PK(Player kill) ethics?

[Xenogrant]

My backstory:
Just thought I'd toss it out there, and see what the common concensus is. I've played a ton of online RPGs in the past, but not the web-based ones, I've played for the reason of competing and the only thing I enjoy in LotGD is Player Killing(PK) since random luck is a big factor. I never attack farmies, my Player vs Player(PvP) range, is 5DK above - 10 below. I usually max armor/weapon by level 7 after which I get all 3 of my PvP encounters by breaking into the inn, for selection. I've found a small clan of likeminded people who enjoy PvP and pick a random clan every month whose members are to be targeted if seen.

The case in question:
Now for the ethics part, I consider myself somewhat of an a-hole, if somebody starts whining about me killing them, I tell them that it was somewhat of a fair fight, and if they can't handle it they shouldn't have PvP turned on, and proceed to hunt them down, or set bounties on them for a few days if they're not in my level range, to get my point across. Lately I've been getting nagged by a Clan's leader(4Dk higher than me then, a few dk lower now) whose clan my clan had targeted(i'm just a member, not an officer or leader of the clan i'm in) a few month ago, and targetted again this month because he kept on complaining repeatedly about being killed. Now the other members are starting to whine from which I've gathered that they talk about me in clan chat, while I keep saying the same thing to them individually as they file complaints, 'if you can't handle it, turn off PvP, if you don't want to attack me - set a bounty' I don't over-do it just to anger people, I'll prey on the person if they're in my level range for the DK and won't see them again for a few DKs due to level difference.

My views:
Am I right or wrong with my outlook? I think the game is flexible enough to let people have PvP turned on, convert them into forest fights, and gain more experience than getting killed once at the inn, and use the money to spam bounties on people killing them, so that if the same person kills them repeatedly and notices a bounty on his head the next day every time, he might stop attacking to avoid the bounty. Or PvP can be turned off altogether if people can't handle it, but in no way should people enjoy having 3 PvPs converted into forest fights without a price. I feel absolutely right in repeatedly attacking people who complain about this and the people I attack always stand a chance of winning, do you disagree? If you do I will still not alter my behaviour I just needed to rant.

[RichPlaystation]

I can only attack people of 26 or higher DK's anyway, by that level most have got past the 'waaa stop killing me' stage, you can always turn pvp off and if it is within a clan it keep the exp within the clan so what's the problem?
If you think someone is harrasing you with pvp's either your either paranoid or you could get stronger or block pvp's or shut up and put up with it, it's past of the game after all. Anyway I got killed plenty when I was near a farmie (and still do somedays even now over 250 dk's)

[X-Kal]

I can't stop you from maintaining your play strategy, but I'll post mine anyways. I've got PvP back on, largely because the cost of going without is just to great to keep going like that. Nowadays, I PvP almost exclusively for experience, and I'll feel no regret in killing a farmie if there's no alternate target - sometimes, I'm down to less than a full minute until New Day™, when I need to get my day finished FAST. PvP is almost never anything personal.

Now, this is where I differ from you. I feel that if they can politely ask me to stop PvPing them, that I will. No questions asked. I'll just stop for them. If it's too demanding, too whiney, etc., I may decide to ignore their request, and if they ask me "why do you keep PvPing me?" then I'll do my best to give them an honest reply. If it was truely nothing personal, then I'll tend to back off. Sometimes, I'll kill someone that friend asks me to kill, so I'll calmly explain the situation there, usually open to a ceasefire.

My only advice is to make sure you don't go overboard, i.e. telling your entire clan to haunt/bounty/PvP one person. I can say from experience that it's not fun having a large group after your head, as I've had one entire clan start mass PvPing me for awhile. Just be sure to keep the fight clean and to stay calm as you're writing messages to each other. I, for one, am here to have fun; I don't want to create any *real* personal conflicts here.

EDIT: Ooh, and just as a matter of courtesy, I think it would be preferable to avoid naming specific names in here regarding the topic. Especially bad would be the "Please kill Player _____" posts.

[RichPlaystation]

Ah true, harrasing is a different issue, I don't actually think it is possible for one person to pvp harrass you though, they can only do it once a gameday, hardly harrassment is it?
If people are ganing up OR sending rude pm's e.t.c then yes indeed tell you server admins

[X-Kal]

It largely depends on how the player chooses to respond. If (s)he is constantly logging in, then it'll allow for additional PvPs per day.* Also, I'm not sure if you can stack haunts or not... I sure hope not! I noticed a signifigant negative buff along with my first haunt, which oddly only happened recently.

EDIT: I know that most people know this already, but I have to clarify anyways. It lets more PvPs per day against that player - no, relogging doesn't get you more PvP turns :P

[RichPlaystation]

So THAT'S what haunting does, I always wondered what it's purpose was!

[X-Kal]

If you ever want to experience a haunt for a day, let me know and I'll arrange it for you - I've got enough different characters that coughing up the favor shouldn't be hard, at all. I think its effects go away pretty quickly, though... well, at least, when you have 40 turns per day, it will.

[Xenogrant]

EDIT: Ooh, and just as a matter of courtesy, I think it would be preferable to avoid naming specific names in here regarding the topic. Especially bad would be the "Please kill Player _____" posts.

My thoughts exactly, I haven't even mentioned what server I'm on, I just wanted to share my mindset, and see if it's out of step with LotGD community.

[Lauri]

My only advice is to make sure you don't go overboard, i.e. telling your entire clan to haunt/bounty/PvP one person. I can say from experience that it's not fun having a large group after your head, as I've had one entire clan start mass PvPing me for awhile. Just be sure to keep the fight clean and to stay calm as you're writing messages to each other. I, for one, am here to have fun; I don't want to create any *real* personal conflicts here.

