The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Eregion on July 27, 2006, 02:42:00 PM
-
Is there any chance for evil characters to start playing in Layonara? It would be cool if "good" PCs fought against "evil" PCs. The guys fighting against Blood and the guys fighting for Blood on a mass scale like important planned battlefields or minor skirmishes! Don't know just an idea... i wish to see some comments.
-
Perhaps a better description would be "factions" and not "evil." Two groups fighting against one another. You agree?
-
Pen N Popper - 7/27/2006 5:46 PM
Perhaps a better description would be "factions" and not "evil." Two groups fighting against one another. You agree?
That gets the Stephen Thumbs-Up!
-
Well, Blood has been defeated....destroyed is actually a better word. No one will be fighting for him...well...ever.
Regarding factions battling each other....anything's possible in the future.
Regarding evil characters...that alignment is restricted and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
-
yes two factions or more fighting each other, guilds and organisations must have enemies don't you think?
-
I would love that if the DM's would allow it. But I think it is probably be looked down upon outside of the arena since PvP is a really touchy subject here. The thought of having skirmishes and large battles sounds awesome though.
-
I like the fact that it's restricted. It gives those of us who want to be evil something to work for, and it makes being evil mean something. If it were unrestricted you would have people with evil alignments verbally thrashing people, with no real idea of what it truly means to be evil. Which is why the restriction is put on. It's ridiculously hard to really play an evil alignment, and it takes more work than most people think. It's more than running around with a hood, brandishing evil enchanted weapons, verbally thrashing, and disregarding laws.
-
Just out of curiosity.. is there any evil, or chaotic neutral characters currently in play?
-
Anomas Analor Kamath - 7/28/2006 12:07 AM Just out of curiosity.. is there any evil, or chaotic neutral characters currently in play?
Yes, all very good RPers to get there, all very patient RPers to let their characters evolve to that alignment. Won't list who some are though ;)
-
There are a lot CN characters, as they may be submitted as CN as long as the player meets certain requirements. It's the evil characters that are never allowed on submission--they take an extreme amount of roleplay. And yes, there are a couple.
-
Well what deacon said is right, come to think of it we'd have a total disaster out of it..... but still i like the idea. I would say give evil characters to those who know how to write VERY good bios and know how to roleplay and been playing for quite a while, i mean don't give it to some beginner. maybe some veteran layonara gamer would be better at it don't you think?
-
who knows perhaps without Blood as the unifying threat Mistone may fight Dregar etc.
Pick your sides and sharpen your blades :P
Certainly as Layo stands at the moment factions at war would be utter chaos, the soul mother would quickly die of obessity due to the massive soul gorging session she would be on, new chars would last about 2 seconds at the hands of stronger chars, Ozy would die laughing and the giantsof Dregar would live happily ever after because no-one was out hunting them anymore!
-
I have to say that I like Eregion's idea about people being allowed to play evil characters if they have been playing Layo a long time and have the ability to write very good bios. I have always found truly evil characters are the most fun to play, as most of the time they dont think of themselves as evil. I know that when I started playing Layo it was a bit of a shock that I was not allowed to play an evil character as on all the other servers I have always played an evil char.
-
Generally the people approved to 'go evil' will either be or end up as 'veteran Layo players,' anyway. They don't just wake up and go "I'm evil today!" Rather, they are required to develop a character towards evil over a long period of time. This means that the evil characters on the server have had CDQs and events run, as a slow alignment change over time...it's a slide and not just "my parents were evil and so am I." Yes, some people write good bios, but in the best situation, they would be detailing out a huge part of the character's life and putting it in the past from the start, before ever it even made it into the game. Kind of a waste, really.
There would also end up being heavy restrictions regarding who could and who could not do it, and which ones would or would not be approved. Which makes sense, but nobody is ever happy to be the one denied. At the same time, I'd be afraid to even apply, lest I be approved and have a perceived advantage over someone else. Rather than see someone else muttered at by one who was denied, I think there is less potential drama in simply denying all characters that are submitted as evil, instead requiring everyone to attempt it over time.
And yes, evil characters are fun. Woo LE.
(Edited for grammar)
-
LE and NE characters aren't completely disallowed on the server. One just has to take quite a lot of CDQs.
