AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I'll start this off with: can I dual-box if I am doing nothing where my characters could even remotely being influencing anything about each other, they're on different servers, and there's more than enough player slots open? Like, if I'm just waiting around to talk to someone who is currently busy, on character A, could I log character B in and do menial job system stuff while still logged in with character A, because they're in a lobby waiting room, or something? The only 'advantage' I'd be getting at that point is time management, of the few hours I get to do non-work things, which is still not as many hours as most regular players get or put in anyway.

This would be something the staff would have to decide on as a whole, however my personal opinion (as much as I can sympathize on the lack of play-time) is that it's far better to maintain "no dual-boxing" rather than having to spell out, "well it's okay in this case... but not in this one... maybe in this case if you check first..." etc.

Just say nay!

My oppinion is the same as Glims. Too many potential problems with too little potential gains imho.

THE GAIN WOULD BE SPIDERS. SPIDERS 24/7. HOW ARE YOU NOT ON BOARD WITH THIS?

(Thanks for the responses so far, guys.)

Here's a question. For Assassinations when there is no DM.

Do we have to ask permission, or just inform then go?

Because, I don't see any reason I should ask someone oocly if I can do something that involves us both ICly, if the RP has lead there.

Just for clearance.

The rule is quite clear.

Quote:

10. Assassinations: Assassins must inform a DM that they are about to perform a hit. If a DM is unavailable, the assassin must inform the target instead.

So you must inform the target but don't need to ask permission.

Wait, what? That's not how we've been doing it.

Normally what we do is, sans DM: Inform the target, then check to make sure they're alright with PvP - if yes, proceed, if no (and I have yet to have that occur) I guess wait for a DM/find one, in case that changes it.

The logic is that the regular PvP rule of "can't PvP without permission" still applies, but assassinations also have the additional rule of "give notice of impending doom".

So, we don't have to ask permission then? Then... doesn't that mean I can neatly bypass any refusal simply by informing them that they are about to be assassinated?

All right.

If I inform a target it's about being assassinated and the target immediatelly gulps an invisibility potion or starts buffing (I have witnessed this personally), then it's clearly metagaming of the highest grade. Am I right?

serbiris wrote:

Normally what we do is, sans DM: Inform the target, then check to make sure they're alright with PvP - if yes, proceed, if no (and I have yet to have that occur) I guess wait for a DM/find one, in case that changes it.

The mere fact the target is allowed to say "Oh no, I don't want to be assassinated, no way!" is just utter nonsense. May be something to look into and modify the rules a bit.

I wouldn't call it the highest grade, but yeah I'd call them out on it, or fetch a DM. Don't be too mad about it, because having been on both ends I see how hard it can be to resist the urge in those particular circumstances. But still, they shouldn't buff in reaction, it's naughty.

The_Last_Helmite wrote:

The mere fact the target is allowed to say "Oh no, I don't want to be assassinated, no way!" is just utter nonsense. May be something to look into and modify the rules a bit.

Yeah, but the alternative is the aforementioned scenario: Someone refuses to PvP, so you just "assassinate" them ten seconds later. I don't think it's a good idea - if you're going to allow that, why have the permission rule in the first place? Should someone take issue and call a DM, how do you prove whether or not an assassination was legit or an attempt to work around PvP permission?

Pvp doesn't need permission either Serbiris, you only need to give an out in pvp.

Principles:

Quote:

1. Amia is a role-playing server, not a PvP arena server.

2. All PvP must have a role-playing reason. PvP without a sensible reason is not allowed. Your character's alignment is not a valid reason for PvP. Summons, such as undead, are a valid reason but do not excuse you from the below protocol.

3. You must give the other party a reasonable chance to back down from the PvP In Character.

4. IC Actions lead to IC Consequences. If you initiate a conflict (by insults or thievery, for example), you can't expect to get away with it. You cannot ignore other players' RP or declare it null.

