PvP rules

So, I don't know if I missed this topic elsewhere (if I did, please feel free to erase this post), but this is something I'd like to know about.

I know most of our community usually dislikes PvP in regard of rp, while I am one of the few who loves it. I think it's able to boost quite a lot some rp scenes, and find it necessary.

My suggestion would be to make it free, under previous consent from both sides if required, or unless DM supervision in case one's there. I would actually have it completely free, but I can see how this could be abused or lead some people to feel uncomfortable.

Is there already any rules discussed about PvP? If not, what would you folks like to have it like?

Nothing has been officially discussed by the team at this time. That being said, knowing the communities opinion will make it easier for us to discuss so thank you for starting this thread.

We will use the input from this thread to discuss the PvP rules, and like everything else, we will place the discussed outcome in the Planned Server Implementations thread for everyones input before it becomes official. So please discuss your opinions!

iv been playing on a rpvp perma death when killed via pvp, and well im suprised by how fun its been, pvp is pretty much a last resort and it gets the blood pumping.

what would folks think of something like that?

that basicly dying in pvp and having body destroyed = perma death of that character?

Ack. Oh, the dreaded topic. Well, here it goes. I've never enjoyed the mechanical aspect of the PVP in NWN2. I think it's messy, inaccurate and honestly, I've had nothing but negative experiences with it. A lot of the time, it benefits powerbuilders and those of us that like RP builds are kinda left on the wayside rolling our eyes because we don't like to power build. I do hope we have something that benefits both play styles. I respect those that enjoy it, it's just not my cup of tea. I do enjoy roleplaying PVP. I wouldn't be surprised if you see me RP the dang thing roll by roll with someone else for fun, that is enjoyable for me. It gives a chance to use skill rolls, etc. that may not always be used in the mechanical form of PVP.

I do think all the opposite about the mechanics of pvp and how it works on RP, but as always happens in a community, likes are never the same for everyone. So I'm with Maiden there, we should look for a system that worked for everyone, so all of them are able to enjoy their experiences.

I'd say to go with the system I suggested before: consent being required from both sides to hop into PvP mechanics, and otherwise doing so via rolls, unless there's a DM supervising the scene and requesting rolling with the scene in an specific way.

Now, in my personal experience, I've learnt to put on my bio OOCly that I'm PvP friendly, and so people doesn't need any consent from my side to pvp me. This means I don't mind my character being assaulted out of nowhere for sneaky characters, or whatever it comes, as long as it's for the sake of their rp. Maybe we could include this "personal point" in everyone's bio so one could know what's each player feels comfortable with?

And also, in my personal opinion, a big nope to the perma-death thing from pvp. I do like to have my characters growing and developing in long-term .xD

Some definitions I'm going to use before talking, to keep things clear because not everyone uses the terms in the same way :

PvP : Turning another PC hostile and attacking them mechanically.
Rolled Combat : When characters fight, but narrativly instead of mechanically. Actions are emoted, the dice tool is used to help. No mechanical attacks are made.


With that out of the way, I'm not sure what the best option is. The three rules I see most often all have their downsides. And that downside is usually when a player is not being mature/nice. No matter the rule.

Full PvP : You can PVP anyone so long as you put them hostile and have an IC reason to do so. Well, a lot of people don't like PVP. Especially when it's a level 30 who's going around PVPing level 5s.Less bad if the level range that characters will realistically be in is smaller, because fights are less unfair.

Consent PVP : You have to send someone a tell before PVPing them. If they refuse, they have to leave the area. Well, it's not that different from the above. You have players who use the rule to bully anyone who's weaker/Doesn't like PVP.

Rolled Combat only : No PVP. All character vs characters are Rolled combat only. The problem here is that unless a DM is present, there is nothing to enforce such a thing. When players disagree on what would happen.... well, it usually just ends in a big argument. This requires two mature players who are not focused on winning, which you don't get all that often.

