AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - PvP: A discussion in etiquette and reason. Or something.

We can collectively change attitudes by setting a good example.

Yups, but I've seen a lot of good people get very frustrated when they never receive, only give. It's a strong motivator to just say fuck it and stop caring yourself.

LetumLux wrote:

I feel like the actual rules should be simplified, but their context explained.

This is what we're working on.

exquisitelyme wrote:

I never bothered to read the specifics of PP in Amia...

You don't get much GP out of it, and nothing from the actual character's inventory, it's just generated by the scripts as far as I'm aware.

TormakSaber wrote:

It comes from the roleplay. And to do that you need to fix a server culture that won't fix itself because both sides are too busy being pissed at each other to ever want to take the first step. I'v been saying this for years.

Exactly this.

Last edited by Eurgiga on Wed, Mar 27 2013, 10:48 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Wow, it's amazing how often this topic comes up, and on how many servers. I was walking this road eight years ago and the same crap's still being bandied about. I'll try to touch on some of them. As always, I'm sure this thread is made with positive intentions, so please try to take what I say in that light as well. Warning: Opinionated asshat ahead.

1. Permadeath.

No, not happening. You institute this and you'll see people leaving like patrons from a burning store. Why will people leave? Let me give you an example of some of the sick, sick builds you can make on this server:

A. Kama monk with 52 AB, 9 attacks per round, WM crit feats and Dev Crit.
B. Paladin cheese build with 40+ saves, 54+ AB, 66 AC and an average of 50 damage per hit.
C. Cleric DC caster able to force somewhere around a 43 save-or-die on implosion (yes, it's possible).

And so on. There are people out there who can make stupidly powerful builds- monks with a 51 DC on stunning fist, mages who can force saves on any save they want with a 41+ DC, etc. I've seen or made all of these. Why? Because Derk is dead on the money- Some people have a very nasty habit of being absolute dickheads to anyone who crosses their path, be they level 10 or level 30. If my level 12 fighter bumps into a Cyricist cell murdering people, I'm going to die and normally that's fine. But if I'm going to get permakilled or get some lingering death penalty for it, all it's doing is adding injury to insult. Moreover, it tells people "If you can form a group of tight-knit PvPers and kill everyone else on the server, you win because no-one will be left who can challenge you". And don't you dare tell me there aren't people who could and would do that (I'm looking at you, Red Hand). In short, powergamers (like me) mean that this rule is absolutely begging for a "The Strong Shall Rule" situation and would be abused as such.

2. Death Penalties (nonpermadeath)

Yes and no, depending on how they're done. One, they should NOT hamper leveling characters, or at least those below level 21 (because that's when you get level restrictions on gear removed and characters start becoming competitive in PvP- a mage can throw DC 38+ Wails at this point). Killing a leveling character and then making them eat penalties on a server that already has a slower-than-paint-drying-on-a-rainy-day leveling process should earn the idea person a swift kick in the teeth.

It WOULD be alright to have some form of penalty that lingers after death that requires Greater Restoration or something similar for high-level players. XP penalties are out of the question if it would drop someone a level because of RDD. I won't explain because it would invite abuse, but if you argue that point you have some required reading to do. But there's some considerations you need to keep in mind:

A. No death penalty can be so onerous that it will make people stop playing. Sorry, this is a server and servers care more about population count than they do about you wanting more out of PvP. Deal with it.
B. No death penalty should hamper someone's RP unfairly. This is an RP server and the death penalties must ultimately serve, further, or not harm the RP.

The exact penalties I leave to you to argue about, but if they fail to meet those criteria they should be rethought or abandoned entirely.

3. On Players

It's great that so many of you have faith in your fellow players. I like to as well. However, it's bloody stupid to assume that you're not going to run across dickheads from time to time who will use a superior build to grind you into the dirt and piss all over your RP. This is why every character I build is a mechanical powerhouse, and why I help people build their characters into face-breakers: I can't tell when someone's just going to up and be a dick out of nowhere. People talk a lot about being afraid, but never really ask "Why would they be afraid". This is the crucial flaw in the argument- I am afraid of groups of random dickheads roaming the lands murdering people, and such groups have existed on this server in the past. If everyone RP'd well and people didn't roam the server like Mad Medieval Max I really wouldn't be afraid to walk out of a city even with permadeath penalties because I could trust in my fellow player to not kill me for some damn stupid reason. But throw in that uncertainty and suddenly even people with builds that'll disassemble a Tarrasque will stay in a city. If you've never run across one of the occasional roaming death-bands we get, then consider yourself very lucky.