EDIT: Ooh, and just as a matter of courtesy, I think it would be preferable to avoid naming specific names in here regarding the topic. Especially bad would be the "Please kill Player _____" posts.

Along these lines, organised killing (ie, one clan arranging to constantly keep a player pvp'd) is considered harrassment on Classic server. So too is killing the exact same player every day where that player has expressed to you their unhappiness with being constantly targetted and where they are not (or cannot) hope to do it back.

The same goes for haunting. We had an episode recently on Classic where this was occurring and the players involved got themselves a ban.

What I would note, however, is that if you are the one getting killed occasionally and you whine to the accuser, and it is not constant, you're likely to be killed more often. I would still encourage you to report it if it is constant at you, but if it's someone close to you on the hall of fame and it's only every few days, consider it to be just rivalry. In cases like these we do look into logs. If for example I see God Frank killing Farmboy Grant every day for five days running, Frank is in deep water. On the other hand if God Frank kills God Ted once a week, and then Ted attacks back and loses for a few days, then wins, it is patently obvious there is no malice involved. It comes down to your attitude.

One of Classic's few rules is that you may not interfere with the ability of others to enjoy the game. If you kill farmies at random, no worries, we all were farmies once and we all got killed in our sleep. But if you are targetting one or more persons specifically to make them unhappy, that is not acceptable.

[Xenogrant]

So too is killing the exact same player every day where that player has expressed to you their unhappiness with being constantly targetted and where they are not (or cannot) hope to do it back.


I strongly disagree. If we are to be given the freedom of attacking whoever we want, then we should be allowed to exercise that freedom however we see fit, and if we are not allowed, then the server should set up limitations to attacking the same player repeatedly. How can one be expected to be following some unwritten rules that someone invented and never made them known to the public(unless I missed them somewhere, in which case I take this back, and am making an a--s out of myself). This goes against the very concept of player combat. Which has plenty of limitations and safeguards as is. If someone is afraid of fighting back, they can set a bounty for someone who isnt to collect.

So too is killing the exact same player every day where that player has expressed to you their unhappiness with being constantly targetted and where they are not (or cannot) hope to do it back.
I have yet to recieve a mail where someone said they were glad they were killed by me, I congratulate people of lower DK when I attack them and they end up killing me, out of good sportsmanship, but I've never had the pleasure of it being the other way around. I really doubt any of the farmies who got killed by somebody they had no chance of winning against took any pleasure in the 'you've been killed by XXXXX who had 600HP when he initiated an attack on you, and had 600HP at the end of the fight'

One of Classic's few rules is that you may not interfere with the ability of others to enjoy the game. If you kill farmies at random, no worries, we all were farmies once and we all got killed in our sleep. But if you are targetting one or more persons specifically to make them unhappy, that is not acceptable.

Here's finally a point I agree on, ban the people who interfere in my desire to enjoy the game with their whining. I don't kill farmies because I take no pleasure in it. I don't kill people at random, I kill the same people over and over again during a DK cycle, because they either killed me at some point and I have their name down, because my clan officers picked a clan to be attacked at random for a month, or because I feel like it and didn't even know I wasn't free in making my decisions. If it's preventing them from enjoying game let them turn off PvP, that's exactly what that checkmark is there for.

If you're going to ban me for my outlook, please just PM me so that I could say good bye to the clan. And I'll quit myself.

[RichPlaystation]

My question is, how do you know if it's harrassment? I killed someone a few days in a row once (only because I wanted to use a pvp that otherwise would have been wasted, and because they were always in my level range) and they didn't feel it was harassment because.....well they had a brain I guess :?
It is only harrassment if the person who is doing the killing knows they are doing it for some reason other than JUST doing it (or if they have been asked to I guess) and how can we tell there is any other motive behind it? we can't! Well most of the time anyway

[X-Kal]

I think that if you know for sure that it's harrassment, then it's harrassment. If you coincidentally target the same guy repeatedly, well... I've done that myself, too. In my opinion, it's only when carelessness turns over into intent that it becomes harrassment. If they ask you to stop, then you'll know the situation. If they were really rude about asking you to stop, then perhaps sending a report about the message, depending on what it says? If I were ever unsure, I'd ask someone about it, in private. Defining harrassment is often times a case-by-case scenario.

If you're worried, stick a line in your profile that says that you don't mean anything personal with your PvPs, and perhaps that you'd stop if they ask nicely.

[Xenogrant]

I'm arguing for harssment being a part of player combat, those who feel harassed shouldn't engage in it.

Like I said one clan members' constantly accuse me of some personal vendetta against them or personal issues with their members, I simply attack them because they whine after being attacked. My key point is that anyone who can't handle being attacked should turn off PvP, since it's senseless to have a game option that rewards people for engaging in player combat, who can't handle player combat. Like I said before I attack people in 10DK range, and I only target them for one DK cycle every couple of cycles, what I'm arguing for is a freedom to attack people however often one pleases. It's redundant allowing people to attack someone with much lower DK, as if it pleases the victim, and forbidding attacking someone with similar DK repeatedly.

[RichPlaystation]

Xenogrant said exactly what I agree with!

Defining harrassment is often times a case-by-case scenario.

Also sounds like what I was trying to say but I couldn't think how to say it

[Valancy]

PvP spoiled the game for me, as i don't play enough for it to be worth my while (i was losing more experience than i was gaining), so i turned it off on both my characters on Central.

there is a point, however, at which the victims feel they should say "Enough is enough!" and ask the person killing them to stop... for instance, another server i no longer play on had one player killing me every time i signed off. it just got old. and i don't think i had the option there to turn off PvP.

so i can see both sides of the argument. i did still vote "if it's a problem for you, turn off PvP"

[Qwyxzl]

So too is killing the exact same player every day where that player has expressed to you their unhappiness with being constantly targetted and where they are not (or cannot) hope to do it back.