So yeah. The best solution is for people to be courteous and thoughtful of their fellow players. Unfortunately that's pretty subjective and not exactly something you can make into a rule.



On a side not, do not destroy other PC's bodies after PVPing them... that is pretty much the opposite of collaborative storytelling, it's "I'm here to win" mentality. Think of your fellow players!

I feel PVP will be influenced by what factions are going to be on the server.  Also if the factions will be PC versus PC or NPC.  Not counting minor factions, will the major faction run by PC be in charge of major areas in the games.

Personally I don't think the system is designed for PC versus PC combat and this is why we have all these balance issues with PVP.

me personally i have both good and bad experiances with pvp. being beat up on by power builds and folks some with power some not skirting the rules. and instances where i won but it was due to some idiots with low toons trying to act bigger than they was. ive also had instances where ive won and then later had to deal with a group of his buddies with him in the back ground.

i am personally against pvp period no matter what form it takes unless both consent or all do and in cases like duels friendly mind you.

in the older days with great players we use to pvp when bored a lot but it was always consenting and it always fit with the characters. we also looted the corpses "willingly gave up items gold or rp items such as rp uniforms or passes and the likes" if they had nothing to give we took nothing or little gold they had we left it and just kept it as rped rewards no exchanges.

that was a great thing i enjoyed it gave us many ways to rp and so forth including uniforms to infiltrate the enemy with patrol routes papers or various information usually pertaining to a future event or to break out a member of guard or elf or so on from jail and the likes. in one case i got trade routes they used and set up ambushes then later on i took over trade routes. and even made my own.

on the note of spoils of battle as i call them it was never mandatory and anything major like uniforms and so on were done even with out dm permission sometimes we took actual uniforms other times it was rp only. as we knew the cost they paid to get them and wouldnt do that to fellow player. we as much as we pvped did look after each other. but that is the thing that changed most it became more power build and no consent given or needed.

i do not like the no consent to pvp and leave the area i feel walking away is good enough that way i can finish what i was doing and go on to next thing on list. and the forced rp out by the aggressor is total bull crap even by a dm toon. i hated that crap. you say or do what they want or its pvp nope bad thing.

another point id like to make is the killing the toon even by accident when you meant to knock them out. in pvp even by consent it is not mandatory they raise you after or heal you at all. in most cases it is done by their choice and in an ooc fashion. this is because they looking out for you in their own way and helping you out a bit.

most good players do this by instinct but on the flip side if your being an basshat we walk away leave you there dead. regardless whatever happens it is ooc raise or heal by choice. if i get tells demanding i raise someone guess what in many cases i have then instant kill them again. rp reason i didnt like them or their eyes rolled whatever. lol.

now i feel it would be ok to ask if they are cause sometimes waiting while they take you to cleric is a bit long if they say yeah then cool if they say no leave it at that and raise your self be done with it.

pvp in general should be by consent only or if you consent to help dm with furthering an event or what have you then that is auto consent and they will take care of you after.

if no consent given then no pvp period end of story. not even the praise my god or die sorry not going to happen. no consent mean just that no none nada pvp at all.

turning some one hostile is not consent they can be of guild group faction against you and honestly its an easier way to keep up with those you dont want to rp with or those you keep an eye on incase pvp is consented to then its easy to go thru with instead fumble round with or look for whats needed to do so. if they are a known faction this was often done.

consent still needed to pvp but with it this made for great ambushes where my toon more often than not was the bait for groups of hostiel players that got lured into trap for sneaks and guards off in distance. sometimes we won othe times we still lost. but it was part of the game.

while these some of which can not be made into rules i wanted them posted here to kind of give a guide to what i see as good pvp. you have each other in mind what we think is fair for both and so on how to treat each other after and possible ideas for rp. knock them out instead of kill search for item gold whatever is agreeable to the other party or just leave it as rp taken of something. when lots of gold i have offered x amount up for them little gold lower x amount. but i had to have believed it was descently done rped out and in all honesty i had to believe the players was actually a good player if i respected them as a player even ones i never rped with i often often different things up. but they really had to go above and beyond in rp.