I believe the rules are good as they are right now. Allowing evil character submissions for "old" players or excellent biographies. Well... How long should "old" be? Should all "old" players automaticly be able to play evil characters? Or only the people who has shown excellent roleplay skills? Would you feel comfortable with a "Sorry, we don't believe you can handle an evil character."-response after you have submitted, in your opinion, one of the best biographies ever while seeing other, in your opinion again, poorer roleplayers' submissions pass? Do you think everyone would just take it "Oh! Alright! I'll try to improve my skills instead! Maybe in a few months..." instead of starting to mutter about favouritsm and unfairness? And... Does a person who has shown that he or she is an excellent player of a Lawful Good character necessary mean that he or she would be able to play a Neutral Evil character equally well? Just a few things to think of... :)
I think the main reason of why you have to take a lot of CDQs and have to play with that character for some time is to let the DMs "in-depth" monitor of how well you play the alignment. To see that you really, really can handle the responsibility... Pretty much the same goes for WLDQs. ;)
Edit: Pfft! Too slow... Acacea pretty much said everything I said. :P
-
Factions are the downfall of every server ive ever played on
first you start with these guys vs these guys... 2 factions.. and almost 9 times out of 10 one side will be over powering and constantly kill the other faction not to mention in some way it splits the server
but anyways as times go one you will get people that dont wanna be in a faction aginst another one.. so you make the middle ground faction .. 3 factions..
then you will get the people that want the i hate all players group.. 4
anyways.. say thirs 4 factions.. with 20 poeple online.. 5 per faction.. most likely as soon as a group of 3 or 4 people can get together thir gonna head out of town... wich leads the 5th guy that just logged in to run around town with no one around and being forced to try and solo to get anything out of the server...
anyways thats just my point of view... dont like factions... mean mabey sub- factions that still all live in the same town (thives guild , mages tower , bard school, crafting guilds) those wouldent be bad as they deviersify the the rp
but major starting area's for seperat factions that are at war is a no no the way i see it
-
the whole idea of PvP factions would ruin Layo for me. There are enough bad guys. The huge desparity of levels and power would make it school yard bullying on a digital level. I play Layo because there are no "evil" characters running around unchecked. We are the heroes.
-
Oh come now...have some faith...
IF we decide to implement a faction vs. faction system, it would be greatly regulated, and not just some free-for-all thing. We'd probably limit it to certain areas where such activity was allowed, so that Faction A doesn't ambush a lone member of Faction B outside of Hlint, for example.
It would just be another way to have some fun and conduct some RP...IF people want to participate in that. It would surely not be free, unrestricted PvP everywhere and at any time.
-
The idea of thieves guild, mages guild and the like would be very good in my opinion with ranks and all. But although they are in the same city for example they still might be a bit against each other. Not TOTALLY enemies (that WOULD ruin some players especially beginners) but they would have some things that each group would see differently and even working to slow each other's progress.
-
EXACTLY i agree with Dorganath, It won't be a free for all massacre, that would be stupid in my opinion aside that it would seem just like "any other MMORPG" and lose it's originality! just certain ares would be PvP and maybe even restrict the area if the PCs aren't of the required level. The idea of Nibor21 is also good : Mistone Vs Dregar...... Come on it would be brilliant with things like fortress sieges, ambushes and all that you can think of.... Don't get me wrong layonara is very interesting as a game and i really like it. I just brought up this subject so that maybe things get more interesting and people would get involved more (in my opinion of course)
-
Ahh, but the problem is that the PvP areas would have to be honour-based, since the whole server is PvP to make spellcasters think twice before blasting off with AoE spells. And then, if player-vs-player combat were sanctioned on a greater scale, the grievances posted would probably go through the roof.
In addition, there are established guilds, including the rebirth of the Arcane Alliance, that would fit your descriptions well, Eregion. I won't mention the various Thieves' Guilds, as they wouldn't appreciate it. ;)
And without PvP progress, there's little non-rp that one "group" can do to another that wouldn't fall under "griefing". Stealthed/invisible tails on guild-based adventuring groups stealth-looting or cherrypicking kills? I can't imagine that would go over well. Now, trans-continental warfare and arranged battles, that might go over well - except that without DM balance, a pair of 20th level mages could easily eliminate dozens of lower-level opponents on each side before they'd ever have a chance to meet in combat. It would, certainly, be a managerial nightmare.
In addition, a character needn't be evil to want to fight another character. There are opposed good/neutral gods whose priests would, unchecked, probably welcome the chance to hurt each other a bit. If there were a system for subdual damage, I can think of quite a few people Kell would LOVE to sap (people who try to bring the watch down on a covert mission, for example. ;) ). And certainly, I've seen spellcasters use non-damaging spells on characters they find annoying or have ideological differences with. So opening up the evil alignments (which, IMHO, require a gifted roleplayer to properly portray) is unnecessary if all you want is a reason for PvP.
