There is no Pk in SotA, only Consentual Virtuous/Antivirtuous

Exactly. Some ignore it. But PK is not just a definition of Game Style anymore.

If someone calls me a PK i am closer to a Banned person then if i am associated to a PvP.

I have come to hate this "PK" word. It is just negative.

 

Well that happens if words are abused always.

Once upon a time there was a "New Being" in Ultima Online.
Something positive. Defining a way of pointing out that we can welcome a new player to our exciting word.

Then the players made a short cut: Newbie

Now it is used all over the Gaming World to offend someone: NooB, NooB, Noob.

Same for me it is happening with PK

 

Exactly Myrcello. What ever connotation you put on pvp its still all the same. EVERYONE who pvp's is a player killer. They do not pillow fight in the field until people are knocked out. They attack each other until they are dead. Virtuous, anti virtuous, they all are guilty of PK. If a pvp player kills one of the OOV, OOV calls in the troops right? Now they are seeking vengeance for the lose of their brother. This might have been the pvp'rs first kill after playing in single player leveling up for a few days. Now 4-6 guys jump him on sight for one honest kill. Who is Virtuous, who is not? Who is the pk, who is not? The line is not always visible and will always become blurred. Now I just used OOV as an example and have not seen or heard them doing this, it was pure speculation to prove a point. The reason I want to get away from the term player killer is that it does carry the negativity with it. Lord British games are supposed to be about virtue, and lack there of. Lets try to use terms game appropriate here. We are virtuous or anti virtuous.

Different Play styles:

Virtuous - tries to do the moral good or "right" thing all the time
virtuous
adjective
1.
conforming to moral and ethical principles; morally excellent; upright:
Lead a virtuous life.
2.
chaste:
a virtuous young person.

Anti Virtuous - evil, morally bad or wrong, immoral, deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong,contrary to conscience or morality or law, not righteous, evil, vicious, having the nature of vice, heavy (of an actor or role) being or playing the villain, heinous, extremely wicked, deeply criminal, iniquitous, sinful, ungodly, characterized by iniquity, wicked because it is believed to be a sin, irreclaimable, irredeemable, unredeemable, unreformable, insusceptible of reform, nefarious, villainous,

PvP -
Player(s) versus player(s), or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants.[1] This is in contrast to games where players compete against computer controlled opponents and/or players, which is correspondingly referred to as player versus environment (PvE). The terms are most often used in games where both activities exist,[2] particularly MMORPGs, MUDs, and other role-playing video games.
PvP can be broadly used to describe any game, or aspect of a game, where players compete against each other. In computer role-playing games, PvP is sometimes called player killing or PKing. This is the Point I am making: PvP is PK
PvP is often controversial when used in role-playing games. In most role-playing games, there are vast differences in abilities between experienced and novice players. PvP, when poorly designed, can encourage experienced players to immediately attack and kill inexperienced players before they have even had an opportunity to play.[3] - This is why SotA went to only Consensual PvP flags.


PK - Player Killer. This means anyone that kills another player

Griefer -
grief·er
ˈɡrēfə/
noun
informal
noun: griefer; plural noun: griefers

1. (in an online game or community) a person who harasses or deliberately provokes other players or members in order to spoil their enjoyment.
   "a class of entrepreneurs is emerging who see griefers not just as an annoyance but as a potential source of lost revenue" - This is the word you use instead of PK, as this is the context you use PK in.

 

I said it once, I say it again and I'll keep saying till my keyboard will have keys.

PK TEARS BEST TEARS.

 

It seems like a war of definitions here. Whatever the terms, it seems to me that pvp'ers who do not attack another simply because they can but instead need a reason to attack, are fairly differentiated from pvp'ers who do attack others for no other reason than because they can, and have fun doing so. Pvp need not always mean kill anything you see that moves, and pvp'ers who treat it as such are fairly differentiated, by whatever reasonable description is chosen (whether PK'er, murderer, maniac, etc.).

Pvp *can* be viewed as a pure slaughter zone where everyone kills anyone on sight and where all are expected to do so, but there are other ways to treat an open pvp zone. Some may form factions where they fight each other (but not just murder anyone they see) and this would be pvp. Unless by definition we are trying to turn pvp into meaning "maniacal slaughter zone where everyone kills each other and those who don't automatically do so are these wierd guys who don't understand what pvp means" or such.

From an r/p'er perspective (and yes, you can have pvp r/p'ers of course), it is valid (if not terribly creative) to play as a maniac who kills on sight, some are calling that PK'ers, others are suggesting pvp in general inherently implies wanton killing without reason. It seems *most* here are saying it is valid within open pvp to behave as a maniac, but there is debate over whether maniacal pvp behaviour is fairly differentiated by the term "PK'er" from other pvp styles.

If there are no in-game rules applied to so-called PK'ers (which can be a simple as NPC guards attacking them, NPC's being reluctant to trade with them, etc.) then I am not sure there is any usefulness in using the term here. But when I hear the term PK'er I think of one who will attack another legally within the pvp system without need of particular motivation to do so, as opposed to pvp'ers who do not attack others on sight without some established reason to do so. What of the robber who murders for gain though, traditionally such would be labled PK'er as well although the motive is clearly different from the maniacal murderer who slays at any opportunity without need of gain...

Anyway point being we are fighting over definitions, but if it moves like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc... It probably is a duck I agree with Themo however in differentiating "griefers" from PK'ers though, PK'ers are working within game rules to play as maniacs (or robber-murderers depending upon whether you include those in the PK definition) while griefers are disregarding even game rules and EULA in some cases.

