Here's your chance to influence LnS

[k9quaint]

Originally Posted by Tassador [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My only contribution to this subject. Players who flop aka cry ban should be suspended if no actual infraction has yet to take place. Any cry bans in ooc should result in player being suspended for one month.

Anyone who thinks OOC crying results in bans should be banned for 3 months. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Tassador]

If you sir think it is alright to egg people on ooc and call for bans is a gentleman way of conducting affairs. Then you sir are a nincompoop.

[karsten]

Gongshow's thing basically says that there isn't a PNP until a person calls LnS, and it applies individually for small scale and as a whole for large scale -- have I got this basically right?

That's a one sentence fix that would be able to throw a bunch of this other idiocy out the window, albeit not all of it.

For example, a person could easily deny LnS to someone by saying "oh i had them on ignore" and while I don't tend to have lots of people on ignore, forcing someone to take someone off ignore just because you killed them is sorta dumb. I don't have a good solution to this, but it needs addressing.

I'll reiterate that the whole "well group A has 3 people in DL and group B has 3 in KC and then one of them dies in KC and the others zone to DL and then group A zones to KC and the dead person calls LnS but then group B leaves KC and forfeits zone control" thing still doesn't have a good solution as far as I'm concerned, hence my post a few days ago about zone lines. *Most* pvp happens near a zoneline, and a person could easily zone 10 times back and forth chasing people. I shouldn't get punished for zoning after someone. Clearly if nobody "calls LnS" then this isn't a problem, but if they do, you can't just say "use common sense" because nobody here does.

To continue, if a person chooses to not call LnS, then the issue of bind rushing remains unaddressed.

We're moving in the right direction, but as it stands now I guarantee that there are going to be more people exploiting the grey areas and spamming you GMs with petitions. I can't imagine that is what you want, and I'd venture that most people here don't want that either, regardless of what side they're on. Unless you decide on a system where pvp is resolved primarily by players and not by GMs, you're gonna have a lot of headaches.

Also, I don't see how punishing people for rule violations when they keep changing has any positive impact on any discussions on further rule changes. I mean that's just silly.

Derubael I don't share a lot of the same vitriol that some others do, but it's important to echo a point: as players, we might decide to take attacks personally and fight back -- as a CSR member you necessarily need to hold yourself to a higher standard, and I want to encourage you to continue to strive towards acting less like a player and more like a staff member. I don't say this with any malice, but it *does* show, it does matter, and I urge you to let that show through your actions in the future.

[k9quaint]

What would be nice is if someone dies from PvP they get a debuff on them for 10 minutes. The debuff would prevent casting spells/songs on other targets and also prevents attacking other targets. Most mischief occurs right after a PvP death and this debuff would prevent 99% of it.

Should be fairly simple to code as well.

[chu]

whos gonna be first to cry to LNS? id have to guess it'll be someone from red dawn if it hasn't already happened

[Derubael]

Originally Posted by plagueis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

all this policy promotes is confusion and leagues of alts waiting in the wings. lns was implemented with vague wording rather than approaching it from the programming side and forcing effects on people(like a res effect) and the confusion over rules and heavy handed one sided punishments have left this server in shambles. re wording the policy is just a band-aid solution and is still going to leave gms with 1000 petitions a week and players with a poor impression of the server. try telling a returning or new player about these rules and see how long they stay.

I've talked to a bunch of new players who are only on the server because of PvP PnP. And I'm not asking the dev team for a single code change for anything until after Velious is out. Even then, this is something that shouldn't need code to be implemented.

Originally Posted by karsten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll reiterate that the whole "well group A has 3 people in DL and group B has 3 in KC and then one of them dies in KC and the others zone to DL and then group A zones to KC and the dead person calls LnS but then group B leaves KC and forfeits zone control" thing still doesn't have a good solution as far as I'm concerned, hence my post a few days ago about zone lines. *Most* pvp happens near a zoneline, and a person could easily zone 10 times back and forth chasing people. I shouldn't get punished for zoning after someone. Clearly if nobody "calls LnS" then this isn't a problem, but if they do, you can't just say "use common sense" because nobody here does.

You wouldn't get punished for zoning after someone. I edited/updated the ruleset for both large and small scale early early this morning. If PvP has been engaged on both sides of a zoneline (IE, you kill someone in KC, zone out to DL to chase the rest of their group) you aren't giving up KC, and DL can no longer be zoned into as an 'auto-lns' zone once someone has been killed there. You also get to pick which zone you want zone control in if you're the victor if PvP happened across multiple zones.

In small scale PvP, there is no zone out rule, so you could continue fighting.

Originally Posted by karsten

To continue, if a person chooses to not call LnS, then the issue of bind rushing remains unaddressed.

In small scale PvP, yes, this is still a concern. Need to find a balance between the bind rush and the 'to the victor go the spoils', but I'm not sure if thats possible. I think in small scale PvP it's more important to you guys to be able to contest naked if you so choose.

Originally Posted by Derubael

We're moving in the right direction, but as it stands now I guarantee that there are going to be more people exploiting the grey areas and spamming you GMs with petitions. I can't imagine that is what you want, and I'd venture that most people here don't want that either, regardless of what side they're on. Unless you decide on a system where pvp is resolved primarily by players and not by GMs, you're gonna have a lot of headaches.

PvP is still resolved by the players =X. This is just a clear outline of loot and scoot. I think I've done a pretty good job of eliminating grey areas and confusion from the rulesets, but I think I said earlier in the thread that if you can find any other areas of confusion or exploitation please let me know so I can answer that or add a fix if it's needed.

Originally Posted by karsten

Derubael I don't share a lot of the same vitriol that some others do, but it's important to echo a point: as players, we might decide to take attacks personally and fight back -- as a CSR member you necessarily need to hold yourself to a higher standard, and I want to encourage you to continue to strive towards acting less like a player and more like a staff member. I don't say this with any malice, but it *does* show, it does matter, and I urge you to let that show through your actions in the future.

If people are going to attack me, my actions, or my rulings, I'm going to defend myself.

Or is it better if I just do the 'fire and brimstone' style of GM'ing and start deleting posts/banning people who speak against my tyrannical rule, like a socialist dictator? I try to avoid that, but if that makes me look better as a CSR I can just start nuking.

[Mac Dretti]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Nirgon]

The lifers will want to just constantly attack you until 4am so they can declare "victory".

At a certain point, "guild bind rushing" is an issue.

My 2cp on the matter.

Corpse camping was against classic pnp, so was forcing people to leave the zone. Looting and attacking 10 times in an hour was a great way to get a player harassment warning pals.


Go with the classic rule set that made RZ great.

[thisuserwasbannedlol]

code shadowrest or deal with constant garbage, pvp kills leave no corpse , locked in there 1 hour

end of story

[Edgat]

We need clear defined rules of how evidence should be given.

We were first told that logs would work then obviously that they could be fabricated

so then screen shots were good enough then we are told screen shots don't show enough

then we started using fraps/streaming apps and were told they are too blurry or that a chat window was covered by a picture

Can we please get a clear defined answer on what constitutes enough proof or at least enough proof that the GM will actually check server logs to confirm/deny the accusation instead of just saying your evidence is too blurry or your screen shot doesn't capture the exact moment player x did action y

I know the GMs are busy and lets be real here there is hardly ever a gm on red to actually show up when an infraction is happening and if they are there the infraction is probably being baited so how do we prove wrongful intent