4. On "Meaningless" Death

Death is meaningless because YOU make it meaningless. Tormak is dead-the-f*ck-on. I for one give great impact and meaning to the deaths I suffer in PvP because I want to roleplay honestly to the character. That's my choice, you can make yours. But I'm going to keep making my choice regardless of whether my enemy pops right back up and acts like nothing happened or not when I kill him back. I believe other players will appreciate the effort and sincerity, and that's what RP means to me- even RPing the hard or crappy stuff, even when someone else isn't. At the end of it you'll be the one with integrity and your fellow players will recognize it. Case in point: One of the most meaningful in-character relationships Corinn has right now is with Kaytie. This relationship stems from Corinn helping Kaytie to cope with being kidnapped and murdered. If Kaytie had bounced back with no trauma or problems at all I'd dismiss the character as a carebear pile of fluff. Since she didn't, I've had more than ample opportunity to let that integrity blossom into a wonderful RP relationship.

Don't treat death as meaningless just because people aren't forced to do so. Asking for a law to do something you're not doing yourself is lame- and if you ARE giving meaning to death, then it's your right to react to the people who don't give meaning to it- hell, tell a DM, maybe they can help you come up with something inventive to get it through their skull. But you have the right to not RP with that person, or if you want to go out and grab a hunting party and murder them again and again. It's your decision, and this way seems to be working pretty well so far.

Edit because holy christ you people will derail a topic for anything.

_________________ *Inactive as of November 28, 2013*

Eurgiga wrote:

A. Kama monk with 52 AB, 9 attacks per round, WM crit feats and Dev Crit.
B. Paladin cheese build with 40+ saves, 54+ AB, 66 AC and an average of 50 damage per hit.
C. Cleric DC caster able to force somewhere around a 48 save-or-die on implosion (yes, it's possible).

Okay folks, definitely not trying to turn this into another build discussion, but... even though your post was a relatively good one, Eurgiga, I'm still having a really hard time believing these three builds exist. I take it you're talking about fully buffed ABs and ACs here?

He means 43 on the implosion. 48 is the vanilla maximum on a level 40 server.

I'm glad eurgiga have faith other players - which i don't. Simplify the rules and make them more available.

Needled247 wrote:

Quote:

The OOC penalties are just a way to stop players from running around all crazy-like.

It works so well, you can't even begin to imagine. When you have something to lose, you will find that people will actually change their attitudes IC.

Nail. Hammer. Head.

It works unbelievably well. I spent many years on a Full PvP RP server with death was 33% dropped items (Including Equipped items) and 100% gold lost on death. There were no rules like "The player must be given a chance to backdown" which is a very grey rule open to different interpretations. People didn't go around PvPing like they do here.

This is why I'm always surprised at OOC outrage an anger generated by some PvP on Amia. Especially since there really isn't any negative effects from being PvP'd aside from pride and bruised egos.

I doubt you could change to this system on Amia now however, as many players have grown up on this server. it really needs to be a system in place day 1. You can't just migrate to harsh PvP rules after years and years of no penalties. Players are emotionally attached to the loot and gold on their characters.

- Remove rules open to interpretation. Such as the reasonable chance to backdown, clear intentions to attack, time to observe. They need to be black and white.
- Add some form of light weight penalty ( Temporary negative stat, temporary HP loss) to characters that were killed in PvP.

Emzoe, did that server have any script that damaged armor?

Very_Svensk wrote:

QPR wrote:

Iron's suggestions is excellent.

Sure. But what if you get dumped in a dungeon. ... MILES AWAY.
I predict two things - the player gets INCREDIBLY frustrated. OR - has a friend metagame his location.

What do you respond to my predictions?

Not so fast. The point is exactly that this adds a rather meaningful element to PvP death: You have to involve other PC's. And your killer gains something from it, he can decide where and when your body ends up. He can ransom it back. Keep it as hostage. Or dump in a canyon. Furthermore, it ends PvP rather decisively, AND you can involve DM's if you believe you are treated unfairly without being so penalized that you want to quit.

