Yeah, as I said before I absolutely don't want to discourage anyone from contacting the administration if you feel attacked or harassed. Please do. Forums or issues or messages; do it. Make sure you're enjoying Imperian.
I just think it's important to clarify to somebody like @Wyll, who seems very much the type to expect rules to be followed to the letter, that that expectation is one that makes PK frustrating. Updating HELP PK is a worthwhile endeavor as long as it is done while also emphasizing that you're probably going to die a couple of arguably illegal deaths if you engage in PK or with a PKer), that even the defined rules are going to be pushed by multiple people, and that PK is supposed to be fun, and if you're not having fun you can opt-out without administrative intervention at literally any point provided you're willing to die to somebody you don't like.
I'm not trying to enable poor behavior or create an atmosphere where rule-breaking is normalized - especially when a certain somebody is walking around killing people just because they're bored (lets all stop and stare @ them rn). Only instead hoping to encourage the combat mindset where you don't have to feel victimized or angry over a death or two, where you don't throw around profanity or accusations of harassment that are simply not the case, and where you are able to navigate a fun and largely consequence-free aspect of the game with full control over your actions, reactions and options.
I expect rules to be followed because they're put in place for a reason, but I respect that situations overall are looked at on a case by case basis. If I break a rule I expect to be fully punished. Why shouldn't another player be punished for breaking rules? You talk about frustration, but you're failing to see it from the point of view of players who are equally frustrated by griefers. I wasn't even the one griefed, but I understand why they're frustrated all the same. Also we have a handful of forum regulars who are PK oriented and I am of the minority, but I'll still voice my opinion all the same because an echo chamber of the same opinions isn't engaging or healthy.
I'm willing to take my lumps if I engage in PK and I have as of late when I raided Khandava with Antioch and got bountied for it. I wasn't even mad when that bounty was fulfilled because I knew full well going in I'd be enemied and bountied. I engage in defending my city(dying quite a bit) and will engage in bringing back home objectives because it makes since RP wise. Wandering into a city every single day to paint trash and pestering the same two players everyday is griefing.
But there is a clear blur in interpretation of PK rules and the evidence is in the responses. So instead of asking for clarification first before acting out(which finally happened in this thread), we have players who are pissed to the point of nerd rage levels when they're issued.
At the end of the day this is a game and I just wished players were more mindful of the fact that there is another human on the other end of the screen who just wants to have a little fun too.
You say, "Oh crap." You say, "My bottle is empty." Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly. Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
Wandering into a city every single day to paint trash and pestering the same two players everyday is griefing.
But there is a clear blur in interpretation of PK rules and the evidence is in the responses. So instead of asking for clarification first before acting out(which finally happened in this thread), we have players who are pissed to the point of nerd rage levels when they're issued.
At the end of the day this is a game and I just wished players were more mindful of the fact that there is another human on the other end of the screen who just wants to have a little fun too.
So much this. A lot of the troubles around PK/PVP in _any_ game is the fact that it tends to become unthinking catharsis, and not only do a lot of people not stop to consider the fact that it's another player on the other end, they don't care, because the catharsis feels good. And therein lies the problem, especially if you empower people who are being destructive with that catharsis by calling the people negatively affected by it "whiners". And telling them to just "deal with it" or "take your lumps" tends to be more destructive than constructive in the long run because you are not addressing their problems, you are telling them to ignore them, which usually only lets them ferment. The proper thing here is to have IN-CHARACTER ways to resolve this. Which there isn't now, for a lot of this.
The juvenile paint stuff around Antioch right now frankly is something that made me think about sodding right the back off of Imperian when I logged onto it for the first time after my month-long stretch of hospital/illness fun. It's purile and immature but most importantly, it's just not fun to deal with that kind of griefing, frankly. I would happily make myself open PK removing that stuff or whatever because I give zero care whether that I did in that context and I know I'm hardly the only person bothered by it, but you can't. It just stays until it expires.
Yes, this kind of griefing creates conflict - but not all conflict is equal. Some of it is desirable. Some of it is not. If all of it was desirable, Issues, HELP PK, and administration intervention in PVP wouldn't exist at all.
It'd also be stellar if boosts to non-PK stuff didn't require participation in conflict generation mechanisms to acquire them - harvest boosts from shards, for example. Give non-PKers a way to contribute without becoming targets or beggars.
But.. the conflict part makes it so the victors can sell shards for profit
(Ring): Lartus says, "I heard Theophilus once threw a grenade and killed ten people." (Ring): Lartus says, "Then it exploded."
(Ring): Zsetsu says, "Everyone's playing checkers, but Theophilus is playing chess."