I strongly disagree. If we are to be given the freedom of attacking whoever we want, then we should be allowed to exercise that freedom however we see fit, and if we are not allowed, then the server should set up limitations to attacking the same player repeatedly. How can one be expected to be following some unwritten rules that someone invented and never made them known to the public(unless I missed them somewhere, in which case I take this back, and am making an a--s out of myself). This goes against the very concept of player combat. Which has plenty of limitations and safeguards as is. If someone is afraid of fighting back, they can set a bounty for someone who isnt to collect.

I will tell you the same thing that I tell the people that insist on roleplaying whatever they want in the gardens: Our job as admins is to make a place that as many people as possible feel comfortable playing. If your behavoir is directly causing other players to lose interest in playing then that behavoir needs to be examined. It takes almost no effort on your part to avoid killing a particular player over and over again so I fail to see how it is a problem to ask you to do so

I have yet to recieve a mail where someone said they were glad they were killed by me,

I get lots Yoms from people who are happy that it was I who pvped them. Of course I have a tendancy to yom those that I kill and generally have a good relationship with most of them

One of Classic's few rules is that you may not interfere with the ability of others to enjoy the game. If you kill farmies at random, no worries, we all were farmies once and we all got killed in our sleep. But if you are targetting one or more persons specifically to make them unhappy, that is not acceptable.

Here's finally a point I agree on, ban the people who interfere in my desire to enjoy the game with their whining.

So it is aceptable for you to reduce peoples enjoyment of the game but they cannot do the same?

I don't kill farmies because I take no pleasure in it.

I find this to be a very interesting statement for someone who has taken a title that is extremely misleading. How many Farmies kill themselves on you not knowing your true DK total?

[Xenogrant]

It takes almost no effort on your part to avoid killing a particular player over and over again so I fail to see how it is a problem to ask you to do so


The main issue I'm addressing is that with all the safeguards the game has, there's a need to incourage not discourage all forms of combat. If somebody can't handle being killed they can do a multitude of things, ranging from bounties, asking others or clanmates to avenge them, turn off player combat, or if they insist on taking advantage of the system accompanied by soccer mom mentality, they can skip a day and let the person get out of the 2 level difference range thus making it impossible to get attacked.

The current system discourages PvP at every turn, and only encourages safe kills of people of much lower DK, or lower level, not many risk attacking people higher than themselves.

So it is aceptable for you to reduce peoples enjoyment of the game but they cannot do the same?
I'm questioning the one-sided policy ambiguously worded and not even known to be in place by some.
If some form of behaviour is inacceptable then there should be a link to it, and the wording should be clear-cut. Unless I missed it, but I'm fairly sure I got acquainted with rules of the server upon signing up.

Better yet it should be incorporated into game mechanics. Failure to do either only gives birth to the acts.

I find this to be a very interesting statement for someone who has taken a title that is extremely misleading. How many Farmies kill themselves on you not knowing your true DK total?

About the same as the number of people who attack farmies for easy experience, which is risk free (the flaw that i've outlined above). I fail to see why anyone would attack a person without checking their bio, to see the race, the DKs are displayed there too - so as for the farmies this will get them in habbit of scrutinizing the person they attack, hell maybe some people will actually start using the 'learn about your enemies' option at the dark horse tarvern. Using a reserved game titles shouldn't even be allowed, but all I saw in rules is no using offensive words. I used everything at my disposal to gain even the slightest bit of an advantage, every inch of the rope to pull myself up, and now it seems like it's all for naught.

I just think that there's now a worrying sense of entitlement to free turns, the experience for which exceeds experience lost due to logged out death, and giving up an inch to gain a yard, suddenly raises outrage, due to aforementioned mindset of gain without loss.

[Lauri]

So too is killing the exact same player every day where that player has expressed to you their unhappiness with being constantly targetted and where they are not (or cannot) hope to do it back.
I strongly disagree.
You're not the admin. I am.

If we are to be given the freedom of attacking whoever we want, then we should be allowed to exercise that freedom however we see fit, and if we are not allowed, then the server should set up limitations to attacking the same player repeatedly.
No. The server does not have to set technical rules to require you to respect others. It is impossible, for example, for the server to stop you calling Farmgirl Jane a horse-headed swine (since you have not used a curse word) yet you know this is not appropriate and are expected not to behave in that way.

How can one be expected to be following some unwritten rules that someone invented and never made them known to the public
Classic's MotD has clearly stated many times that players may not interfere with the rights of other players to enjoy the place as an environment free of harrassment.

So too is killing the exact same player every day where that player has expressed to you their unhappiness with being constantly targetted and where they are not (or cannot) hope to do it back.
I have yet to recieve a mail where someone said they were glad they were killed by me
I clearly noted the word constantly. If you kill a player once, they will not express to you their "unhappiness at being constantly targetted", will they?

One of Classic's few rules is that you may not interfere with the ability of others to enjoy the game. If you kill farmies at random, no worries, we all were farmies once and we all got killed in our sleep. But if you are targetting one or more persons specifically to make them unhappy, that is not acceptable.

Here's finally a point I agree on, ban the people who interfere in my desire to enjoy the game with their whining. I don't kill farmies because I take no pleasure in it. I don't kill people at random, I kill the same people over and over again during a DK cycle, because they either killed me at some point and I have their name down, because my clan officers picked a clan to be attacked at random for a month, or because I feel like it and didn't even know I wasn't free in making my decisions. If it's preventing them from enjoying game let them turn off PvP, that's exactly what that checkmark is there for.

If you're going to ban me for my outlook, please just PM me so that I could say good bye to the clan. And I'll quit myself.
I'm not interested in banning anyone for their opinion, so long as they respect three things:
1. the rights of other players to enjoy the server and be treated equally
2. the opinions of others on this board
3. the rules set forward by the admins

You have read what I have said here and yet you claim that you will continue to do it because you feel like it. Make no mistake, if you intentionally continue to target the same players, I will place a ban on you the moment I get a report of harrassment. Simple as that. If you don't want that ban, don't harrass people.

