(11-08-2018, 06:28 PM)Backo Wrote: This thread has inspired me to write a story how my character ponders over escape pods' 100% success rate as they drift across the empty void of space (for approximately 2h) in an escape pod. Please stay tuned.
(11-08-2018, 07:39 AM)Iris Wrote: I would like to note that I was saying that the lack of serious inRP consequences for PvP death is not something I am advocating for people to lean into.
Probably whole community will hate me for saying this but why don't we make the things like if you die you are dead or simply you pilot get ejected from the craft and float into the space and if in 10 min no one comes to save you, you char die forever and you have to make a new char. By this technique we might would be able to improve the use of having like a server global bank where people could leave the money and it could be accessed by any char of that same player simply by using a passcode as you use with command /drawcash and even better if you don't put your money in the bank you will lose it as the ship blows up... I know it might be complicated and probably Ill be shi*ed now but it would add more realism to this game and honestly I would like if things are like this. As probably said above game would become more competitive and people would be more careful about don't be killed. Just a little add PvP dead rule should remain the same or people will continue making new chars and attacking the one who killed them before.
now you can hate me for your entire life.
EDIT// By doing this you will have as consequence the balance between the faction since they could lose caps and become powerless
Yeah, of course people took the argument way too far and didn't get the difference between having your character seriously getting hurt or die and simply not ignore the fact that the ship the character was flying was just taking damage. What am I wasting my time here, anyway. If you people simply don't see that PvP encounters are part of roleplay and that is looks hilariously dumb when people have fought and got put out of action and then show up after 30 minutes again, magically and possibly ignoring that the battle took place, but instead see only in black and white, I really can't help it. It's dumb, and while serious consequences never need to be applied, pretending that your characters are super heroes that survive every time without any damage to body and ship is simply poor while acknowledging such things offers way more opportunities and material to RP around.
Unfortunately my theory would probably never be accepted since its way too realistic but I know you all played freelancers single player and as you saw once somebody dies he is dead, like Ozu, Walker, Bozla etc.
This is a topic I've put some serious thought into and have advocated for changes in regards to, many times over the years. We have a serious stigma towards actually shooting each other in this community, in a game which is, mechanically, centered around shooting other people. Or trading to buy things to shoot other people with.That problem is heavily reinforced by the fact that there are actual consequences to death in a meta sense, despite there being no consequences from the lore half of things. It also leads to a dispicable amount of misunderstanding regarding the "PvP = RP" stance. I believe that this stance is true, but I think both sides have forgotten what that actually means. With this in mind, before we delve into the mechanical and meta aspects of this thread, I'm going to get a little philosophical.
PvP = RP was a mantra coined by players who preferred to roleplay their characters through their actions rather than their words. The meaning behind the statement is that a Navy pilot logging on to engage a Xeno with the bare minimum two lines of text is, in fact, a valid way of playing their character. There are many people, myself included, who believe that sitting down and having a conversation with their mortal enemy in about 99% of circumstances is the least in-RP action that they could possibly take. The attitude that this mantra is meant to engender is that more speech oriented roleplayers should not consider their immersion to be broken by more action oriented roleplayers. It was never meant to apply to larger concepts such as fights having lasting IC consequences. Any consequences of a fight are, have been, and will remain under the volition and consent of the battle's defeated parties. There is nothing forcing anyone to kill off their character, wound them, inflict lasting damage upon their ship, et cetera. Likewise, nobody is suggesting that characters should be invincible in roleplay either. Only that such losses be voluntary, as they have always been.
Enter meta.
Despite this correct, sound, and sane philosophy being so prolific throughout Discovery's more combat inclined caste, there's always been an unwillingness of more speech oriented players to adopt the now decade old mantra. It should quickly become apparent to anyone that the only true loss suffered by these players is their removal from the system. Nobody is forced to consider the aftermath of a fight to be valid roleplay, only that the engagement itself be considered valid. No characters, ships, equipment, or credits are lost. The only two deficits possible can be those of the ego and those of time. The former is not something that can be corrected with rules, but the latter is entirely malleable. All that the mechanic of 4.1 serves to accomplish is to stop fights from continuing indefinitely, and even whether or not that's something which should be deemed unacceptable is entirely open to debate. What is not up for debate is the negative consequences that rule 4.1 brings with it, which are as follows.