In that case, I'd say you were 'raiding' by trespassing. You can deal with them if they defend, but you can't go hunting them down afterward. Monolith is out in the open so it's different, or if say the bounty was hunting and the same happened then you could deal with the helper later if you wanted.
I have a question too. I remember a while back @Theophilus came to collect a bounty on me. Cyr defended me - Theo died. Theo then said "that's one death for everytime someone defends you", because "it's just a bounty". I feel like this is also excessive. PK rights on Cyr, yes... But another death each time I did not die? Thoughts?
I am fine with players killing for this reason. Unless this is happening in a city, in which the attacking player is considered a raider (if an official raid is going on or not). In this case we are talking about a city defender.
8) While we keep absolute PK rules as minimal as possible, there are PK situations that have some additional guidelines: champions, assassinations, raiding, bounties, and shardfalls. These are optional systems, but if you do participate, you need to know the rules. See HELP BOUNTIES, HELP RAIDING, HELP CHAMPIONS, HELP ASSASSINATION, and HELP SHARDS for more information.
Updated HELP SHARDS with:
Note: Players are open to PK from other players while in areas with an active Shardfall in them, participating or not. If another character engages you in combat while you are in the area, and you flee, attacking characters are permitted to continue their assault for a reasonable amount of time. If you are the attacker in this situation, we expect to see that you engaged the other character while they were in the area and continued to chase and press the attack as they fled.
Updated HELP BOUNTIES with:
If you participate in the optional bounty system, you are willingly putting yourself into a PK situation. If you accept a bounty and then attack or kill another character in a bounty, you are opting into the system and that character can attempt to get revenge on you within the normal PK rules.
Updated HELP ASSASSINATIONS with:
If you participate in the optional assassination system, you are willingly putting yourself into a PK situation. If you accept a contract and then attack or kill another character, you are opting into the system and that character can attempt to get revenge on you within the normal PK rules.
The one thing that I've personally been a bit miffed for in the past was shardfalls. One happened in a bashing area I was in - can't recall which but it doesn't matter - and almost immediately someone jumped me before anyone could have reasonably even found shards, let alone harvested them. This seems like the kind of thing that's in adherence with the letter of the rules but probably not the spirit of them. It seems reasonable to say if you go after someone when the fall first drops and they just sod off elsewhere and don't come back (as I did), it's probably not much of a reasonable PK .. er, reason, at that point. (Last sentence brought to you by the redundant department of redundancy).
The whole help file needs to be updated, but.. HELP SHARDS outlines the shard PK rules. HELP RAIDING outlines raiding PK rules. HELP BOUNTIES did outline what I thought were the bounty rules, but now it needs updating if you are allowed to retaliate on someone fufilling a bounty on you.
So then where does that end?
Laeka fulfills a bounty on Wyll -> Wyll finds Laeka and retaliates -> Laeka finds Wyll to retaliate for the retaliation -> Well, F it, Wyll wants more retaliation - > infinity.
And now if we are allowed to retaliate for someone fufilling a bounty on us, you need to make it so that bounties can't be fufilled during raids. Because if you are defending your city from raiders and there is a bounty out for them from your org, they now have an excuse to come after you after the raid has ended on that technicality.
I know we talked about this before, but I will post my response to this question here as well.
If you take a bounty (or contract) on someone and attack them, they can kill you back, even if you fail to fulfill the bounty (as long as you have attacked them). It has always been like this, and I don't think we have ever had an issue filed over it. Bounties are an optional system and you do not have to participate. It is a coded way to generate PK for interested parties.
The circular PK can happen in any RP based PK as well, at some point someone just has to say they are done and does not go back after the other person.
As for the raid bounties, we could change that code so that they are not fulfilled when in an official raid, if people prefer that. I am trying to think if there is a downside to that, but I have not come up with one quite yet.
The one thing that I've personally been a bit miffed for in the past was shardfalls. One happened in a bashing area I was in - can't recall which but it doesn't matter - and almost immediately someone jumped me before anyone could have reasonably even found shards, let alone harvested them. This seems like the kind of thing that's in adherence with the letter of the rules but probably not the spirit of them. It seems reasonable to say if you go after someone when the fall first drops and they just sod off elsewhere and don't come back (as I did), it's probably not much of a reasonable PK .. er, reason, at that point. (Last sentence brought to you by the redundant department of redundancy).
Yeah, I can see how this would be pretty annoying.
Wandering into a city every single day to paint trash and pestering the same two players everyday is griefing.
The juvenile paint stuff around Antioch right now frankly is something that made me think about sodding right the back off of Imperian when I logged onto it for the first time after my month-long stretch of hospital/illness fun. It's purile and immature but most importantly, it's just not fun to deal with that kind of griefing, frankly.