However, "... things like fortress sieges, ambushes, and all that you can think of..." smacks highly of "eh?! Castle Raid =D (http://www.layonaraonline.com/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=27632&posts=11&start=1)", which, as was agreed, has no real place in the structure of Layonara. PvP, in a lethal, non-arena sense, if included, ought to be used as flavour, not introduced as a regular feature. Just my two coppers on the subject.
-
I'm not exactly a PvP fan...I have played MMORPGS like EQ, WoW and SWG with very different PvP experiences in all of those...bottom line is I REALLY hate griefing...if there is something in this world that can make me mad is some immature knucklehead that can't accept to be beaten in good faith...and starts talking about my mother...etc...I mean, I literally push the off button on my comp as soon as I read something like that...SPECIALLY...if its a Role server.
But if its done between mature and responsible people (like everybody I have met here so far) with clearly defined rules ...it can be very funny ...it adds the adrenalyne factor hehe .
I don't know if its technicaly possible but one way to do it..could be...some sort of item that when used would flag you for PvP combat (changing the color of the name tag perhaps)and so it would enable you to attack or be attacked by the opposing faction. That way you know that IF you use the item ANYTHING goes...if you don't like PvP or just don't feel like it at the moment...well just don't "turn it on"
Just an idea...
-
darkstorme - 7/28/2006 10:58 AM Ahh, And without PvP progress, there's little non-rp that one "group" can do to another that wouldn't fall under "griefing". Stealthed/invisible tails on guild-based adventuring groups stealth-looting or cherrypicking kills? I can't imagine that would go over well. Now, trans-continental warfare and arranged battles, that might go over well - except that without DM balance, a pair of 20th level mages could easily eliminate dozens of lower-level opponents on each side before they'd ever have a chance to meet in combat. It would, certainly, be a managerial nightmare.
First, go back and read what I wrote above.
To clarify further, the "stealth looting" is already against server rules and those caught doing it get disciplined or banned. "Cherrypicking" kills would not be permitted if we allowed this kind of thing.
Think about the Ft. Velensk Arena, but instead of one interior area, think about...for example...a dedicated field of battle. Scheduled and agreed battles. There would likely be different rules for death (as it is in Velensk) in such areas, so Soul Strands likely wouldn't e of issue. Any, and I mean any abuse or griefing as a result would be met with action from the GM Team, as would any faction vs. faction activity outside of sanctioned areas.. Too much abuse or too many problems, and the system would go. This of course is just a "for instance" but it is an example of how it could be done and still maintain Layonara in spirit. Trust me...collectively we have years of time and money invested in this place, and thousands of man-hours spent developing, updating and maintaining it. We wouldn't do anything to harm the place or the community, and if we inadvertently do harm, then we would correct it....quickly.
But as I said...IF we did this, it would not be a free-for-all, and would very much be contained and regulated.
I would point out that the Ft. Velensk arena has not destroyed the feel, flavor or spirit of Layonara, and people go there responsibly...and I'm not aware of a single grievance having been filed as a result.
-
Sorry, Dorganath - I must not have been clear enough. I read the remainder of the thread before I posted, including your earlier post. My point was that while arena-style (ie, Fort Velensk coding) combat could be possible on a larger scale, it would blur the lines between PvP and non-PvP significantly, and would not permit the intrigues that the original poster seemed to be positing. I'm well aware of the Ft. Velensk success.
As for stealth looting and cherrypicking - my use of the phrase "I can't imagine that would go over well" referred to the fact that such activity IS against the rules.
The remainder of my comments were to do with the mechanics of such a large-battle Valensk-esque battle.. barring some clever scripting (which I'm sure is not at all beyond you, but possibly beyond your time constraints), you'd require DM supervision for all such combat to ensure that each side's high-level spellcasters/fighters didn't first focus on the lower-level opponents, strategically thinning the herd before turning on their matched opponents. In the arena, this is seldom a concern. Unfortunately, even if this IS balanced in favour of equivalent treatment for all levels, it will decried as unrealistic because the first thing a powerful spellcaster WOULD likely do is wipe away the enemy's shock troops so they wouldn't harry the key players during one-on-one combat.
It just strikes me as a nearly impossible thing to implement in a way that's both even-handed and sensible, unless level-spread constraints are introduced.