[X-Kal]

hell maybe some people will actually start using the 'learn about your enemies' option at the dark horse tarvern.

Please remember that this option is 99% inaccessible to the people who would more likely be targeting you, e.g. other farmies. Highlight the quotebox to see my spoilerish explination.

Remember that the Dark Horse Tavern is only available if you have a mount, or by random chance in a special event. Your average user doesn't have regular access to this place.

[Valancy]

*blinks* what? most of the players on Classic don't have mounts? that amazes me!!

[X-Kal]

*blinks* what? most of the players on Classic don't have mounts? that amazes me!!

I didn't get my mount until fairly late in the game. I went most of my time with a bobcat, and my wife goes about with her winged cat. Neither of these provide Dark Horse Tavern access.

[Valancy]

ahhh yes, familiars. didn't think about that bit.

[Xenogrant]

You're not the admin. I am
Guess that invalidates my opinion, which you left out of the quotation.

"If we are to be given the freedom of attacking whoever we want, then we should be allowed to exercise that freedom however we see fit, and if we are not allowed, then the server should set up limitations to attacking the same player repeatedly. How can one be expected to be following some unwritten rules that someone invented and never made them known to the public(unless I missed them somewhere, in which case I take this back, and am making an a--s out of myself). This goes against the very concept of player combat. Which has plenty of limitations and safeguards as is. If someone is afraid of fighting back, they can set a bounty for someone who isnt to collect. "

No. The server does not have to set technical rules to require you to respect others. It is impossible, for example, for the server to stop you calling Farmgirl Jane a horse-headed swine (since you have not used a curse word) yet you know this is not appropriate and are expected not to behave in that way.
No I guess having technical rules for something that's considered an exploit of a game mechanic just wouldn't make sense. While on the other hand having a clear-cut rule that avoids ambiguities such as harassment(or defines what it is), or a line of code that bars a person from attacking a person say more than 3 times during a DK cycle. The example you've given deals with social interaction while the example that follows with game advancement. If the two intercept at some point then having that common point makes it a game and not a social issue.
---
Please address this:
If I get experience from a person, I know I can kill, who has their PvP flag on it makes perfect sense to kill that person repeatedly knowing I don't risk experience loss unless they get lucky.
---
Classic's MotD has clearly stated many times that players may not interfere with the rights of other players to enjoy the place as an environment free of harrassment.
Calling someone a horse-headed swine, is harassment, killing others is advancement.

If you kill a player once, they will not express to you their "unhappiness at being constantly targetted", will they?
It's a 0 sum game, if I don't kill them, someone else will. Plus if it matters so much to someone to get killed 10 times by me, or once by 10 people, they have some ego issues.

When I said i will continue to do so I didn't think it would get blown out of proportion like this, I thought it would be just a discussion on whether people agree or disagree, I didn't even know it was against the rules at the time.
---
Anyway sorry for quote humping you so much, I dont even know why I'm arguing still, I think just for the pleasure of debate

[Valancy]

just want to point out that on classic they are not developing any new code... so your argument about having the code block PvP after a certain number within one DK cycle will kind of go nowhere as far as Lauri and other Classic Server admins are concerned.

hey, if it's something that really worries you, maybe you can take the suggestion on over to someone at www.dragonprime.net who would be willing to code it for you. or maybe you do coding yourself. try setting it up. it's worth a shot.

[Lauri]

*blinks* what? most of the players on Classic don't have mounts? that amazes me!!

I didn't get my mount until fairly late in the game. I went most of my time with a bobcat, and my wife goes about with her winged cat. Neither of these provide Dark Horse Tavern access.

Having a mount doesn't give you access to the DHT. It is a seperate setting, thus not ALL mounts give access.

[RichPlaystation]

It may not seem 2 sided in the poll but I have never seen such a two sided argument about LotGD to this level before

One question to set this straight, rules can't be flexable or they don't work lets face it, so how many times must we pvp someone before we get banned? oh and this is a serious question

[Valancy]

i can't vouch for the admins, but what i think occurred in the previous "situation" they had with it was that someone kept repeatedly targeting other players, they were asked to stop several times, i think at one point they were rude to someone who asked them to lay off, and then they continued to target those players.

i figure if the admins ask me to stop doing something, i'm going to stop doing it.

[Lauri]

You're not the admin. I am
Guess that invalidates my opinion, which you left out of the quotation.
As much as I, being an ethical person, would like Classic to be a place of democracy, it cannot be. This has been expanded on in many other threads where players have demanded rules be changed to suit the wishes of either the majority or of a vocal minority. I am not accusing you of demanding, please believe me, but there are cases where rules must be set which appear to be contrary to enjoyment of the game for some players. From my vantage point the view is very different than for a player. I have been a staff member on this server for more than three years, including when it was 7,000 players, and was one of early players, and have seen its metamorphosis from an extreme beta into today's product which is well-established stable code unchanged for almost 12 months. There are things that I am not good at, but if there is something I am very good at, it is running a server. My principle purpose is to ensure the enjoyment of all players as far as possible. No one player deserves that right more than any other one player; so where one player's enjoyment is achieved by destroying another person's enjoyment, my duty is to stop that behaviour, because you as a player can still enjoy the game without destroying someone else's experience. This is related to the concept of "greater good". It is in more peoples' interests for me to stop harrassment. It is in fewer peoples' interests to allow harrassment. Decisions on rules and conduct all centre around the greater good. Simple. =)

...I guess having technical rules for something that's considered an exploit of a game mechanic just wouldn't make sense. While on the other hand... a line of code that bars a person from attacking a person say more than 3 times during a DK cycle.
It appears you are not familiar with the way Classic is. The five main staff members retired from active day-to-day administration at the end of last year. At the same time it was announced that Classic's code base was not being updated. So there will be no further code development that appears on the server (the only exceptions have been small performance issues from time to time, and a critical security patch which was applied last week).