I painted your city one time. ONE SINGLE TIME. And that's griefing? If that's enough to make you want to quit the game.. then I'm LoLing at you. I paid credits to be able to paint offensive stuff (not to excess, of course), and if you make Theo mad of course he's going to come graffiti your city and brag about having Bina. One single time I paint your city and you act like I killed you 50 times in a row. CALM. DOWN.
(Ring): Lartus says, "I heard Theophilus once threw a grenade and killed ten people." (Ring): Lartus says, "Then it exploded."
(Ring): Zsetsu says, "Everyone's playing checkers, but Theophilus is playing chess."
Wandering into a city every single day to paint trash and pestering the same two players everyday is griefing.
The juvenile paint stuff around Antioch right now frankly is something that made me think about sodding right the back off of Imperian when I logged onto it for the first time after my month-long stretch of hospital/illness fun. It's purile and immature but most importantly, it's just not fun to deal with that kind of griefing, frankly.
I painted your city one time. ONE SINGLE TIME. And that's griefing? If that's enough to make you want to quit the game.. then I'm LoLing at you. I paid credits to be able to paint offensive stuff (not to excess, of course), and if you make Theo mad of course he's going to come graffiti your city and brag about having Bina. One single time I paint your city and you act like I killed you 50 times in a row. CALM. DOWN.
Number of times saying "calm down" has in the history of humanity actually calmed anyone down: probably zero.
People see that every time they traverse those rooms until they expire, that's not the same as one tell of someone being a douchebag who you can then SNUB anyways.
Wandering into a city every single day to paint trash and pestering the same two players everyday is griefing.
The juvenile paint stuff around Antioch right now frankly is something that made me think about sodding right the back off of Imperian when I logged onto it for the first time after my month-long stretch of hospital/illness fun. It's purile and immature but most importantly, it's just not fun to deal with that kind of griefing, frankly.
I painted your city one time. ONE SINGLE TIME. And that's griefing? If that's enough to make you want to quit the game.. then I'm LoLing at you. I paid credits to be able to paint offensive stuff (not to excess, of course), and if you make Theo mad of course he's going to come graffiti your city and brag about having Bina. One single time I paint your city and you act like I killed you 50 times in a row. CALM. DOWN.
Man, I can't wait until summer is over so the kids go back to school.
You say, "Oh crap." You say, "My bottle is empty." Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly. Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
I have a question too. I remember a while back @Theophilus came to collect a bounty on me. Cyr defended me - Theo died. Theo then said "that's one death for everytime someone defends you", because "it's just a bounty". I feel like this is also excessive. PK rights on Cyr, yes... But another death each time I did not die? Thoughts?
I am fine with players killing for this reason. Unless this is happening in a city, in which the attacking player is considered a raider (if an official raid is going on or not). In this case we are talking about a city defender.
Just so we're clear, if we are taking out the environment being a city and using the people in this scenario, it is acceptable for Theo to keep going after Zerin and adding 'one death for everytime someone defends you' even if he's already fulfilled a bounty?
You say, "Oh crap." You say, "My bottle is empty." Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly. Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
Right. And I never had any intention of doing it. Words ~= action. That was a tell intended to simply get Zerin to accept her death. If I had actually attacked and killed her multiple times, it would be a violation of the rules. But I didn't. I only said I would. You guys are taking things out of context and blowing things way out of proportion for no reason at all.
(Ring): Lartus says, "I heard Theophilus once threw a grenade and killed ten people." (Ring): Lartus says, "Then it exploded."
(Ring): Zsetsu says, "Everyone's playing checkers, but Theophilus is playing chess."
Player A attacks Player B for a bounty. (Outside of a city)
Player C attacks Player A to defend Player B.
Player A can then kill Player C then or at a later time. (This is what I meant was fine)
Player A DOES NOT get to kill Player B an extra time because Player C defended him successfully.
I think this is what you are talking about. Let me know if I'm confused or if that is confusing.
Yes, that is what I was asking about. But you just cleared it up with those bullet points. I thought you were saying it was okay for player A to kill player B an extra time for having player C defend.
Thanks for the clear up.
You say, "Oh crap." You say, "My bottle is empty." Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly. Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
Right. And I never had any intention of doing it. Words ~= action. That was a tell intended to simply get Zerin to accept her death. If I had actually attacked and killed her multiple times, it would be a violation of the rules. But I didn't. I only said I would. You guys are taking things out of context and blowing things way out of proportion for no reason at all.