You want PvP death to be more meaningful. Here is the solution, but it depends upon you to also make it meaningful. If the other party metagames, then that is something to take up with the DM's. XP loss is ruled out because of possible unsanctioned rebuilds, and none of you are willing to let go of your precious epic gear, so the option of item drop on death is ruled out too. Partly because it is also so fantastical abusable.

Finally, I'll offer my experience from playing a server that had perma death in PvP: The Border Kingdoms. It started off well. All characters were level 8 with no possibility for advancing. Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Sorcerer and Wizard were all restricted to a fixed number of slots to which one had to apply for. And the factions were quite hostile to each other. But then there was an event that involved nearly half of the PC's where all of them, except one were killed. All permanently dead. Within a few weeks, the server was as empty as Bmia during Euro midday, and it consequently shut down.

Mechanical penalties will never make death meaningful. Only players with the right attitude will.

What is this "right attitude" that people keep speaking of?

The attitude to take the death of their characters seriously and make it something that further develops their characters and those they interact with. Even in the absence of mechanical penalties.

I'd say the attitude is more of a conscious effort to think how your character would. For most, that includes taking death seriously.

Think how my character would. When my character returns to life with no penalties no matter what he does, that he is immortal. Why would he take death seriously?

He only returns if someone finds him and is nice enough to raise him, though. Don't metagame the Respawn feature, it's purely OOC. Not only is death traumatic, but there is never a guarantee that you come back just because you've been lucky so far. You notice around you people who aren't as lucky every day, dead NPC adventurers and PCs who become inactive and are never seen again.

You must be raised by a raise-dead scroll or other resurrection effect to return to life?

That's the gist of being dead, I suppose.

Respawning just means some way-too-generous priest stumbled upon you or, depending on context, that maybe you were knocked unconscious and managed to crawl away when you woke up. You don't magically return from the dead on your own.

The respawn feature offered to players upon death that returns the character to life is emulated by a super generous priest? Seriously?

What if their body is turned to ashes and chucked into the sea?

Between death and waking up, you have no idea what happens, you wake up in your own home, fully restored to health. Your characters first reaction shouldn't be "Wow, I must be immortal", it should be something closer to "Someone saved me and brought me home!"

Palin489 wrote:

The respawn feature offered to players upon death that returns the character to life is emulated by a super generous priest? Seriously?

What if their body is turned to ashes and chucked into the sea?

That's up to you. If you choose to use a function of OOC convenience, making sense of it is your responsibility. If it feels iffy, don't use it. In fact, if you were turned to ash and chucked into the sea, I'm of the opinion you need someone to True Resurrect you. Be a man and bite the bullet, you can always make a new PC.

I am going to stick by my suggestion. Link I also apply the concept in general terms. Specific things like the duration of wounds, how they are determined, how strong the consequences are and anything related is something that is only worth to discuss if the concept itself is deemed worthy to explore.

The "contested token system" ensures that PvP and PvM consequences are not part of the everyday combat encounters and must have a strong story backing. It does not matter if my character bumps into a group that forces him into an unfair pvp situation or if lag causes him to die by the hands of a few frost giants. The same protections from consequences remain in effect in those cases, just as they would for the druid in amia forest or the palemaster in the lowland swamps.

What the system however gives oppertunity to is to make consequenes available for plots that deserve it. So a compromise. We do not want consequences by a default, but would be alright with them if they are applied only by pvp and pvm of an important story driven conflict that is announced and put in effect by a member of the dm team. I will give you four examples here how that could look like.

1. Barak Runedar is faced with a horde seeking to destroy it's home. It is a battle that will bare a heavy price. DM Silent marks Barak Runedar as a "contested area" for the duration of the plot. The defenders now can suffer consequences at the hands of the monsters, and they need to be smart. If they waste their resources the most powerful among their number and those of their allies may be wounded critically and be far less useful in the rest of the battle.

The dwarven character Trollslayer, a champion of Moradin, already suffered two such wounds. Yet when he sees the northern wall begining fall he decides to throw himself into the front line of battle once more in hope to give more time for the reinforcements. Even though he is not in his best form, he succeeds, but is severely wounded. He will need to recover to be able to properly fight again, but he has saved the day. For a heavy personal cost. Now if the wall had fallen regardless of his heroic sacrafice, the next line of defense would be missing his skill and the outcome may be detrimental to the defense.