The server was only retained as a service to its existing players as a thank you for their loyalty over the years and so that their characters were not left homeless.

Please address this:
If I get experience from a person, I know I can kill, who has their PvP flag on it makes perfect sense to kill that person repeatedly knowing I don't risk experience loss unless they get lucky. Calling someone a horse-headed swine, is harassment, killing others is advancement.Yes, you are correct that it makes sense to kill people you know you will be able to kill. However, your character is capable of killing many others, not just a few of them, and by choosing just a few particular players, that is harrassment. Advancement is not exclusively by way of making a person unhappy. All players have a choice on how to advance. When someone makes it their mission to advance by targetting particularly to make their game play less enjoyable, I have a duty to step in.

It's a 0 sum game, if I don't kill them, someone else will. Plus if it matters so much to someone to get killed 10 times by me, or once by 10 people, they have some ego issues.Well, no. If someone gets killed by a different player every night, most will accept that their stats or level makes them a target for PvP. If they're killed by the same person every night, it makes them feel like it is a personal vendetta.

[Lauri]

It may not seem 2 sided in the poll but I have never seen such a two sided argument about LotGD to this level before

One question to set this straight, rules can't be flexable or they don't work lets face it, so how many times must we pvp someone before we get banned? oh and this is a serious question
They have to be. I cannot always know a person's intentions, but the circumstances will generally give me an insight. Keep in mind I am not an admin on DragonCat, where you play.

As an example, if I were to note that God Leroy regularly kills Marchioness Josie, and Josie hits "report to admin" a YOM like this:


----
Original message
I have 50 Dragon Kills less than you Leroy. Can you please stop killing me every day?
----
Original message
Because I want to Josie
----
Original message
May I ask why you are killing me every night, Leroy? That is three times in a row.

and the log shows that he killed her again straight after she asked, then this clearly illustrates that it is harrassment. Josie has made it clear that she is upset with being targetted, the log shows that Leroy is killing her over and over again, despite her request.

Again, I cannot always know intent. But if a player makes it known that the attacking or haunting is hurtful and the other player still chooses to make their life a misery, they made a choice that can be seen by an admin. Where "harrassment" is questionable there is no warning or ban involved. We have always given benefit of doubt.

In the case of the recent brouhaha, the person involved wasn't content just to target people and ignore the YOMs asking for it to stop, they got other people to join them in the targetting of those people. That is unacceptable.

[Xenogrant]

Yeah guess I lost track of where I was going with the argument. I see your point about being a big happy family, I just think there's enough safeguards in place for players to be given free reign in player combat, I'll bet that if there was a certain amount of people whose acts would be deemed un-ethical more bounties would be set, and the game economy would be stronger, and more people more competitive. In my personal opinion some of the rules are artificially proping up things that work fine as intended. From server admin viewpoint I guess my views might result in loss of playerbase so since Central is doing fine the way it's running things, I guess it's a right approach. Best of luck to you people.

Edit: as for the above I was arguing the opposite extreme, of where Josie is harassing Leroy, who has done no wrong since she's the one who enabled the Player combat thus making herself fair game. She's the cause of her own victimization.

[RichPlaystation]

Well yeah but we will never agree on this, but maybe we don't need to, afterall we all do things different in our game styles

[Mess]

*sheds a few tears for the Green Dragon*

[PiRa]

Even Gods need their protein.

It has been scientifically proven that farmies carry the highest amount of protein in-game, a whopping 85% more than Travelers and 90% more than Villagers. Not to mention their lack of muscle make them soft and tender. There has also been a report that the Green Dragon, who published the article on Realm Protein Distributions, is very touched by Mess' tear-shedding and wishes for a private meeting with the said warrior (you know where her cave is). :wink:

- Ye Olde News

[Stormkitten]

One thing that has a big impact on whether it feels like harassment is the number of people on the server in question.

On Central, I don't attack anybody. Never have, never will. But, I tend to see the same people killing me, purely because there's not much for the Dragon Masters out there to pick on.

In the last tourney, I ended up killing (okay... attacking, I didn't always win) the same person every day.

For a lower DK person, though, there's usually enough 'choice' that they shouldn't need to be attacked by the same person every day. In that example given, I would side with them. After all, it can take a long time to kill the dragon and even get the option again of turning off PvP, and some servers don't have that option at all.

[Diorama]

For me, PVP is something I avoided for a long long time, people could kill me, but I couldn't kill them back. I had a very high forest fight strategy, and I spent a lot of time playing that game, using my forest fights. Burning my PVPs gave me a *lot* of experience, in that even once I had hit the flawless cap, I could still gain a level, or maybe two, depending on how the forest specials treated me.

But as such, I was a low attack and defence player, and thus when I was being attacked, it was pretty much a safe bet.

I was getting towards the higher ranks then, and my FF heavy strategy propelled me at a serious rate of knots towards 200 kills. But I got PVPed a lot. I took it on the chin. If you get something, you have to give up something in return. Green Dragon, on the Classic server. One person took a particular dislike to me, and would actively look for me every time when they were on. He didn't always get me though. I, personally, rolled my eyes and went on. I was big enough that I could get over a PVP loss, but if it had happened when I was that much smaller, I would have been very upset.

Now I am among the biggest in the server. 11th highest on Dragon Kills, and I'm tougher again. My PVP targets are virtually anyone, if I want to spend enough gems. Yet I still don't PVP that much. I only attack those with 100 kills or more. Anything less isn't worth it for me. I'd get more from burning my PVPs.