-
I understand limits for evil and CN characters..
Now, a limitation that bothers me is pvp... wouldn't an agreement between both parts be enough for it to happen? I mean, what am I supposed to do, in the place of a ranger, if i see someopne just hacking the hell out of innocent animals without justification? Talk him out of it?
-
Depends on the character. Mine would definitely try to talk the person out of it. :)
Oh, and... PvP is allowed with a DM watching, so if you play a more aggresive character, you could always try to send a message to the DM channel.
-
I like the idea of factions working against each other, but I don't think that they have to be killing each other. After all, in the real world, there are many, many factions, yet very few of them are killing each other. All we really need is two (or more) groups working towards goals, such that the goals or the means conflict. Basically, you just have groups working against each other, but not necessarily trying to kill each other.
This, of course, would be much easier to run with GM support.
Some examples that pop into my head:
An NPC needs something recovered, but he only has limited funds for a reward (so that if everyone works together, they get less). He could ask several groups to find it and bring it back, with the reward going to the group that gets it. The other groups might get a small payment for their time, or they might not. This would also give opportunity for the less than honorable characters to betray their group and run off with the item and take the reward for themselves. Or a chance for those rogues with skill in picking pockets to remove the item from a group that has it (assuming it's something small).
A farmer is having trouble with some unknown assailants raiding his fields. Groups could investigate and attempt to take care of the perpetrators. The problem is, there are several different enemies it could be, with different clues given to each group, perhaps with the possible enemies slated towards the characters' dislikes (like favored enemies of rangers). Destroying the right enemies solves the problem. Attacking the wrong one leads to a strong response against the farm/whole town, with the blame directed at the offending group of characters.
Opposing factions doesn't mean that they must kill one another.
-
Weeblie, i've sent messages in the dm channels for some time now, and have never been answered.
This morning i was hunting badgers and there were two druids around. I wasnt with my companion, so they certainly didn't know i was a ranger. One of them sent a wall of fire trapping me inside, but i revealed myself and we talked peacefully, the other threatened me of death if i attacked his cubs again. In the meantime, more badgers spawned there, so I could have just attacked them, and it would be more than justifiable for him to kill me. I would see as a really bad rp if he kept threatening me after i've killed 20 badgers and would never mind dying by his hands if that meant the correct course...
Where i playied, the rule is that both sides need to agree on a to-death combat. So if a pk happens, and no one complains, it goes as normal. If one of them complains, but the other has a screenshot of him agreeing before combat [in the respective of a //tell there], nothings happens. If it had no rp reason and no agreement, it was a ban, plain and simple. If there was a reason but no agreement [like me killing those badgers but then saying 'no' to a death combat, something certainly ill-intended] the agressor [the one who said no] is punished by lack of rp. And it has gone all to well for years now... maybe you could try this here.
-
Just go to search and type PvP to save the joy of answering another few times. It comes up all the time.
-
The rules about PvP have been here for quite a long time and I doubt they will be changed.
As for the example you gave... If I would see someone killing badgers and still do that, obviously hiding behind the PvP rules, I would simply leave. One can pick who one wants to RP-with, after all... :)
-
I know how it works, i'm not asking this.. i'm suggesting how it could.
In my view it's disappointingly limiting, and result in some akward[sp?] situations like threats that cannot be put to work and points that can't be defended. Ad the few problems it brings are easilly enough handled by the number of gms that exists here.
And about the giving up thing... it's a bit unmotivating, isn't it? A perfectly peaceful and happy and harmless place... weird.
-
We (the gm team) have a full plate, all of us. We do not waste our time with PvP/PK'ing as it does nothing but cause problems when it is not in a controlled environment. If you want PvP this server is not for you, pretty simple and straight foward. We have an arena for it if you wish to challenge somebody in that manner. Later on we may have an additional thing for PvP but not right now and even IF we do in the future it will be controlled.
-
I don't want a pvp server, but i do think such restricted pvp also restricts greatly rp and similarity to the chaos of life
-
It's not a perfectly happy or peaceful place. Most people are simply capable of roleplaying conflict (even PvP) without actually, mechanically attacking one another. If you absolutely need to, go to the arena in Velensk and slaughter each other all you want, or get GM supervision.
-
".... but i do think such restricted pvp also restricts greatly rp and similarity to the chaos of life...."
Heard that one a few dozen times in the last 4.5 years.
-
Ok, here's my 2 1/2 dollars worth of thought...