so in short kiss keep it simple stupid consent or no pvp if you know they have problems with a build be nice help them out. kits and wands can be replaced friendships made oocly can not. if you want to enhance the situation offer up something in return for a win doesnt have to be much or anything really exchange say hey he might take my helm or armor or something like that if its not actually being giving as an idea that can be used later. and if you dont want to thats fine to.

dont be a dtick about pvp. those who are get no respect from me where as ones who are not i go out of way to help out.

~sky

I'm going to just trust the staff on this one. I'm not one to support PVP because of the abuse it gets. But at the same time if its not available the abuse is even more immersion breaking. SO staff its on you as far as I'm concerned.

For me, I've not been a fan of PVP, and would prefer Consent of some kind, whether it's via tells or written into the ingame Bio about open pvp consent, but would also prefer any pvp be given an rp reasoning, either doing a normal combat or doing a Rolled combat (which might be best for official duels as mentioned in the laws).

So, chatting about these kinds of things I kind of stumbled onto this idea which I believe might solve a lot of problems.

You must have a personal conflict with another character to initial PVP. Impersonal conflicts such as race or faith are not valid reasons to PVP.

This neatly makes most of the bad cases of PVP-happy people not okay. Things like "Because I'm an orc!", or "Because he's a Banite and I'm a paladin" or "Because my character hates elves." are no longer valid PVP reasons.

With the exception of monster races. Like Orc and Drow, There are some racial haters for them especially.

I keep saying it would still be better to go for the consent-request point and that's it.

For example, I, who actually enjoys PvP pretty much and can't see it as nothing but a plus to boost rp (if not abused), am more than alright to be engaged in PvP from a bandit, for religious/race reasons, etc. Couldn't I just be alright with it? Maybe stating it on a OOC note at my bio, or simply allowing it to happen if asked for consent? And the other way around, couldn't I just ask OOCly first the player I want to engage against if that is alright?

If you meant it as having that as the standard for PvP without consent needed, and players still would be able to ask for consent for the other kind of PvP, then yes, I think that'd be a good idea.

heres the thing i say consent is needed if it is no then you both go other ways. but the thing i think people should know if you are given consent screen shot that ditch and keep it as proof if you say no screen shot that as proof. this will in turn make things easier for dm's later on incase things get out of hand.

just my thoughts on it made simple.

Make it an opt in/out system:

Opted-in players can pvp each other with no prior warning or consent, apart from hostiling each other.  They must still have opted-out players agree to pvp.

Opted-out players have to give prior warning or consent before pvping each other, and have to give prior warning or consent even when pvping opted-in players.

Have players include it as a footnote in their examine bios.

It goes without saying that you would still need an RP reason to pvp each other, since this is an RP server, but this solution benefits both kinds of players and is something I've wanted to try in the past.

I'm more a fan of a point system that is tracked and monitored. I've seen similar things on servers though the coding was used for something different. Now bare with me as I try to explain this system because I know I suck at explaining things.

Upon creation each character could be assigned a cursed "stone" so the stones don't take up character inventory. What do I mean by "cursed stone"? Good question I'm glad you asked. Cursed means they are permanent items bound to one specific character that cannot be removed, trashed, or traded.

The stones would function as a means to track reputation for specific groups, guilds, factions, cities, etc.. Now the way the reputation with said said stone would work is it would affect every action the said character would have with said faction. So each faction would have it's own stone representative which would have a number representing your own reputation with said group. Onto the more complicated explanation of why I put this in the PvP area.

The way PvP is initiated is by a command instead the option to hostile then attack one would have to type in a specific command like  "!Fight (insert name)" or something similiar, then the person would be prompted to accept by either clicking a button "ok" having to type in a command like "!Accept". This would allow players of neutral factions to engage in combat with one another.  If the player receiving the invitation refused it would tracked, from here it would be acknowledged the character declined and has to leave the area. As the location and time stamp would be on the declining to fight. Which would make it easier for DM's to track what lead up to the request for PvP with out all the he said she said mess.