So basically what I'm saying, is that I use my PVPs purely to further myself and think that's the way it should be.

Edit: I don't like the options on this poll, by the way, so I won't be voting in it.

[RichPlaystation]

What annoys me is people that burn their pvp's for turns THEN complain they get pvp'd, the phrase ''wanting your cake and eating it'' has never been so true

[Xenogrant]

Diorama, I wish more people had your mindset. This is what I've been trying to get across the whole time, people can always turn off PvP if they can not come to terms with it introducing inequalities and possible greif, but the experience gained from extra turns outweighs the experience loss. Yet the soccer mom rules seem to have created a sense of entitlement, where people grew acustomed to the gain, and complain about the loss, even though that is how the system was intended to work in the first place. Risk and reward, with reward outweighing the risk most of the time. Now if the risk is starting to be consistant and balancing out the reward, instead of giving up the reward people complain about the risk and win. I considered my behaviour to be the equalizer.

[jrminga]

"i'm bigger than you, so what i do is alright. suck it up, noob."

[Mess]

...Burning my PVPs gave me a *lot* of experience, in that even once I had hit the flawless cap, I could still gain a level, or maybe two, depending on how the forest specials treated me.

But as such, I was a low attack and defence player, and thus when I was being attacked, it was pretty much a safe bet.

I was getting towards the higher ranks then, and my FF heavy strategy propelled me at a serious rate of knots towards 200 kills...
Now I am among the biggest in the server. 11th highest on Dragon Kills, and I'm tougher again. My PVP targets are virtually anyone, if I want to spend enough gems. Yet I still don't PVP that much. I only attack those with 100 kills or more. Anything less isn't worth it for me. I'd get more from burning my PVPs.



I always liked the way you show off. Even now. :P

[Jesuil]

Almost everything I know about this game I learned from Dio. I have PvP on, but I ask him questions almost constantly about it. How do it to, what to look for. I'm still not good at finding decent targets on my own. Most days I burn PvPs and be done with it.

I try to "take it on the chin" just like he does. I aspire to do a lot of things as well as he does. A lot. I'm glad the rules for harrassment are as they are. I don't think it's right to say, "If you don't like getting PvPed all the time, turn it off." Because there are exceptions. There's no way to know the whole story every time (If you're just a spectator, that is). It's not always just about experience. Not by a long shot.

[Diorama]

Actually I kinda leaned away from the main point in my first post, which is this: If someone YoMs me saying not to PVP them, I'll have a look at it, maybe ask another, impartial party to see if they think I've been overdoing it on one person.

If it's decided that no, I've not really, it's just been a couple of times, then I'll say this, and go on as usual. I won't attack them more, and I won't attack them less.

If I have attacked someone 2-3 times in a couple of real days, or 7+ over a week, then yeah I'll probably give them a little grace period, but after that I'll return to usual PVPing strategy.

And Jesuil makes very good points, that I agree totally with. In most cases only 2 people who really know the whole story, the person doing the attacking, and the one being attacked. There has to be some kind of protection in place, or the whole place becomes no fun for anyone except the person doing the harrassment, and then suddenly, everyone's gone. There is no lack of GD servers, of every kind, and if it's not fun, people leave.

Few admins wants to see that happen, and I know the admins of Classic certainly do not want to see that happen.

[Diorama]

I just want to add one more thing.

Very occasionally I'll make an exception to my rules. The main reason for doing this is misleading titles. It's not nice, and it's not fair. So I don't see any reason to be nice to people with them.

I've known of at least two who have done so, and one eventually allowed his character expire, and the other changed his after a day or two. You will be earmarked by big players for doing so. A lot of people don't like that kind of behaviour, and will show it.

[X-Kal]

Now that Diorama's mentioned it, I'm going to step forward and emphasize his point:

http://lotgd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=688

This post used to be in the FAQ section of the forum, but it got merged into the Village Square. However, I'm 99% sure that the rule still applies. Selecting a misleading custom title is a bannable offense. If I ever find people with misleading titles in PvP, I will show them absolutely no mercy.

[RichPlaystation]

Why emphasize that point, who has a misleading title as of late?

[Diorama]

Now that Diorama's mentioned it, I'm going to step forward and emphasize his point:

http://lotgd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=688

This post used to be in the FAQ section of the forum, but it got merged into the Village Square. However, I'm 99% sure that the rule still applies. Selecting a misleading custom title is a bannable offense. If I ever find people with misleading titles in PvP, I will show them absolutely no mercy.

Not bannable anymore, I'm afraid. But a lot of people utterly abhor it. Myself included

RichPlaystation: Xenogrant has, on Classic.

[X-Kal]

Now that Diorama's mentioned it, I'm going to step forward and emphasize his point:

http://lotgd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=688

This post used to be in the FAQ section of the forum, but it got merged into the Village Square. However, I'm 99% sure that the rule still applies. Selecting a misleading custom title is a bannable offense. If I ever find people with misleading titles in PvP, I will show them absolutely no mercy.

Not bannable anymore, I'm afraid. But a lot of people utterly abhor it. Myself included

RichPlaystation: Xenogrant has, on Classic.

Grrrr... that is disappointing, indeed. I'll just settle my differences over PvP, then.

[RichPlaystation]

RichPlaystation: Xenogrant has, on Classic.

May I ask what it is? I can't log in on classic to have a look

[Diorama]

RichPlaystation: Xenogrant has, on Classic.

May I ask what it is? I can't log in on classic to have a look

I am Diorama, man

And you may.

It's Peasant Xenogrant and he has 32 dragon kills.

[RichPlaystation]

Oh wait sorry it was you, deleted the wrong quote bit, woopsy, cheers anyway :D

[Qwyxzl]

What annoys me is people that burn their pvp's for turns THEN complain they get pvp'd, the phrase ''wanting your cake and eating it'' has never been so true

That is not really the issue here. I would totally agree with you if we were discussing a case of a player complaining about being killed everyday but not wanting to turn off their PvP because they use the candles.

