PvP Requests to Portalarium

Depends on the fishing system, In some systems if you are fishing in a fishing spot that can be fished out others can run up, put in their lines, clean out the spot and make you move, and keep doing that to you. There are always ways to mess with people. Even if that isn't the case, and you can fish 1 spot forever(Unlikely), you can have people jumping around in front of you, distracting you, emoting things in front of you

 

Seriously, thats what you think is happening in MMO's that compares to griefing and ganking? People constantly coming out and taking fishing spots from people? This conversation has turned to the absurd. Again.

No one gives a care about that. They care about griefing.

 

As with chat, they do not design the system based on griefing and they take steps to minimize that griefing with it comes up. PvP is no different, they are not going to design PvP around griefing.

 

Minimizing grieving is not acceptable to me. Complete elimination of griefing needs to happen, which is consensual pvp.

 

That would be the part about not designing PvP around griefing. Then, if there is still some form of griefing popping up, address that too.

 

PK does not mean involuntary PvP. If I am flagged for Open PvP, if that ever happens, but I am not in a guild war, that doesn't mean anyone can walk up and take a swing at me. Just as in real life, that would be a crime, and if there were a criminal system in the game (no sign of one to my knowledge), that should flag the offender as a criminal, and the criminal should be subject to attack with no criminal penalty. We are both flagged for PvP, so it is entirely voluntary on both our parts, but by introducing the concept of criminal acts, it gives this game based upon Virtues some actual Virtuous actions that can either be violated or defended.

The attacker is a PK since they are conducting a criminal attack. As a result, the Anti-PK, working in defense of the Virtues, can oppose that criminal attack by attempting to bring the criminal to justice.

People need to stop going into convulsions at the mere mention of the term PK.

 

Just so we are on the same page and to illustrate griefing is more than PVP and not something that can be eliminated. Just like hacking it cannot be stopped only mitigated. If you only think of griefing as PVP related then there no reason to discuss it since it has been said you can avoid that part of the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

 

They have already eliminated all grief. Friends only, and single player. With two easy modes why insist on a third?

 

Of course it can be eliminated, and easily too. Just don't allow non consensual pvp. Done. Couldn't be simpler. Case closed.

 

My point is the convulsions are from disagreeing on definitions. What term can be used for player attacking players that simply have no interest in PvP? People are using the term PK for that while others come running in to defend the term PK.

Set the term to clear the confusion.

 

The point above is the one that worries me the most. I know there is a lot of players out there that want open PvP and are proper role-players but unfortunately there is a also a lot of players within that group of players that simply do not role-play and that will ruin my gaming experience. That was the case in UO and every RPG I have tested that had open PvP.

 

I agree. We haven't seen exactly how the "slider" system will work in play and some people seem very for or against it.

 

If the person being attacked has no interest in PvP despite being flagged for PvP, then I'd call them a fool for getting upset.

The attacker, also flagged, had no way of knowing the other player's intent. They just want to PvP for whatever reason they like. I'd call the attacker a normal PvPer. Or a PK. Whatever they prefer.

If I remember right, PK stands for 'Player Killer,' doesn't it? Don't you murder other players in PvP? So you've got PK, PvPer, and murderer. These terms all mean the same thing.

Distinguishing them seems pointless. Attaching a negative connotation to one and not to the others: pointless.

If someone hasn't consented to PvP ( they're not flagged), then they're not getting attacked. If they're in a dangerous zone, then they've consented to PvP having knowingly stepped into said zone. If they get attacked, nobody's at fault: both parties consented.

Killing that player within the accepted norm isn't griefing.

It seems like a non-issue to me.

Sent from my EVA Unit-01 using Tapatalk

 

Sent from my EVA Unit-01 using Tapatalk

 

It all depends on where consent is decided.

When people are verbalizing their dislike of a specific play style and no one can agree on a term it is an issue. If it wasn't there wouldn't be such a heavy back lash from people when the term PK is used one way or the other.

So if it's a non issue, I take it you are fine with people using the term PK for the one specific play style that defines the type of player that attacks someone that does not consent to PvP but has no choice in the flagging.

 

I'd say that consent starts when you knowingly commit.

I think that a lot of the confusion is coming from the individuals who automatically associated murder with griefing. But, murder can only happen in dangerous hexes in this game.

So, if they don't want to consent, then they won't have to go to these zones.

And, again, as far as having 'no choice': don't enter the zone. Or, enter it. That's the choice.

Sent from my EVA Unit-01 using Tapatalk

 

And the same could be said for pvpers. You want pvp, then fill your friends list with other pvpers.

 

Bit of arguing over semantics. I know it helps to all be on the same page but to me if you are playing in a game which allows other players to kill you, you have consented.

What I do find strange is the fact that if the plethora of PvP threads 'won't affect the devs' why anti Pk/non-consent/gank/grief crowd argue so furiously against it...

 

That makes no sense in regards to this game. Show me one clear statement that was ever made in regards to this game saying that by buying a plot, house or donating money, that we were giving our unconditional consent to be griefed and ganked whether we like it or not.

yeesh.

 

Still avoiding the question.

Not knowing how consent is handled, people will post what they want or do not want. Some are going to use the term PK to define that. Then others will come in and blast them for defining PK as a griefer.

You can type away all day, defending the term PK, and never give them a new term. Or you can give them a term and stop the miscommunication.

Till then, PK will be used to define the play style of a person that is asking for PvP to allow them to attack people that do not consent.