This is the last thing I'm going to say to you on the forums because you've started getting pretty hostile through IG tells with me over forum content, but we are here to have a discussion about PK in a gasp, PK thread about PK rules!
No one is taking anything out of context, the context is PK and we are asking questions about it.
You say, "Oh crap." You say, "My bottle is empty." Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly. Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
Uuuusually when I go to falls, I use a detection ability that senses harvesting and avoid relative non-coms who aren't touching shards or grouped with people who are. Since you have to use a shard to activate it, you can't rely on it as an overall PK-gating mechanic in shardfalls, though. Personally, I'm okay with a marker that makes you glow shard juju if you harvest or are near a harvest and fades either after you 1m or so if you're just near or when you are no longer a shard pin~ata (imo you accept more risk if you actively harvest/are holding volatile shards). E - If you're just in the area of a major shardfall, I guess it could make you glow too, but it'd have to clear pretty quickly if you left area without participating.
Personally, I'm okay with a marker that makes you glow shard juju if you harvest or are near a harvest and fades either after 1m or so if you're just near or when you are no longer a shard pin~ata (imo you accept more risk if you actively harvest/are holding volatile shards)
Honestly? Although I was miffed at that occurance, I can also see why it occurs. So yeah, marking active participants could be useful maybe, but I am not too bothered by how it functions now. My suggestion would be more like, maybe give a message before the actual shardfall is going to happen? Like a couple minute "here's your warning to move bashing zones if you don't wanna participate in PK sort of thing"
Aetolia has glowy people for their similar conflict mechanic and it seems to work pretty well.
I dig this as a thing to prevent passers through and unsuspecting bashers from being ganked.
The more I think on this the more I agree with this as a workable solution because from my understanding of the codebase (based on comments Eoghan, Jeremy, et al have made in the past), I *think* this might the easiest way to add in something mechanically that would ease this.
One of the reasons we have hesitated to put in that solution is that we don't want to
Remove the ability to stealth harvest single shard drops
Make it obvious who is harvesting during large shardfalls (beyond the SHARD AWARENESS ability)
I don't see how 1 is a concern in that if you are trying to surreptitiously harvest shards, you would probably trying to get in and out as quickly as possible and evade any possible pursuit, so having a pressure that incentivizes doing that all the more doesn't seem counter-productive. Of course, this is assuming that any such "debuff" effect was removed after a reasonable period of not harvesting or taking aggressive actions in the same area.
Re 2 - The glow shouldn't be visibly different based on how you got it, so it shouldn't reveal the harvester. Re 1 - This might be a more valid concern, but I don't personally feel like that would outweigh the benefit of Shard PK being clearly delineated. Just aye em oh.
I don't think anybody took anything out of context, it was a legitimate question I had! And now my question has been answered, so that's all I really have to say on it. I think this is a good thread, to clarify some common issues. I don't think anybody really needs to get defensive about things said on here.
I have a question too. I remember a while back @Theophilus came to collect a bounty on me. Cyr defended me - Theo died. Theo then said "that's one death for everytime someone defends you", because "it's just a bounty". I feel like this is also excessive. PK rights on Cyr, yes... But another death each time I did not die? Thoughts?
I am fine with players killing for this reason. Unless this is happening in a city, in which the attacking player is considered a raider (if an official raid is going on or not). In this case we are talking about a city defender.
@Jeremy You are talking about PK rights on Cyr, right? You are not saying that it is ok for Zerin to be killed multiple times for each failed kill on Theo's part, correct?
Comments
I expect rules to be followed because they're put in place for a reason, but I respect that situations overall are looked at on a case by case basis. If I break a rule I expect to be fully punished. Why shouldn't another player be punished for breaking rules? You talk about frustration, but you're failing to see it from the point of view of players who are equally frustrated by griefers. I wasn't even the one griefed, but I understand why they're frustrated all the same. Also we have a handful of forum regulars who are PK oriented and I am of the minority, but I'll still voice my opinion all the same because an echo chamber of the same opinions isn't engaging or healthy.
I'm willing to take my lumps if I engage in PK and I have as of late when I raided Khandava with Antioch and got bountied for it. I wasn't even mad when that bounty was fulfilled because I knew full well going in I'd be enemied and bountied. I engage in defending my city(dying quite a bit) and will engage in bringing back home objectives because it makes since RP wise. Wandering into a city every single day to paint trash and pestering the same two players everyday is griefing.
But there is a clear blur in interpretation of PK rules and the evidence is in the responses. So instead of asking for clarification first before acting out(which finally happened in this thread), we have players who are pissed to the point of nerd rage levels when they're issued.
At the end of the day this is a game and I just wished players were more mindful of the fact that there is another human on the other end of the screen who just wants to have a little fun too.