If the War Knights had suffered extensive wounds in the process of helping Barak Runedar, they will be also weakened for a time in concern to other plots they may lend assistance to. This is something that can be taken advantage of by the enemies of the War Knights.

2. The Banites take Guldorand and begin to patrol the Skull Crag road. A DM moderating the story marks the skull crag road as a "contested area", while Guldorand stays off limits until the major attack would occur. Those who now enter that set of areas know that their characters can suffer consequences. The Banites can not just give up the road however. They need the buffer zone to gain a warning time should a large force move against them and they also need the supplies comming up the road to ensure they can bolster their defenses. For the opposition the goal is to undermine exactly that.

The result is that both the Banites and the opposition will reduce their numbers of PvP encounters. They need strong patrols, prepare ambush sights, trap areas in case they need to fall back or want to lure the enemy into a trap. PvP victory no longer means you are just to be able to gloat, but to ensure your own do not suffer too many wounds to be weakened considerably in the big battle, while inflicting as many as you can on the opposition.

If the banites achieve to wound a great deal of the opposition they will have a great edge if a major attack would occur, perhaps even preventing or delaying it until the enemy recovers. If either party does not try to take control of the road they would give their counterparts an advantage.

If Darthion already suffered two serious wounds, he will not continue to participate in patrols, but only participate in the last battle. A severe wound would mean he is of almost no use in the big battle and would not be able to take command in the front lines, seing he would more easily be killed.

If Barak Runedar and the War Knights are still weakened by example 1, it would also create a situation where the Church of Bane could more easily try to take control of such an area because it knows that a good portion of it's enemies just went through a costly military conflict.

3. Kohlingen goes to war with Cordor. All major battles (overseen by DMs) that take place to take control of important sights such as Wharftown, Uhm, the Lowlands, Mimir Bridge and so forth are marked as contested areas for the events. PvP and PvM victories matter now, and allies become far more important. Resources need to be carefully decided upon, retreats need to be considered lest the best warriors are wounded for little gain and the enemy takes a great avantage for the rest of the campaign. Heroism no longer is something simple, as it can seriously hurt your own cause.

4. Darthion suffered two critical wounds during patrols in the Skull Crags from example 2. A third would result in a severe wound, meaning that the final type of penalties come into effect, which result in a very strong disadvantage. The enemy of the banites ask Derrin do to the dirty work. Overseen by a dm, an assassination attempt takes place. Failed assassination attempts in which the would be assassin is killed however result in an automatic severe wound.

Assassination roleplay now actually provides a great advantage when used correctly, while failure makes it very dangerous.

It's only because i respect you as a player and look up to you as a role player that i took the time to read that Tsunami of words, gabe. I like parts of it, only parts.

EDIT - Holy Hollywood! Then perhaps i can really break another pc's jaw and he is forced to role play that for a week! Bwahhaha.

EDIT 2 - Contested areas? That's a very flimsy term. Can not all areas be contested areas? Can not the death penalties, as you suggested, occur everywhere?

Last edited by Pony on Wed, Mar 27 2013, 12:53 PM, edited 1 time in total.

In a nutshell the general concept is that the pvm and pvp system in place generally remains as is, but that for meaningful plots and events areas can be tagged as "contested" by a DM. This tag means that all characters who die either by the hands of a monster or by another character in that specific area suffer a wound.

A wound being a penalty to your character's stats that gives you a disadvantage for a time. As multiple wounds can be collected and can combine into severe one, it should make pvp more meaningful, less frequent and more dangerous, while containing it in a controllable fashion to spice up the storyline of plots.

Contested was just a term I came up with when I first had the idea. If you want to come up with something more fitting you would be most welcome to.

Last edited by Pony on Wed, Mar 27 2013, 12:57 PM, edited 2 times in total.

And yes. Of course such death penalties could occur anywhere on an ic level, but in this system the mechanical reflection of it would be reserved for important story conflicts.

Another version of the same basic idea is to add another option to the pvp settings a character can turn off and on for a reset. For example I select "Wounding System: On" with Robert for the duration of the reset. Any character who also has it on can inflict wounds on my character, and I on his. If my character is killed by someone who does not have it on, my character does not suffer a wound. If I kill someone who does not have it on I do not inflict a wound.