1) Evil Characters...Ok, I've worked it over in my head to make this short...You can't start out as one. I've been playing D&D for 20 years and with the exception of 1 time, have always been chaotic N. If these alignments were allowed right off the bat, I would say that asking and/or tell of one's alignment be a bannable offence (i.e. "Hi, I'm 'so-n-so' and LG, what alignment are you?) Even evil folk usually have sense enough to act good when the time calls for it. No one knows what truely lurks in the hearts of men (except the Shadow, he knows).
2) PvP, etc....To those on the GM team...the reason why this question is raised, I think, is because with Blood gone, those who play here don't know what could come next. I know you all have things planned, this is just a question and idea that floated to the top of our heads under the circumstances. Same with faction v. facton. One of those "The bad guys are dead, now can some of us be the bad guy?" thoughts. Nothing to dwell over, we know that ya'll have something up your sleeves.
Simply put, the above is possible, but only with well documented RPing. I may have played a CN character for years, but I wouldn't expect a person new to the group to be allowed to have it until it was proven that they could play it properly. CN can mean crazy or bi-polar, which is the same, but played very different.
I also saw where someone said "no soul strand lost in a PvP kill...why? A death is a death is a death. If people agree to fight to the death, and get a strand taken, that's part of the gamble...In a game mess up, I can understand the arguement, but if you roll a natural 1 and end up lopping your own head off and get a strand taken, that was just the roll of the dice (yeah, It's happened to me before in D&D.)
Well, I'm done with my rant.
:)
-
It's not about evil guys... the possibility of Pvp is exactly to exclude the need for a evil guy. People get attacked, spanked, punched, robbed, raped, ripped everyday in real life. In a medieval age enviroment, law enforcement was loose and crime was even more common. Raiders, road-criminals and fugitives give depth and density to a scenary, and none of this is possible without Pvp... Including different races like goblins and bugbears roaming human streets? That was supposed to be a bloodshed.
It's not, for obvious reasons, funny to be robbed in a road or rapped in a dark corner of the street, but in a roleplay game, this all give traumas, spread some healthy hatred and anger throughout the population... it seeds base for more serious roleplaying...
Of course it must be kept to a minimum, but to nullify this... it's... weird.
-
"This morning i was hunting badgers and there were two druids around. I wasnt with my companion, so they certainly didn't know i was a ranger. One of them sent a wall of fire trapping me inside, but i revealed myself and we talked peacefully, the other threatened me of death if i attacked his cubs again. In the meantime, more badgers spawned there, so I could have just attacked them, and it would be more than justifiable for him to kill me. I would see as a really bad rp if he kept threatening me after i've killed 20 badgers and would never mind dying by his hands if that meant the correct course... "
Just wondering... who was it that cast wall of fire on you and threatened you with death for daring to hunt badgers? That druid was flagrantly abusing the PVP rules, as any sane person seeing a crazed spellcaster trying to set them on fire would be morally allowed to kill such a person even as Lawful Good.
-
He didn't cast it on ME, he trapped me in a place with it. And frankly, that was the most serious rp he could have shown...
-
Anomas Analor Kamath - 7/29/2006 12:10 AM
It's not, for obvious reasons, funny to be robbed in a road or rapped in a dark corner of the street, but in a roleplay game, this all give traumas, spread some healthy hatred and anger throughout the population... it seeds base for more serious roleplaying... Of course it must be kept to a minimum, but to nullify this... it's... weird.
Uh...let's be clear about something....
Robery/theft from other players is against server rules and is a bannable offense.
Rape...do I even have to say this? Raping another character...regardless of player consent, regardless of how one might justify it through RP, character development or whatever...Raping another character is against server rules and is a bannable offense. In addition, it is completely contrary to the spirit and environment we have here in Layonara. It's a sure way to get thrown out of here permanently. There is NO justification for this. Don't even bother trying to come up with one.
-
As much as I agree with you, Dorganath, I believe that Anomas was just trying to offer an example of a violent act that would spread in-character conflict. *Applies his "Benefit of the Doubt" stamp.*
There is one thing I'd like to ask about in terms of this discussion: Robbery/Theft.
With OOC player consent to RP it all out (including possible consequences), I can't see why theft should be disallowed. After all, not everyone's a hero coming to fight for the good of Layonara, these days. However, I do wish to stress the part about OOC player consent; that's the keystone. With consent, it can be GREAT RP. Without, that's griefing.
-
Stephen...