The real true issue here is that one particular player has undertaken an action (PvPing) against another player on an ongoing long term basis. The other player has asked the first to stop. They have decided that they do not want to and as a matter fact even asking them to stop means that they will not. This is harrassment.

And to address Xenogrant's comment about this policy being on sided, I say that it is not. If you pvped a player and they asked you to stop and you did but the player continued to yom you about how wrong it was that you PvPed them then I would also put that into the harrassment box and treat it accordingly.

[Xenogrant]

I've already addressed the title, and I myself don't think it should be allowed, but since it is I see no reason why not to use it.

I find this to be a very interesting statement for someone who has taken a title that is extremely misleading. How many Farmies kill themselves on you not knowing your true DK total?


About the same as the number of people who attack farmies for easy experience, which is risk free (the flaw that i've outlined above). I fail to see why anyone would attack a person without checking their bio, to see the race, the DKs are displayed there too - so as for the farmies this will get them in habbit of scrutinizing the person they attack... Using a reserved game titles shouldn't even be allowed, but all I saw in rules is no using offensive words. I used everything at my disposal to gain even the slightest bit of an advantage, every inch of the rope to pull myself up, and now it seems like it's all for naught.

Lemme compile the list of titles who attacked me(32 DKs I think Enchanter title) for statistical purposes.

I won against:
Tribune, squire, reeve, farmboy, trader, enchanter, shepard, steward, stablehand, peasant, enchanter, page, farmgirl, trader, shepard, trader, traverler, trader, sorcerer, trader, shepherdess, apprentice, peasant, traveler, villager, Knight of.., sir, stablehand, cavalier, apprentice, conquoror.

8 around my Dk range, 22 stood no chance.

I was killed after changing the title and before posting here by:
Emperor
Page(?)
Prince
Steward
Archmagus
Cherub
Dominion
Empress
+2 custom titles

---

So out of a total of 40 fights, 18 were initiated by people against whom a farmie would stand no chance. I dunno if it's fair too lump the last 10 in, but I don't see why not, I don't recognize any names of people I have had conflict in the past with and I doubt they even bothered checking for decoy title.

[Xenogrant]

That is not really the issue here. I would totally agree with you if we were discussing a case of a player complaining about being killed everyday but not wanting to turn off their PvP because they use the candles.
I thought this was the issue that I kept on bringing up, if someone feels wronged by PvP they can turn it off. You seem to agree, I whole heartedly agree, RichPlaystation agrees. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Also a complaint makes it harassment, not the chance or lack of there of of winning or losing? That sounds like faulty logic to me. So if I ask all the people who have attacked me against whom I stood no chance of winning, which I consider the true harassment, to not attack me in the future, how long should they wait before they're allowed to attack me again?

edit: The original request of me to stop attacking came from a person a few DKs higher, whom I kept on attacking frequently because it was always a toss up whether I'd win or loose, thus making it exciting. I won 2/3 of the fights, since I lost more exp while dying from attack than from winning when attacking, his XP loss and gain was even. So even though the harassment claim is groundless I am still in the wrong?

I understand that from admin viewpoint it makes sense to have softer rules for larger player base, since central seems like more of a comunity than a competition. What I'm pointing out is that there's enough options in the game to deal with people without involving admins in relation to PvP which only works in 3 level's range, once a day, with bounties, clans, and community as a deterrent. So if someone attacks a person repeatedly, instead of crying to admin, the person could do a multitude of things keeping their PvP option on: bounty spam, drop out of level range, ask clan mates to revenge them. If central is a purist server, why go about reinventing the wheel, and create rules that hinder the game from how it was originally supposed to work. I mean I know you'll say that that's our server policy, and I know you won't change it, so I'm not sure what it is i'm arguing for. I highly doubt you'll change your views on this. So I don't see a point of continuing to campaign for more competitive gameplay, nor sticking around, in game. I'll still debate this just for the sake of public debate if you care to continue.

[X-Kal]

With all due respect, I don't think you would be willing to change your opinion, either. This is why I doubt that anything effective will come out of this thread. Call me a cynic if you like, but that's how I see it.

You can't just say "Oh, move out of level range" - the higher you get up, the faster it is to dragonkill. Two of my friends on the server managed to get themselves up to a point where they can dragonkill once per calendar day. Zarlox made it so that he can dragonkill twice per day, as you'll see him mentioning that elsewhere in this forum. The fact that everybody goes at different paces means that you can't rely on always being out of range. It never mattered what I did when I got mass attacked by certain players - if you're the sort that will mercilessly PvP someone repeatedly, you're also the sort that will either adjust your leveling to fit your target into your schedule, or you're already going at a different enough pace that you can just take a swipe on your next dragonkill round.

If you're unfairly repeat PvPing someone to the point that it constitutes harrassment, you CANNOT expect that the target always has the means to prevent continued harrassment without admin intervention. Sure, they can turn PvP off... but is it fair to them if they're bullied into making that decision?

I don't know the situation you're in very well, so I cannot comment on you... well, except for your misleading title. I'll get to that in a moment. The fact remains that there will always be ingame methods of harrassment, be it PvP, haunting, things said in chat, Ye Olde Mail or the forums, whatever. Just remember that not everybody is as tough as you, and may need moderator support to help get their point across. Ideally, what would happen is that the player may politely ask the harrasser to stop, then the two would calmly and peacefully work out their differences. If the harrasser refuses, or if the harrassed individual doesn't feel comfortable with a direct confrontation, then that's part of why moderators and administrators are there. They're given the authority to mediate conflicts and issue punishments where they see fit. Whatever ingame systems can be set up (a limit to how often you can PvP certain targets, etc.), there will always be moderators to deal with grey areas.