Now onto the explanation of how the Reputation stones work with PvP.

Everyone should start out as an adventurer in my opinion which means every one would have an adventurer stone. This stone means the reputation of the characters choices and actions while they are just an adventurer and not part of any group or faction. I am a firm believer in every action has a reaction. So if a character wishes to fight for some RP reason their should be an RP reaction to it through reputation. When a fight concludes the victor could gain a small boost to their reputation as an adventurer so the NPCs would become more aware of said victor. Here is where the reaction part comes in.

As their fame grows because of fighting if they are the initiator negative effects begin to show as one would be labeled as an bully, miscreant, trouble maker, etc.. Which means less NPCs are going to want to have less interactions. So like merchants would charge more for water and pay less for goods from the offender or even offer any services at all for that matter.

If they are the victor but where not the initiator they may not get a title which would affect the reaction of NPCs.

If the initiator lost the fight they could suffer a small reduction in reputation points but never go below -10 so they'll suffer maybe some looks or insults.

If they are not the initiator and loss then they could loss some reputation points but never go below 0.

How reputation stones work in groups or factions.

Once some one has joined a faction or group the adventurers stone should be removed, by a DM of course, and given the stone of said group or faction. What this stone does is track the overall reputation of the guild, faction, group, etc.. Meaning if the faction is at war with another faction then the player would automatically be set to hostile with the other faction. Also means the NPCs of said faction would attack players if the opposing faction on sight. Which would allow players to ambush one another as well. This would make it where people would really have to consider joining up with groups and what not. Of course the only ones who can declare war with other groups or factions are the leaders the command would be "!War (insert name of faction or group)". Once it is submitted it wouldn't be approved right away the DM's would have to approve it.

Breakdown of reputation and benefits.

An neutral Player or rather "Adventurer" reputation should cap out at 50 but go as low as -100. This way if people wish to remain. Neutral and not in any groups or factions they can travel any where really and get a life but of a discount or even special jobs from groups and factions but if they are a known scoundrel most NPCs won't want much to do with them.

For the Player that is part of a faction or group reputation for that group can go as high as 100 and as low as -20. I figure if you fall too low in your group you should be removed or atleast severely punished. The benefits of being part of a faction with high reputation would include exclusive items for said group or faction and great discounts and possibly more.

How other factions react to one another.

How each factions reputation reacts to one another depends on the status of the factions. All factions should be at 0 with each other until the members either earn reputation with one another to get one each other's good side and form an alliance or truce or despise each other even go to war.

0 would be the neutral point so the NPCs would react to the player of the opposite faction like they would a commoner.

50 would be on friendly terms so slight discounts and possibility of helping one another.

100 would be terms of truce would would be good discounts and maybe special privelages, though not as great as getting 100 reputation with your own faction.

-50  would not be terms of war but the few who do talk to the player in the opposite faction would be rude and suspicious chances of trade are very slim and the would charge you triple or so for their goods.

-100 The player might as well not even bother going into the opposing group or faction. Trade will not happen and if the factions aren't at war yet the player wouldn't be allowed in or could be jailed.

Would interaction with other guilds have the ability to affect another guild rep?
How many guild reps can be tracked with the stone?
How about just tracking the characters rep, regardless of the guild they are in, being in a guild should only affect the personal rep, negative or positive.

You can create as many stones as factions or groups so it tracks them individually if you wanted. As for the reason why the guild stone represents the character is because once you join a faction or guild you represent them. It is a known fact you are in said group and you are expected to live up to their code of conduct regardless of how the individuals standings are for or against other factions. So if you want to join a faction you need to make sure its something your character would actually do instead of just joining for the benefits. It gives meaning to actually joining a guild.