I wasn't accusing Anomas of anything, so no need to defend or give the "benefit of the doubt". I wanted to make that particular point very clear, in case someone tries to hide behind the "it's good RP" defense.....which has happened many times over the years here. Whether he was using it as an example or not, I wanted to discourage that particular line of thinking, so that it was absolutely clear that this type of "RP" will not be tolerated here.
Regarding theft....OOC consent is one thing, but it's still an opportunity for misunderstanding and problems. I can conceive of a situation where something is "stolen" by OOC consent, with the additional OOC arrangement that the item would be returned or taken back somehow, such as through a PvP contest of some kind. In this situation, suppose the item in question is not returned as agreed? What then? It becomes griefing, it becomes a headache for at least one player and the entire GM team who has to deal with the situation, and so on.
At any rate, I was referring to theft, for example, by someone entering player/guild housing and taking things from their chests.
-
"....With OOC player consent to RP it all out (including possible consequences), I can't see why theft should be disallowed. After all, not everyone's a hero coming to fight for the good of Layonara, these days. However, I do wish to stress the part about OOC player consent; that's the keystone. With consent, it can be GREAT RP. Without, that's griefing...."
Because then we have to deal with honest mistakes, outright lies that lead to more lies, and just bad things in general. We would spend time doing research to verify, speaking to players about incidents that should never have happened or that were perceived that it should have been done in xyz way but instead the player did it in another way so now it is a grief. I allowed this at one point (a long time ago--about 3.5 years) and even with a small community I spent fully 25% of my time researching stuff that came out of it. I can't even imagine what it would be now. It just is not going to happen. It will (probably) in the future when we have systems in place but not right now.
-
Yikes. I see your point, guys; that would be a HEADACHE. I look forward to these systems you speak of, though...
And yes, theft from player housing... Well, whereas most of the time, SOMEONE would be home to notice, and probably stab the intruder, in NWN, people often aren't anywhere at all - out of game. So that gets the griefing stamp, there.
Just trying to give the devil an advocate or two.
-
DeadHead Fred - 7/28/2006 3:47 PM
I like the idea of factions working against each other, but I don't think that they have to be killing each other. After all, in the real world, there are many, many factions, yet very few of them are killing each other. All we really need is two (or more) groups working towards goals, such that the goals or the means conflict. Basically, you just have groups working against each other, but not necessarily trying to kill each other.
This, of course, would be much easier to run with GM support.
I agree -- and thought that this could be one of the outcomes of the Blood war -- the heroes aligning with different power bases that themselves are jockeying for power, dominance, or even their own survival. (Of coure many heroes would align with none of those factions, or actively oppose some or all without belonging to another faction.)
But really, this is much less about "factions" at this point, and more about how the overall story arc develops, as impacted by the players' decisions. The only way it becomes "faction" like is when players working for different objectives collide. And, as DeadHead Fred points out, there are plenty of ways of dealing with those issues in a more RP-appropriate way than just bashing each other.
-
This is interesting reading on a server that doesn't allow outright PvP, as it illustrates the possible beginnings of such an evolution. There are obviously two points discussed here, somewhat seperate: Evil characters and expanded PvP. The first aspect I leave to others to discuss. The second point I feel I can offer some insights on.
Most probably don't know I left Layo a little more than a year and a half ago to explore other servers, as I'm sure many of you have also explored. There are three reasons I came back - desire for better RP, the stress of having a maddening amount of gear/junk/magic baubles, and PvP. The last is perhaps the most pernicious to a server. The controlled battles dreamed of here will spill into open war on the forums, guaranteed. The level of sniping, aggression, bad feelings, calls of cheating, accusations, etc. will be endless and will clog the forums, despite your best beliefs about the community and our maturity level. I felt finally at peace the first day I logged back in and realized everybody around me, in one way or another, was at least cordial or outright friendly. I didn't have to keep tilting the camera view so I could see if somebody was coming up behind me while I was out in the wilderness, I didn't have to wonder what faction a guy was in when I asked him for help, I didn't have to get into an argument with another character just because he was wearing different colors. That's the kind of feelings faction PvP spreads. I say feelings, because you can plan it out as much as tou like, but in the end there will be things that slip by and people do to eachother that breeds hate and resentment.