Edit: Also possbile to use both, which would by my personal preference. :wink:

It's not a perfect system but hell, the best one so far that i have seen. Easy to understand and without fuzz.
And in all honesty - I'm willing to try anything instead of debating this bloody subject all over again.

Directed at the team;

Cmon. Do something rather then nothing. It doesn't need to be the "Perfect" Solution, there is none. But throw us a bone already!

Palin489 wrote:

The respawn feature offered to players upon death that returns the character to life is emulated by a super generous priest? Seriously?

What if their body is turned to ashes and chucked into the sea?

Yes, the Respawn button is purely an OOC mechanic in a video game and should be treated accordingly. As mentioned in other threads, if it comes up in RP, it's generally best to leave the "reasons" behind what exactly a Respawn entails entirely vague and in no way concrete, because what might work to explain one situation (dieing on the road and being found by a wandering priest for example) might not work in another situation (being turned to ash in some far off remote place as you noted).

It's OOC, so best to just keep any IC references to it as vague as possible, really.

Phaer, that system isn't happening I'm afraid, as has already been discussed.

Svensk, we are. And the first step is simplifying the PvP rules and making them more cogent.

Last edited by Pony on Wed, Mar 27 2013, 14:41 PM, edited 1 time in total.

I have yet to see a proper discussion on the two suggestions, and I am far from satisfied by a simplification of the pvp rules alone. To me that does not really signal that the team is prepared to explore options.

Glim wrote:

And the first step is simplifying the PvP rules and making them more cogent.

I did see that part Glim. But removing a bit of beaurocratic clutter in the rules section is not a change, and with this subject the announcement that other steps may follow does not satisfy me because I have been around long enough to know we pretty much still have the system that we had in 2005. We also have the very same problems, regardless of how often the team worked on it. Now I do not mean to say I think there have been no attempts. it just feels somewhat like an easy out to try appease those hoping to see something change without showing anything for it. Just like how I think "it is up to the players to inspire others" is a cheap out because it has been tried, and it has failed, repeatedly. "It is up to the players to inspire others" in concern to this topic to me is the equivalent of saying there is nothing to be done about it.

It also does anoy me a bit when I put effort into suggestions to try to determine a way that is not just a one sided call for "consequences and lets ignore the wussies" and it is shot down as 'previously disccussed and not happening' when it has not been discussed. I would at least like to see why the two suggestions of mine in general are not feasiable.

Harsh words. ... but they mirror my own. I want to see some action going instead of , sorry, excuses or "We will solve it soon"

Last edited by RaveN on Wed, Mar 27 2013, 16:12 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Pretty much what he said.

Edit: (Phearnun said)

Very_Svensk wrote:

Harsh words. ... but they mirror my own. I want to see some action going instead of , sorry, excuses or "We will solve it soon"

Yes, because things get fixed overnight.

Comments like these make me realize how much others take the DMs and Devs for granted. It applies to not only rule changes and decisions but also plots and bug fixes and module changes. People need to remember the DM and Dev teams are not paid for this shit, and they are working on a ton of things most of the time.

Yes. And No.

I have too been here long enough, (perhaps to long) , to realise how SLOWLY thing move if you don't create awareness and debate.

Don't look at me. If I had my way there would be no PVP rules whatsoever and this server would crumble to dust.

Yoss, why you try to break server?

I know the dm team, the development team and the design team do huge amounts of work. Glim being one of the most notable examples for this. If people knew how much work and time it takes to create something like the new Brogendenstein they would think Sam to be a depraved masochist. They deserve more regognition for their work than is often given them, and instead have to deal with a lot of the opposite.

However, this is not something that I ask to be done overnight. It is something that has been asked for by a good amount of people for over seven years and I would like to see some real work on. Glim was not on the team that long, nor most of the current members. There is also no easy solution, but it really is a topic that does deserve attention and at very very least some real attempts.

I offered the alternative suggestion that we add a penalty system that players through the rest menu can toggle on and off each reset. This means nobody is subject to mechancial pvp consequences that does not want to be, while others have that option. In addition a few might try it out and realize they enjoy it. To me it seems that is a more than reasonable first step that indicates we are willing to try to test new things out, while we of course are careful on how we go about it. But when I am told after no real discussion what so ever it was discussed and denied that is simply a bit meh.