 

I'm rather ok with the yellow definition, and I'm totally disagreeing with your red conclusion.

Note the fundamental adverb "sometimes". You're taking one aspect of PvP and saying that every aspect of PvP is what happens "sometimes". I find it a deep logical fallacy.

Also because, Player versus Player doesn't necessarily involve aggression acts such as attacking, killing or engaging in a fight at all with your target.

Example:

I can totally destroy your crafting empire by undercutting your prices and driving you out of business by denying you cheap access to ingredients and monopolize markets. This is PvP and involves two player who never flagged for PvP, and never exchanged a single blow!

Example:

I can destroy your reputation by engaging in a sneaky campaign of character assassination and by spreading rumors and lies; by infiltrating your guild(s) with alts, I can effectively ruin your game experience far more than killing you a couple or hundred of times. Never underestimate the power of social drama.

Example:

Even if I never touch you, I can clearly aggress the mobs you're fighting. And thus, denying you the experience to gain levels and skills, if I follow you and inflict the killing blow (as the game is set up now), stealing your kill, your XP - and if I'm fast enough, your loot - while we are both blissfully unflagged.

Example:

Any social competition is PvP. The 4B Maze is PvP. The Gustball is PvP. The Future of Things to Come is team PvP. Even a trivia quiz is PvP. And none of these activities, where we have a winner and a loser, shed a single drop of blood - with the notable exception of The Ball and the occasional auto-attack.

In the end "Player versus player" is such a broad term that I find extremely shortsighted to limit it to PK, which is just the violent interaction by using ingame combat.

 

That is a great point, as PvP can cover many different terms. However I think you know I was referring to Combat PvP

And combat pvp even in the arenas and duels right now in game is played to the death. so in "Combat" pvp you are indeed a pk *player killing*. Words have meanings. Definitions are important as you describe. Player - one who controls the avatar Killing - killing of another avatar by your avatar. Combat PvP = Player + killing = PK

 

Ah ok, then!

Also, speaking of (distorted?) definitions.

Player killing is just wrong. Nobody (hopefully!) kills a player. They usually kill the character - which is fine.

It should be CK: character killing. While PvP, in broad sense, seems correct to me. A chess match is PvP.

 

Exactly, its another reason to remove the word PK and its bad connotations!

 

PvP has so many different shapes:

RPG Assasin:

Source: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/186890-quot-Back-Stab-quot-Illustration-WIP

Deception:


Source: https://adifferentperspectiveonlife...bbing-a-signature-mark-of-a-deceitful-friend/

Duel of Honor:


Source: http://kedion.deviantart.com/favourites/60731103/Devious-Collection-2


Guarding:



Source: http://mikaelwang.tumblr.com/post/90038984073/illustration-based-on-the-character-design-i-did

PvP Tournament:



Ambush:




Player Town Wars:



Bounty Hunter:




Basic Instinct:


Source:
http://th03.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2010/336/3/6/the_bounty_hunter_by_nightsongws-d343kzj.jpg


At the end our feedback decides how much will be toleratet as a welcome playstyle or what will be considered "not ok".
We decide what Art will make it into the game.

 

I do not need to flag for PvP if I visit a PvP-zone to attend an Event and some Events need to be in PvP Zones to work atm.

 

What needs to be in a pvp zone to work? Gustball can be done in an arena I believe or an arena basement.

 

Arena basements are PvP zone too

 

We have to remember there is a subset of pvp that feels like they have compromised greatly. They have no non consensual open world pvp which many loved. They have no full loot which many loved. Regardless of personal feelings, these are actual people that play the game and many games are like this. It was there hope that SotA would be also. In remembering these people we need to realize that the pvp zone really should not be watered down any more than it absolutely must. Many of these folks have moved on or are on the ropes of staying the way it is. We want to have as many people and play styles as we can in sota. You will have the option to opt out of pvp, you have the option to block/ignore people and in the future you will have the selective filters also. You also Will have FPO for your events.

 

Then use the arena in owls head for now. you cant decorate it but you could do it safely. Use people for the goals just like you use people for the ball.

 

You need to play Gustball Ravicus
How can you gust someone without being able to fight him? and duel did not work for 3vs3

At all I stay with my point like you do. I understand your concerns about watered PvP but still think there is no need to interrupt Events in an unfinished Game with lots of missing options to handle things like that.

 

I hear ya. Peoples should respect others, but its a fallacy to think everyone will. In the owls head arena only the people on the floor are flagged and you can post guards at the exits/entrances. Bears tavern and OOV did there early tournaments in this fashion. Bear tavern held the event and OOV protected it. Still could be done this way for your events

 

It doesn't actually work like that at all, which is why permissions were added to non pvp towns. People wanting to disrupt an event only need to get off one spell in an event area to do so, and until there is some actual penalty for dying they can just run back over and over until that happens. A dozen or more guards can't stop even a single player from doing this for the length of time required which is why all events are now either held on lots with permissions are are designed assuming they are going to become a FFA at some point. If i wanted to i could turn up at any duel style event and just AOE it, there is maybe 4 people who could stop me and none of them could stop me over an extended period of time.

 

If your are in an open pvp zone you have to expect stuff like this. Though I still can see no real reason to do a event in a pvp zone that it's not pvp related.
Fact is: You can't stop people from being an assh....

 

Oh we do expect it, just pointing out that it is not as simple as posting guards.