I don't know how the Arena works, and I am interested in seeing it, but I would leave PvP there. PvP can wreck a server's morale if handled poorly or it gets out of control. No putting that genie back in the bottle once let loose. Another point ot consider is how faction PvP will affect crafting and guilds. Cries of advantages to those who can craft weapons of war and other battle aids will be made by those who cannot craft such things. Resource areas will be staked out by rivals, and though no PvP will happen there and then, next to the corn or Topaz veins, it will be picked up in PvP areas. So you will have a threatening presence protecting resources. If the Bad Boys guild is the strongest around, who will stay mining when they tell you to leave? You are safe for the moment, but they'll get you sooner or later.
I guess that's the danger of faction PvP - one or two groups are always better than all the rest. I play on Stormnexus, and if any know that server, the Blackhelms have always had the best character builds and great gear. So everybody hates them and they hate everybody else. And cries of undue advantage go on and on and on. It will happen here. This is not an insult to the community, just a simple fact of how humans interact at times. Soeme people are better at builds than others. I have learned alot about builds from my time elsewhere.There are things that can be done to greatly improve your character to aid in PvP. So I and many others would have an outright advantage in faction PvP due to this simple experience. Then people would accuse me of cheating, or having anunfair advantage, etc. Character builds are critical to success in PvP. What about evil characters getting PM and dwarves getting DD? Now you have racial- alignment -based advantages which would probably fall on guilds lines as well. More cries of favoritism and cheating in builds. This will create an additional amount of stress in Character approval and monitoring of player actions in-game. Spamming spells/KD/Taunt, Shadowdancer HIPS, exploitable combat bugs like not Disliking oppenents immediately- the list goes on and on. Its a potential nightmare.
Please keep PvP where it is. Thanks for a community server.
-
I never argued pvp in favor of factions, i just favor it for the sake of reality.
Rapes were banned in my previous server justifiable because of the enormous headaches it gave to the gm's, mainly because people didn't ask for ooc permission before. And about the stolen item... giving it back? This is a long term agreement and does not, in any case, helps to simulate real world. You lost it, that's lost, happens and the world moves on.. if you get robbed, that item is most likely lost forever, and you must get a new one.
Things were pretty simple.. there's either a mutual agreement [screenshot] or a ban. In Ultima Online rp servers that works fine, even though the game is widely known for it's pvp and even war servers... probably the same problem with nwn... but, is it really impossible?
I would hate the faction system, as this brings hatred out-game... but asking a druid to ignore someone killing animals just because their 'rp styles doesn't match'? That hurts the main principles of a mmorpg, where everyone is part of the same world and then bound to rp with each other... I do believe a world with different styles and even enemies can be managed peacefully... you do have a large and participative gm team.
You know what would help avoid abuses? Scripting some way for the examine option not to show that 'level rating', like 'impossible', 'moderate' and so on... that gives you an idea of the power of other players without ever seing him in action. If an animal killer saw an 'easy' in the druid's screen, he certainly wouldn't bother respecting him... but if he didn't know.. well, maybe that druid was capable of ripping out his arms without so much as a blink.
-
Please watch your language on the forums, swearing is not allowed, and I did a quick edit to your post to change a particular word
-
i too am planning on returning after leaving Layo for some time, and have had nearly the same experiences as posted by Fian Bearsark after roaming around through half a dozen or more servers.... the thread here started about Evil characters, but clearly PvP is probably the biggest concern with a more open allowance of such characters.
PvP leads to bad feelings and a near-constant XP grab, RP goes out the window (despite assurances to the contrary), and characters are no longer built from an RP perspective, but rather created to maximize PvP potential. it leads to the headache-inducing need for scripting to "balance classes" in an effort to mold a game system which was never intended for PvP in the first place into a level playing field. spells and feats tweaked and nerfed (IGMS anyone? Dev. Crit. still allowed? Time Stop?), class combinations further restricted, and more demands on a DM team busy enough with CDQs and world plot events.
i agree that severly limiting or outright disallowing conflict b/t characters may be "unrealistic" (as much as we can apply that term to a fantasy game), but, with no offense intended to anyone, so what? i'd rather see some RP develop to resolve differences than one guy's Ftr/PM/DwD and some other guy's uber-buffed Sor/Pal/RDD start mangling each other outside Hlint.
look at it this way: there was a ruling put in place about "adult-themed RP" because of the problems caused by that stuff, and most people seem to have no problem with that rule, usually citing the oft quoted phrase: "there are plenty of servers that offer THAT sort of thing - if you want to RP that way, then maybe you should play there..."
one could say the same thing about faction/alignment PvP. with Layo, it's actually pretty nice not to have to build and compete in the inevitable "arm's race" that develops in a PvP server. there are enough slavering beasts of the NPC variety out there waiting to take your character's head off w/out having to worry about yet another evil Ftr/Rogue/WM dual wielding DEX build sneak attacking you to a quick death...
