PVP. One Language. One Voice.

I'm roleplaying an Avatar Killer. Avatar's are players by default. Therefore I'm a Player Killer.

Player Killing and Griefing are not synonymous. Griefing is another term not defined above, which has been overused. Griefing can occur without ever killing a player. In fact, griefing is often an action that uses the mechanics of the game in ways that they were not intended. I've seen as much griefing in non-pvp games than I have anywhere. It's just that being killed by another player is one of the most direct and confrontational ways to be griefed.

 

Sure, griefing applies to all sorts of activities.

If you're an Avatar killer are you going to kill yourself, since all players are Avatrs? Are you planning to kill Avatars indiscriminately, in some sort of ethnic cleansing?

 

Agreed, griefing is a much larger subject and goes WAY beyond just player killing; I can grief you by dropping boxes or spamming your chat log, etc.

 

This is the way I see it also. PK used in a non grief play style is PvP. But some PvPers wish to define it as PK. So it's either define PvP to encompass the PK non grief play style or segment off the term to separate the PvP PK and the harassment PK.

 

Yes, I'm going to kill myself because I'm an Avatar. I'm going to roleplay it the whole time too.

Just like a Bounty Hunter only kills other bounty hunters.

 

I hope you can keep in context of the subject here. Once again I understand how you feel. But when you converse with other people and talk in the same language which is the reason for this post. What you are saying is not even a global accepted definition.

This is a recognized definition of a griefer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

Once again we are redefining terms to match SOTA. So you can disagree if you want, but if everyone else agrees to these definitions and terms I hope you will abide by them. This is the problem we are trying to solve. You are using PK as a negative term just like another word that was banned. Many PKs do not see themselves that way and non-consensual attacks will not be possible, so we need to move past old prejudices.

 

Are you using Anti-PK as in you are not for players who kill other players? That is definitely not the correct term.

"Anti-PK = Not to be confused with Noto-PKs, Anti-PKs are not necessarily the good guys but will kill only players who have a reputation for random player killing while maintaining a "good" game mechanic standing."

 

A PK is someone who goes red in a karma system.

If there's no non-consensual PvP, I doubt there will be a karma system and thus have no PKs.

You can still role play an evil guild or faction.
You can still troll people in chat (or on the forums).
PvE griefing comes down to kill / node stealing and ninja looting, which I hope they're smart enough to fix, as modern games have moved beyond this.

 

PK is synonymous with Random Player Killing which is why there is terms as Anti-PK, Noto-PK, PKK, RP-PK. PK is not a general term...PvP would encompass all those terms.

 

I am good with defining PK as having no place in SotA. This way when anyone mentions PK, shoot it down as not possible. Drop the term PK all together.

 

Agreed. However, as a lot of PVP can be structured in nature it make sense to divide PK into a larger bucket. I think if we have too many PVP or PK labels it just gets too confusing and we will be back to where we are now. We need something people can understand at a glance, but represents enough of the various playstyles to have a conversations without arguments.

Honestly, I think PK is the core issue which, as seen in the thread, is mainly defined as a Griefer which I think is not 100% accurate or fair to those that play the evil roles without the desire just to harass someone.

 

How would you feel if the playstyle label you relate to was dropped? I agree it would be easier to drop the term; however, unlike the alternate PVEer term, many enjoy this label and it is not fair to have this term entirely removed because some of these players may have been abusive. I would rather allow this term to be reclaimed and defined; although I would like to have a self-identified PK weight in on their feelings about this.

I think PKs will have a valid role in SOTA, and I think many PVPers hope they will as well. There is not true good people without evils to fight. The only difference is they can only attack people open to attack. It just means the definition changes. My hope is we can move past bigotry and assumptions and relate all these playstyles in a context that is legal within SOTA.