You say, "My bottle is empty."
Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly.
Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
The juvenile paint stuff around Antioch right now frankly is something that made me think about sodding right the back off of Imperian when I logged onto it for the first time after my month-long stretch of hospital/illness fun. It's purile and immature but most importantly, it's just not fun to deal with that kind of griefing, frankly. I would happily make myself open PK removing that stuff or whatever because I give zero care whether that I did in that context and I know I'm hardly the only person bothered by it, but you can't. It just stays until it expires.
Yes, this kind of griefing creates conflict - but not all conflict is equal. Some of it is desirable. Some of it is not. If all of it was desirable, Issues, HELP PK, and administration intervention in PVP wouldn't exist at all.
(Ring): Lartus says, "Then it exploded."
(Ring): Zsetsu says, "Everyone's playing checkers, but Theophilus is playing chess."
8) While we keep absolute PK rules as minimal as possible, there are PK situations that have some additional guidelines: champions, assassinations, raiding, bounties, and shardfalls. These are optional systems, but if you do participate, you need to know the rules. See HELP BOUNTIES, HELP RAIDING, HELP CHAMPIONS, HELP ASSASSINATION, and HELP SHARDS for more information.
Updated HELP SHARDS with:
Note: Players are open to PK from other players while in areas with an active Shardfall in them, participating or not. If another character engages you in combat while you are in the area, and you flee, attacking characters are permitted to continue their assault for a reasonable amount of time. If you are the attacker in this situation, we expect to see that you engaged the other character while they were in the area and continued to chase and press the attack as they fled.
Updated HELP BOUNTIES with:
If you participate in the optional bounty system, you are willingly putting yourself into a PK situation. If you accept a bounty and then attack or kill another character in a bounty, you are opting into the system and that character can attempt to get revenge on you within the normal PK rules.
Updated HELP ASSASSINATIONS with:
If you participate in the optional assassination system, you are willingly putting yourself into a PK situation. If you accept a contract and then attack or kill another character, you are opting into the system and that character can attempt to get revenge on you within the normal PK rules.
If you take a bounty (or contract) on someone and attack them, they can kill you back, even if you fail to fulfill the bounty (as long as you have attacked them). It has always been like this, and I don't think we have ever had an issue filed over it. Bounties are an optional system and you do not have to participate. It is a coded way to generate PK for interested parties.
The circular PK can happen in any RP based PK as well, at some point someone just has to say they are done and does not go back after the other person.
As for the raid bounties, we could change that code so that they are not fulfilled when in an official raid, if people prefer that. I am trying to think if there is a downside to that, but I have not come up with one quite yet.
(Ring): Lartus says, "Then it exploded."
(Ring): Zsetsu says, "Everyone's playing checkers, but Theophilus is playing chess."
People see that every time they traverse those rooms until they expire, that's not the same as one tell of someone being a douchebag who you can then SNUB anyways.
Man, I can't wait until summer is over so the kids go back to school.
You say, "My bottle is empty."
Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly.
Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
Just so we're clear, if we are taking out the environment being a city and using the people in this scenario, it is acceptable for Theo to keep going after Zerin and adding 'one death for everytime someone defends you' even if he's already fulfilled a bounty?
You say, "My bottle is empty."
Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly.
Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
- Player A attacks Player B for a bounty. (Outside of a city)
- Player C attacks Player A to defend Player B.
- Player A can then kill Player C then or at a later time. (This is what I meant was fine)
- Player A DOES NOT get to kill Player B an extra time because Player C defended him successfully.
I think this is what you are talking about. Let me know if I'm confused or if that is confusing.(Ring): Lartus says, "Then it exploded."
(Ring): Zsetsu says, "Everyone's playing checkers, but Theophilus is playing chess."
Thanks for the clear up.
You say, "My bottle is empty."
Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly.
Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
No one is taking anything out of context, the context is PK and we are asking questions about it.
You say, "My bottle is empty."
Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly.
Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
E - If you're just in the area of a major shardfall, I guess it could make you glow too, but it'd have to clear pretty quickly if you left area without participating.
I dig this as a thing to prevent passers through and unsuspecting bashers from being ganked.
My 2c anyways.
Re 2 - The glow shouldn't be visibly different based on how you got it, so it shouldn't reveal the harvester.
Re 1 - This might be a more valid concern, but I don't personally feel like that would outweigh the benefit of Shard PK being clearly delineated. Just aye em oh.
@Jeremy You are talking about PK rights on Cyr, right? You are not saying that it is ok for Zerin to be killed multiple times for each failed kill on Theo's part, correct?