- Players who are less interested in Freelancer's combat, or were involved in a non-combat activity at the time of being engaged, are effectively locked out of a part of the game, one which will likely be an activity hub.
- Players who are less skilled at Freelancer's combat and wish to improve have less chance to participate and thus improve, while players who are already skilled benefit greatly from their ability to survive.
- As a result of these two earlier points, these two types of players are more likely to engage in maneuvers largely deemed to be in poor spirit by more combat oriented players, such as planetdiving, outnumbering their enemies to the point of creating no-win scenarios for them, or simply logging off rather than choosing to combat a force of equal size. I feel the need to reinforce yet again that this attitude is detrimental to server health, yet nothing has been done to combat it.
The longest a single combat scenario typically lasts on Discovery is at about 45 minutes. For the sake of not rocking the boat simply because I would actually like to see this thread affect change, let's say that we wish for the meta of one group decisively winning a fight rather than engaging in an ongoing battle to remain the status quo. In this scenario, the timer can be safely dropped to 45 minutes. Why the bare minimum of 45? Because instead of providing a negative reinforcement (don't die, don't die, don't die, don't die), it provides positive reinforcement (kill them quickly, kill them quickly, kill them quickly) to the combatants, which I think results in a much more exhilarating experience. It still provides a reward and incentive for putting time and effort into training, and still gives less skilled players a chance to rejoin the battle if the more skilled side does not manage to clean house in the allotted time window.
But I think we ought take this one step further.
While I do think PvP (a game mechanic) locking others out of trading or mining (other game mechanics) is perfectly reasonable, I see no need to apply that to speech. Beyond breaking a certain level of immersion (yes, us PvPers do experience that) by having PvP dead characters undock and speak near them, no harm is actively done by allowing people to remain in the system to engage in speech based roleplay, imploring me to strongly urge the community to back my following proposal.
Old Wrote:
4.1 If you die whilst in a PVP situation, in any form, you are considered as ''PVP Dead''. A PVP Dead player must:
Leave the system the fight took place in for two hours. You must not carry cargo while doing so and must not engage in any player interaction while you are leaving. Other players must allow a PVP Dead player to leave the system.
Not re-enter the system they died in on any of their characters for two hours.
Not attack the player/players they died to on any of their characters for two hours.
New Wrote:
4.1 If you die whilst in a PVP situation, in any form, you are considered as ''PVP Dead'' for 45 minutes, unless a different time period is defined in the system's entry text. A PVP Dead player:
May re-enter the system only to participate in text based roleplay or to spectate an ongoing battle and must not trade or mine.
May be considered a valid combat target after a grace period of 5 minutes after being given a chance to leave the system they were killed in.
Must not enter combat in the system the fight took place in or re-engage the characters they were killed by in any system.
Much time and care was put into articulating the ideas expressed in this post, and while I do value additional input on the matter, I believe the strongest chance for any rework of rule 4.1 will be one proposal backed by the entire community, and I hope I have made a strong case for that proposal being this one in the writing of this text.
The issue I have with the proposal for rules change that Durandal just put forth is what I call the second layer consequence.
We kill a guy, and he comes back, continues roleplaying. (we cannot attack him)
We kill another guy, and he comes back, continues roleplaying with the first guy we killed. (we cannot attack him, he is PVP dead)
Can Jim, not affiliated with us, come into the system and attack the two guys we kill? Under the proposal, it is unclear. If Jim cannot come into the system and kill this PVP dead person who is sitting at a base, chatting, I think we end up with a situation where, for example, I can role into Alpha on my corsair, get myself killed in front of Malta, and then come back into the system and carry on a rant, a set of insults, or any other roleplay which is insulting to the rightful denizens, and they cannot do anything to stop me.