Edit: While Naivatkal told me his comment was not directed at me, I will leave the above because I agree with him to the extend that our team really does a tremendous amount of work. But all their work also did not stop me from digging up the day/night topic again and again over years and years until finally we recently got the change implemented. :wink:

Pony in my Kraut wrote:

... lots of stuff that krauty put

This would be impressive, infact amazing, though i can't see how it could be managed efficiently. You'd pretty much have to task the DM team with it and they can't overwatch all pvp and pvm battles.

I might suggest an alternative where if there is a pvp the loser may get shrunk down to 6 constitution till the server reset. Then again injuries in a magical setting such as amia can be fixed pretty quick with well....magic.

Any outlasting injuries can be rp'ed by players if they so wish, there are players that do this *tips his hat*, maybe we should encourage them more? Give a person some dc's if he has took a month of combat lines to rp his injury?

I hardly encounter griefers anymore on this server, and I also see less metagaming overall.

Also, I think death has an intrinsic penalty here even as it is. If the shame of loosing to another isn't enough for your character, then the normal xp and gold penalties might be. I have a character who currently has 20 million gold, and still goes out and fights instead of staying indoors, so this has made death something I really don't want as a player, and I've had to wait hours for someone to come along to raise my character on a few occasions.

I really don't see anything wrong with slapping some attribute penalties on after respawn just to make death more of a pain. What's the argument against this?

What do you a call a "griefer" is it someone who just outright OOCly PvP's you for no reason? or is it someone who consistently comes back after you decapitate them OVER AND OVER and continue to egg you on to more pointless PvP less than 1 hour after they die?

I can think of at least three people who do that, and it's really lame, annoying, and that type of behavior should be a bannable offense.

Needled247 wrote:

What do you a call a "griefer" is it someone who just outright OOCly PvP's you for no reason? or is it someone who consistently comes back after you decapitate them OVER AND OVER and continue to egg you on to more pointless PvP less than 1 hour after they die?

I can think of at least three people who do that, and it's really lame, annoying, and that type of behavior should be a bannable offense.

Well it is harassment.

Murex wrote:

Also, I think death has an intrinsic penalty here even as it is. If the shame of loosing to another isn't enough for your character, then the normal xp and gold penalties might be. I have a character who currently has 20 million gold, and still goes out and fights instead of staying indoors, so this has made death something I really don't want as a player, and I've had to wait hours for someone to come along to raise my character on a few occasions.

I really don't see anything wrong with slapping some attribute penalties on after respawn just to make death more of a pain. What's the argument against this?

I think it's more of a "why should death which already has intrinsic penalties have more mechanical penalties" debate.

Also it's not so much people wanting more penalties for themselves, but most want more penalties for others because they're not "treating death properly". The more I read the thread I think it's more folks trying to push their version of "proper RP" via mechanical systems.

As far as making your own death penalties harsher, there's already a way to "hurt yourself", I think in the rest menu. I guess we could add a "apply debuff" or "apply level drain" to that as well if folks really want to give themselves more mechanical death penalties.

Needled247 wrote:

What do you a call a "griefer" is it someone who just outright OOCly PvP's you for no reason? or is it someone who consistently comes back after you decapitate them OVER AND OVER and continue to egg you on to more pointless PvP less than 1 hour after they die?

I can think of at least three people who do that, and it's really lame, annoying, and that type of behavior should be a bannable offense.

If someone is harassing you, OOCly ask them to stop, if they continue it falls into harassment and is a bannable offense.
Now, mind you, what you may call "pointless PVP" may have some justification to it in someone else's mind. But that's up for the DM's to decide.

That said, if we were to go with the earlier mentioned idea of short term memory loss on death, (I'd love to see 30 min or so memory loss on death) this would be hilariously in character.

Grievous wounds debuff makes you do 25% damage and take 300% damage to other players if you've died in PvP recently for X hours?

Needled247 wrote:

Grievous wounds debuff makes you do 25% damage and take 300% damage to other players if you've died in PvP recently for X hours?

Now account for the save-or-die casters.

Lets not include these rules when us posh folk duel in kohlingen. Leave the commoners to brawl.

...unless your Robert or Audrey nobody likes you :-P

Needled247 wrote:

What do you a call a "griefer" is it someone who just outright OOCly PvP's you for no reason? or is it someone who consistently comes back after you decapitate them OVER AND OVER and continue to egg you on to more pointless PvP less than 1 hour after they die?