Technicalities:

5. You must give the other party clear IC indication of your intentions to attack, and make sure they have reasonable time to react and possibly back down IC.

6. You must set all members of the opposing party to Hostile before performing hostile actions. You can do this with the tool in your inventory or through the player list.

7. If you do not give the other party time to observe the usual protocol, you can't expect them to stick to the protocol. This means that by resting, buffing or other such preperations to hostility, you forfeit your right to a warning: The other party may attack you immediately to stop you. If you have not set them to Hostile before, you can't blame them for having to act without it. Both parties should strive to set eachother to Hostile after the immediate reaction, however.

8. The above goes for fleeing from hostile situations: If you turn tail and run without a word to avoid IC consequence, you can expect to be stopped by any means possible. Always give others reasonable time to react with RP!

9. Subdualing/killing: see http://www.amiaworld.net/about/pvp.html

10. Assassinations: Assassins must inform a DM that they are about to perform a hit. If a DM is unavailable, the assassin must inform the target instead.

11. If you clearly escape scene, you may not continue the ”same” PvP later, unless such behaviour is explicitly agreed by all involved parties. It is a new encounter with all the above rules. Parties may agree to a "mutual aggression" pact, where it is agreed that hostilities may commence whenever these parties interact. This must be supported by previous role-play, and is generally done when two factions (such as drow houses) have on going IC disputes that end in hostilities. It is the responsibility of the faction leaders to make sure everyone involved knows about the situation. Should this be the case, please inform the DMs about this in advance so that they know what is going on.

12. Traps are considered PvP. Do not set them down to damage random people: you are responsible for your traps and their victims.

13. Portalling to party leader into a PvP situation is forbidden.

14. Taunting someone with the Taunt-skill, using Turn Undead summons and casting spells such as Darkness is considered initiating PvP. You should set Hostile before doing that.

15. If robbed, you are not required to hand over items you do not wish to give away OOCly; emoting that they are transferred ICly is sufficient.

16. If your character is captured, and the character who caught him/her wishes to keep your character locked away, they can do so for a period of 24 RL hours, without your OOC consent. However, roleplay with the captive must be provided for those 24 hours. If it is not, then you cannot force the captive character to remain "locked away", unless you come to an OOC agreement on the matter. Keeping a character captive for longer than 24 RL hours requires the OOC consent of the player of the captive PC. In certain instances a DM can enforce captivity, but this is rarely done.

Nowhere is any mentioning of needing permission or consent to pvp. An assasination could go against the rule of having to give an out though.

Yeah that's basically what I said, and it doesn't address the concern at all. If the rules are as you say, then that means the out rule can be waived freely by the attacker claiming an assassination. They can't really co-exist - either the out rule has to go, or assassinations require giving the victim their out.

Quote:

An assasination could go against the rule of having to give an out though.

That's not clear. The way it's structured it has the "golden rules of PvP" up top, and additional technicalities below. If that's not the case it should probably be reworded.

Quote:

2. All PvP must have a role-playing reason. PvP without a sensible reason is not allowed. Your character's alignment is not a valid reason for PvP. Summons, such as undead, are a valid reason but do not excuse you from the below protocol.

You still have to observe this rule.

Assasins better have a very good reason for the assasination. Anyone claiming pvp being an assasination without sufficient rp (someone hiring the assasin at the least, I am quite sure there is a rule about needing a screeny of the hiring if there isn't a DM to oversee it) is breaking the pvp rules.
If an assasin just wants to stab someone for another reason then being hired to do so then it isn't an assasination and the out rule applies.

That's not in contention.

Suppose the appropriate roleplay happens but without enough of rule #4 coming into play. The attacker has cause, but the defender takes their out. The attacker could then simply make an assassination notice and go ahead with it. What's the point of giving the out?

That still doesn't quite answer the question, though, Hudson.

If assassinations are PvP, and if all PvP requires the attacked character to be given an "out," then all assassins must give the target an "out." Yes or no?