Getting killed under those rules becomes a free pass to roll in and issue fighting words and taunt the side who killed you for however long the PVP-Dead penalty lasts...
It also removes the language about re-engaging on other characters while you are PVP dead.
Myself, if we are to go that route, I would suggest that a PVP dead character can not come back, but their other characters can, but are not allowed to re-engage untill the PVP dead timer is up. Like so:
New Wrote:
4.1 If you die whilst in a PVP situation, in any form, you are considered as ''PVP Dead''. A PVP Dead player:
May not re-enter the system on the dead character until the PVP-Dead period has expired.
May not re-engage (with any character) the characters which killed them until the PVP Dead period has expired.
This is a simpler rule. We could add "cannot trade or mine" if we think that necessary, but I think saying "lost your character to PVP-death, so now you need to get another one, and you cannot re-engage for X amount of time." is a fair enterpretation. If the other ship they bring back into the system happens to be an objectionable group to the victorious party, then they are well within their rights to start their fight again.
But I also want to stress that I think the best thing to do is to reduce the PVP-Dead period to less than 2 hours.
(11-08-2018, 09:13 PM)Unseelie Wrote: The issue I have with the proposal for rules change that Durandal just put forth is what I call the second layer consequence.
We kill a guy, and he comes back, continues roleplaying. (we cannot attack him)
We kill another guy, and he comes back, continues roleplaying with the first guy we killed. (we cannot attack him, he is PVP dead)
Can Jim, not affiliated with us, come into the system and attack the two guys we kill? Under the proposal, it is unclear.
No, he cannot, and it is clear. In my proposal I wrote that PvP dead players must not be engaged by other players. This includes those who were not online, in the same system, or involved in the engagement resulting in their destruction. Relevant section -
Quote:Must not not be engaged by other players.
(11-08-2018, 09:13 PM)Unseelie Wrote: It also removes the language about re-engaging on other characters while you are PVP dead.
Again, it does not -
Quote:Must not enter combat in the system the fight took place in for 45 minutes.
I also strongly disagree with the notion of forcing people to switch characters. There are many people here who are strongly invested in roleplaying one character, who would sooner log off than switch to a different one.
In I'm in favor of making pvp death last 1 hour, but its really just one small step in the right direction.
Admins need to rethink ALL the rules and restrictions that were made when server population was 200 and re-evaluate if they still make sense now. That also goes for things like ZOI, piracy demands, engagement rights. While we're talking about pvp death, I want to remind people of a very good idea Thyrzul had, allowing people to do more things outside their ZOI, in exchange for making pvp death outside your ZOI last for several days.
More generally, what certain people need to finally get into their head is that it no longer makes sense to try to spread players out among factions and places with the low population that we currently have.
The same goes for trade, mining, and system and route layout.
And this is more urgent than events4vets, storyline developments, srps, or faction perks. After the large scale change is made (including making the game easier to get into by expanded helpsystems and better written and ingame available rules), events, storyline, srps, and faction perks can be resumed.
(11-08-2018, 08:55 PM)Durandal Wrote:
New Wrote:
4.1 If you die whilst in a PVP situation, in any form, you are considered as ''PVP Dead''. A PVP Dead player:
May re-enter the system only to participate in text based roleplay or to spectate an ongoing battle.
Must not enter combat in the system the fight took place in for 45 minutes.
Must not trade or mine while doing so.
Must not not be engaged by other players.
If you're going to do that, you'll have to add some extra clauses to address things like annoying Rogues that keep coming back to Manhattan to talk crap at everyone no matter how often they get killed.
(11-08-2018, 09:38 PM)Karlotta Wrote: If you're going to do that, you'll have to add some extra clauses to address things like annoying Rogues that keep coming back to Manhattan to talk crap at everyone no matter how often they get killed.
Yeah, @Unseelie pointed this out to me over Discord. Its an issue, and there needs to be some sort of clause for it. I was thinking about the defenders dying on their own turf rather than the aggressors dying and returning after a raid.
![[Image: VuqlNAR.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/VuqlNAR.gif)