-
I think the guy that's doing the complaining about how Layonara isn't like his UO servers needs to step back and understand that, well, Layonara is not Ultima Online. Sorry, mate, but we're above that.
-
What do you mean by 'above that'? Is uo some kind of 'under-game'?
Mikli, i see your point, is saves the gm a lot of work... but if you look through another point: such class combinations are ALREADY restricted not giving a deep rp base, which is analyzed through the character development topics. The difference would be that some people would begin trying to make them, and would be consequently denied such rights... so the aditional trouble I see is just a couple of denials... such combinations wouldn't happen one way or the other.
And the pvp i'm talking about is still not planned or war-like... but punches exchanged in a tavern or some wrestling favouring the balance of nature. It would be an integrant part, another facet of a realistic rp, not rp being a detail between the pvp sections...
-
The rules about PvP haven't changed for as far as I can remember and will not be changed unless the DM team decides so. Whatever argument one brings up (better RP, more realism, etc), it's in the end the decision of the DMs. As I have understood it, their decision right now is to not change anything, so the rules will remain the same.
And to quote what Acacea kindly pointed out:
Acacea - 7/28/2006 11:11 PM
Just go to search and type PvP to save the joy of answering another few times. It comes up all the time.
-
And the pvp i'm talking about is still not planned or war-like... but punches exchanged in a tavern or some wrestling favouring the balance of nature.
People already do this using their dicebags.
-
The questions in this thread have been answered.
For the forseeable future of the current incarnation of Layonara Online non-GMed PvP will not be allowed except in designated arena areas.
I don't think this can be laid out any more clearly than it already has been.
-
Anomas Analor Kamath - 7/30/2006 1:50 AM And the pvp i'm talking about is still not planned or war-like... but punches exchanged in a tavern or some wrestling favouring the balance of nature. It would be an integrant part, another facet of a realistic rp, not rp being a detail between the pvp sections...
....and this argument comes up with surprising regularity....I suppose it shouldn't be surprising anymore.
Realistic or no...the man who puts his money and vision into this world does not want that without restrictions.
-
and, lets face it, the kind of non-destructive PVP described there can be accomplished by emotes and the dicebag with only a little extra effort..
-
My idea of PvP as i amagine it should be obviously GMed nothing to discuss on that. I've read a few replies and i think that PvP would make the game more realistic, why does someone has to go to the arena when guys in middle ages killed people where they wished? just an opinion. I've read the badger problem and that guy closing him with a firewall, ok if he killed them once thats ok i think ut imagine he keeps provoking some ranger or druid by killing the badgers or whatever when they keep respawning. Can they kill someone like that with DM permission?
-
If a DM is around and both persons agrees: Yes.
Otherwise: No.
-
Kothar - 7/30/2006 5:47 AM My idea of PvP as i amagine it should be obviously GMed nothing to discuss on that. I've read a few replies and i think that PvP would make the game more realistic, why does someone has to go to the arena when guys in middle ages killed people where they wished? just an opinion. I've read the badger problem and that guy closing him with a firewall, ok if he killed them once thats ok i think ut imagine he keeps provoking some ranger or druid by killing the badgers or whatever when they keep respawning. Can they kill someone like that with DM permission?
But someone doing that would be abusing the noPvP rule (using it as a shield) and should be reported
The PvP rule is quite simple and can be summed up like this: You may not ever attack another PC in any form (including spells, summons, animal companions, familiars) without being in the arena or a GMed event. Period..
-
Please, people....what would be realistic or not, let's not dwell on it any further.
If you MUST do combative PvP, do it either in the arena, or do it with GM supervision....or don't do it at all.
That's the server rule, and currently, no amount to citing realism, RP or other well-discussed arguments is going to change that at this time.
One more suggestion of the sort, and I lock this down. This thread has answered the original questions. The rest is getting off-track.
-
If Pvp is restricted to gm supervision, there should always be at least one gm online, no? I wouldn't have trouble calling one of course, since both parts would certainly agree, but i had no luck so far finding one.
About the dicebag... it feels like holding some commando play doll on your hand and making '*puff* *puff*' with your mouth while throwing it at another one =|
Anyways, i gave my reasons, and it's obvious to assume the rule won't change, so... i'm satisfied at least people avaiabled themselves to discuss this.
-
This thread is locked. This is ridiculous.