I can think of at least three people who do that, and it's really lame, annoying, and that type of behavior should be a bannable offense.

I consider a griefer someone who PvPs for no reason.

Pony in my Kraut wrote:

But removing a bit of beaurocratic clutter in the rules section is not a change, and with this subject the announcement that other steps may follow does not satisfy me because I have been around long enough to know we pretty much still have the system that we had in 2005.

Nowhere did I say that we were only "removing a bit of clutter" and not changing any of the rules. Personally, I'm actually pushing for some (perhaps) radical changes, not just a rewording of the rules.

Pony in my Kraut wrote:

I know the dm team, the development team and the design team do huge amounts of work.

---

However, this is not something that I ask to be done overnight. It is something that has been asked for by a good amount of people for over seven years and I would like to see some real work on. Glim was not on the team that long, nor most of the current members.

If you recognize that we have more work than we know what to do with, especially on a volunteer basis, and you recognize that changes aren't going to be made overnight, and that most of the staff members currently on the team have not been on it for more than a year or two, let alone the seven years that you're quoting, why on earth are you pushing this in the manner you are?

And please, don't read any hostility into that, there is none. What there is however, is exhaustion and frustration.

I've wanted to bring something up for awhile now, and this seems as good a time as any. It's not specifically directed at you Phaer, or specifically at anyone else for that matter. While I do respect that providing ideas, and sometimes revisiting old ideas, is a healthy thing for a server and that sometimes that is the only way things get done... there is nothing more damaging to a Dev's motivation to see a thread like this balloon to three, five, however many pages (sometimes for a second or third time even!) of, "We've been saying this X amount of time and it still isn't fixed! WTF guys?! Do this here and it's problem solved kthxbye!"

Our work is demanding enough on our time (and sanity) without wading through post after post about how we aren't doing enough or aren't doing the right thing. Do I sometimes work on "fun" projects that I think would be good addition to the module, before bug fixes or more "widely beneficial" changes? Fuck yeah I do, or I'd go stir crazy(er). Do I let a thread in Improving Amia sit in my Bookmarks tab for a few weeks sometimes without replying? I sure do, because it might be one of those topics that I know is going to go on, and on, and on, and take me just as much time to read through all the back and forth discussion (much of it simple arguing, though there are of course constructive gems too) as it would take to just fix the problem.

I'm making a lot of generalizations here, and I don't want to put anyone's nose out of joint. I don't want to say that, "Every thing is fine, just put a piece of paper over your head in case of emergency," either. And I'm not trying to whine or play "woe is me" to generate outcries of sympathy votes or posts about how great the team is for the stuff we have done.

What I want to do is create awareness of some of the most poisonous types of posts in existence for Devs, which are literally the Kryptonite to our developer superpowers. They literally sap the desire out of us to even open the toolset... and I've been seeing more and more of it lately to be perfectly honest.

And the most boggling thing is that it's entirely unnecessary! Really. Honest. A perfect example is the thread that was poked again recently about Light Sensitivity not working properly and being exploitable. It literally took what, three posts that just mentioned it, to get it the attention it needed? And then another couple posts of questions of the exact nature of the problem? I just learned tonight there's still one tiny flaw in the change I made, but it got done (I think) rather quickly despite having been mentioned for what, 5 pages I think that thread was at (with a bunch of other stuff thrown in there too).

My point is it doesn't take a multi-page thread to get shit done, or to make us see that a change is needed, or that something is broken and needs to be fixed. It doesn't need to be debated back and forth five ways from Sunday to make us stand up and pay attention to you. And in reality, rolling a thread down the line towards multiple pages only serves to take precious, precious time and energy that we could be spending better in the toolset.

I'm starting to circle back on previous points, so I'll close it here, but I want to say again that this is not posted with any one person in particular in mind, but rather a general trend. One that I sincerely hope that you will help us to help yourselves, by not continuing with.

Please. I'm practically begging here.

Side note, we couldn't do a 6 con thing because shifters would have an unfair advantage.

To CouncilofAutumn: I find that pitcure of Moses offensive, and I think others may also find it to be offensive. I suggest you remove it.

That's George Lucas holding props from Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Arc, Murex. There's nothing offensive about that.

PvP: A discussion in etiquette and reason. Or something.

Who is online