on you at once because you and Bob got into a shouting match", but who knows.
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.
ROBERTDH
Re: Open Closed Guarded
03/18/2014 03:16 PM CDT
I wasn't aware that things OTHER than "mouthing off and being an idiot" granted consent. I've never seen any PVP that didn't boil down to that. I'm only being half facetious here, I can't remember any DR PVP that wasn't verbal sniping followed by actual sniping.
Caveat: I get thumped on a semimonthly basis.
>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
Caveat: I get thumped on a semimonthly basis.
>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