 

To reference this specifically, the context of RP is within the game world. In SOTA, the lore is that you ARE you. So Frank in your example can RP himself and that is fine. An RPer, however, would not act as if they were playing a video game and instead act as if they actually stepped through a portal into this new world. An RPer acts as if their character were actually in that world. Since the lore is that we can from Earth, being Frank here and there would be within the lore of the game and thus legal. However, Frank might not be an RPer (or at least primarily an RPer) if he kept talking about needing to upgrade his computer while playing his character in-game: at least without the use of an Out-Of-Character delimiter (usually //, ((, or OOC - I need to upgrade my computer.)

 

Drop the term, regroup it into a different term, create a new term, all good for me. The problem we keep running into is that for some the term PK carries the weight of consent vs non consent.

Leaving the term PK as is opens the topic to having to listen to people demand non consensual PvP. This is where the PvP thread get derailed every time.

 

We need to be careful about cutting hairs. By this regard we have to remove all the other labels as well. PVE and PVP both include player in them, so may be inaccurate to an RPG, so maybe they should be Civilian or Soldier. Role Playing is a meta-gaming action, so maybe it should not be used as well.

Player Killer is an accurate term to me. Take Role Playing out of the equation and they are people who just want to kill other players in an unstructured way. This is normally a villainous role because there is normal an etiquette to combat which they most likely won't employ.

 

I think we should rid of terms period. Lets start from scratch and just create a fun game that can be online, offline, open world, or with friends only. Take yourself back to 1997 where terms such as PvP,Pk, and lol(it actually meant loser on line for a bit!) were in their infancy. This is a new game, and the goal is to revolutionize the gaming world once again, just like it was done back when UO first started.
Reason why I think we need to lose the terms is because their old and outdated. Game hasnt been created yet.

Lets take a look at the word "PK" for a moment. Think about it... Do you want the guards in the game to pop out and bash someone who attacked you and say "I got the PK for you". PK is a slang term created by gamers to label those who kill other players basically... And yea often to greif. Now the "nice PK's" dont do things like rez-kill you or tea bag you. They just kill you and they might even rez you and give all your stuff back. Which I beleive is a silly thing to do, its just the opposite extreme.
If at any point in the game a player murders another player ideally I dont want some funky slang term created. If a player murder's another player its just the way things go, the story/quest unfolded that way (and ideally its only a minor loss/setback for the victim and one that doesn't kill his/her motivation to keep playing). We might as well come up with a term for someone who loots houses. Call them an HL for house looter. Only reason the slang term PK came about was most likely from people who did more than just create an immersive challenge for other players, the just whacked another player and said something like: "1122232212211 lolz newb u just got pwned!" and then maybe rez killed em 4 or 5 times.
If we are going to create an interesting, immersive quest based game and allow player conflict then we need a game where stuff like that isnt happening all the time to the point we need some two letter abbreviation for them.

 

Abydos, I would really like your definition of a PK on record if you would not mind. I would also like to know your feelings on a new term to relate to this type of playstyle in SOTA. I hate to take the term away since many identify with it, but changing the label would avoid prejudices that some seem hard to let go of.

All opinions have a place in this community.

 

I agree with you, but SOTA will involve a lot of people who identify themselves very differently from one another. Perhaps when all the feature are public and the game launches all of this become unnecessary, and we will live is a perfect world. However, I think we have seen there is a need when discussion these features to relate them to a specific playstyle. The goal is to have a common ground on what these mean as an attempt to avoid mis-communications when someone references a specific group.

 

Ugh, is anyone else here sick of seeing these PVP threads everywhere? Every other thread being started on the forums lately is PvP this PvP that, PVP PVP PVP PVP. Will some developer spill the beans about all of the details already so we won't continue to be bombarded by these repetitive threads that are beating this topic into the ground?

 

hm, where do i fit in ? i just enjoy the thrill of loosing everthing in a open pvp world which gives my gamelife/items somekind of value, ive never beign a PK, still i LOVE Full OPEN PVP as a Playstyle