If no, then the rules are worded badly.

My interpretation is of the rules is:

Assasination does not need an out (because that'd be silly ic) but does have a heavier rp requirement then 'usual' pvp in that that it needs an rp'ed contract on the target's life.

I would advice assasins to wait for a DM being online though when making the strike especially since you need one anyway if you do the hit anywhere near an npc.

Edit: You also don't have to give the notification right before the strike. You can give it one day and then do the hit a day or so later.
You obviously cannot give the notification after the strike.

Please amend the rules IG and on the forums if you decide upon anything.
'There's enough forum-digging for us veterans. Imagine how difficult it is for a newcomer?

The two rulesets that have always made me itchy are the PvP rules and the Muling/Twinking rules. There's just something about them that doesn't seem intuitive or easy.

Despite our attempts to simplify them, too.

I know. I have tried over the years to think my way out of the situation, but I just keep hitting dead ends that show that what we have is the least problematic.

Very_Svensk wrote:

Despite our attempts to simplify them, too.

Despite all of our attempts to simplify them. Let's not turn this into a DM team vs Playerbase issue. We've been trying to fix the issue (Hell, I've chatted Yoss up about it plenty of times), but we've yet to find a comfortable answer that is also simpler. We've found a couple that fix the issue, but are twice as long.

Oh, I just took Svensk's "our" to mean both players and DMs. But yes, I'm always open to ideas, but on the same token, I'm also open to shooting them down, too.

On the whole Assassin PVP thing... one idea that I have seen implemented in MMOS, MUDS, and LARPS is flagging players as "pvp" or "no pvp." Every single time I've seen this implemented, players will eventually use non-pvpers as invincible meat-shields in pvp. Please don't implement some kind of pvp flag system.

I like the idea that we are all vulnerable to pvp. I think that "vulnerability" gives us an "edge" to our roleplay so we take it more seriously and think about things a little more critically. I think clarification of the assassin rule would help us all "think before we act" a little bit more.

Does the assassination rule only apply the characters with levels in the Assassin class, or anyone who gets a job to kill someone?

All the discussions and rulings I've seen on assassinations tell me that the DM doesn't need to be online, you just need to PM the DM and go they will pretty much give you a yay or a nay.

The intention of the assassination rule is that you do not need to give an "out". The out is there not due some fundamental right to decline from PvP but to prevent people from being griefed by random, uncalled-for PvP when they're just expecting a leisurely stroll. (I'd do away with the out altogether, but some DMs were pretty adamant in the past.) Assassins have to inform their target beforehand so that they don't call foul and know in advance that no PvP rules will be broken; they will have been assassinated legitimately IC, not just senselessly griefed. Assassination RP does not require class levels, perhaps, but it is quite distinct.

So essentially, what Hudson's last post said is what the rules meant to say. How you choose to interpret or modify them today is another matter, but that's at least what they were intended to convey.

If the written rule removed the part about informing the player instead of a DM, then any confusion would be alleviated by the correspondence with the DM. Maybe?

Maybe, but I would argue it serves its purpose better when you inform the player; anger flares quickly when you think you've just been griefed, and it's better to avoid it altogether than have a DM inform the victim later that they were unwitting victims of a legitimate hit and not a PvP violation. The damage is already done.

The aim of PvP rules should be not so much to set down a rigid protocol that determines "legal" PvP but rather to make sure everyone is on the same page and know what to expect so they can better deal with it. It is about preventing unnecessary hurt of feelings, which is the primary cause of problems.

I'm not convinced we would be any worse off if we just scrapped the rules altogether and went for a very minimal "must give time to set hostile" rule.

The idea of informing the DM though, is that they inform the player rather than you, the assassin. Minimisation of meta.

You can just get another player to inform them, though. Well - before the fact (which is usually what DMs have done, from what I could tell, rather than after-the-fact).

Oh yeah, that's true.

Amia Rules Questions

Who is online