Honestly, I don't think it's a question about PvP anymore, it seems like it's a question of whether admins and moderators can make decisions where the rules are ambiguous. In short, they do, and that will never change.

As for your title... I've been informed that it's now legal. However, there are enough people around here that abhor such a strategy, so you'll get alot less sympathy from people like me while your masquearade is still in place. I don't care if you can keep the title, because you shouldn't.


And just as a final note, I have occasionally asked for moderator intervention with my own conflits. I feel safe around these parts because I know that I've got that extra layer of protection, whether it be ingame, ingame chats or the forum.

[Xenogrant]

You can't just say "Oh, move out of level range" - the higher you get up, the faster it is to dragonkill.
Yet another example of why there's no need for admins to get involved. The higher the DKs the less people in similar range, the more likely you are to be attacking the same players.

f you're the sort that will mercilessly PvP someone repeatedly, you're also the sort that will either adjust your leveling to fit your target into your schedule, or you're already going at a different enough pace that you can just take a swipe on your next dragonkill round.

My DKs are like 10 days, due to PvP from level 6 and up, even though it'd be more xp to convert to FF, and due to me usually picking fair fights, and loosing a good portion of them. If I see someone whose name I recognize I'll attack them, since if their name stands out I assume I was killed by them at some point. I'm more likely to remember people with colors in their names; so if it comes as something personal which it wasn't to someone and they start to nag it only makes their name stand out more.

If you're unfairly repeat PvPing someone to the point that it constitutes harrassment, you CANNOT expect that the target always has the means to prevent continued harrassment without admin intervention. Sure, they can turn PvP off... but is it fair to them if they're bullied into making that decision?

I never unfairly repeat PvP, the people are in 10 DK range, I never attack farmies, and I don't spoil the game for people, they spoil it to themselves, by not being a good sport about it. Yes, they CAN turn off PvP, but they'd rather go around pretending to be next Jesus Christ, and nag with rightous indignation. PvP isn't for everyone, and if it spoils the game for them then by all means they should turn it off; it has nothing to do with bullying, and everything to do them not being cut out for it, yet being used to free turns and taking them for granted.

This is my chief point, having PvP turned off, will result in them enjoying the game without being bullied, I think the PvP in the game exists exactly for the reason of being able to kill people who annoy you. PvP is harassment, it is bullying, it is usually unfair, it is and has the application of being personal. It does not require intervention, it is PvP's nature. It's 0 sum, somebody feels good at expense of others. I have yet to experience joy from loosing experience from logged out PvP deaths, and LotGD allows for it, while the admins do not.

As for your title... I've been informed that it's now legal. However, there are enough people around here that abhor such a strategy, so you'll get alot less sympathy from people like me while your masquearade is still in place. I don't care if you can keep the title, because you shouldn't.

I wholeheartedly agree, it shouldn't be allowed, I've repeatedly stated that the use of reserved game words is decieving, but since it allows me to gain experience and take out some of the people who kill farmies, I'm sticking with it. If Central doesn't want to loose new players who are most likely to get discouraged from sticking around, I think the titles should be addressed.

And just as a final note, I have occasionally asked for moderator intervention with my own conflits. I feel safe around these parts because I know that I've got that extra layer of protection, whether it be ingame, ingame chats or the forum.
You could've asked your clan(what other purpose do they serve?), or some higher DK friends, or even in general chat to the same effect, and have the person run into the ground, for the next little while, there's no need for admin intervention in PvP. Even the game economy relies on unfair killing, that's what the bounty system is for. I'm sure a good chunk of the people on the bounty list made their targets feel harassed enough to go through a buncha clicking, typing, and name copy and pasting just to get revenge.

[Qwyxzl]

That is not really the issue here. I would totally agree with you if we were discussing a case of a player complaining about being killed everyday but not wanting to turn off their PvP because they use the candles.
I thought this was the issue that I kept on bringing up, if someone feels wronged by PvP they can turn it off. You seem to agree, I whole heartedly agree, RichPlaystation agrees. Or am I misunderstanding you?



Also a complaint makes it harassment, not the chance or lack of there of of winning or losing? That sounds like faulty logic to me. So if I ask all the people who have attacked me against whom I stood no chance of winning, which I consider the true harassment, to not attack me in the future, how long should they wait before they're allowed to attack me again?

It is the person that is being attacked that is the only person who can say what they feel. At that point it becomes our job to determine if that position is a reasonable one or not. And to answer your question I would say that a single attack unless there are other circumstances involved would not be considered harrasment. And as for how long you have to wait, if you are looking at it from that stand point you are still missing the point. If I were to say that 3 days is reasonable and that player were to wait three days everytime, how is that not still consistantly attacking someone every chance that they could?

edit: The original request of me to stop attacking came from a person a few DKs higher, whom I kept on attacking frequently because it was always a toss up whether I'd win or loose, thus making it exciting. I won 2/3 of the fights, since I lost more exp while dying from attack than from winning when attacking, his XP loss and gain was even. So even though the harassment claim is groundless I am still in the wrong?

This is not an issue of winning or losing or how much xp is involved. It is an issue of creating a situation where another player feels intimidated by one players actions.

I understand that from admin viewpoint it makes sense to have softer rules for larger player base, since central seems like more of a comunity than a competition. What I'm pointing out is that there's enough options in the game to deal with people without involving admins in relation to PvP which only works in 3 level's range, once a day, with bounties, clans, and community as a deterrent. So if someone attacks a person repeatedly, instead of crying to admin, the person could do a multitude of things keeping their PvP option on: bounty spam, drop out of level range, ask clan mates to revenge them. If central is a purist server, why go about reinventing the wheel, and create rules that hinder the game from how it was originally supposed to work. I mean I know you'll say that that's our server policy, and I know you won't change it, so I'm not sure what it is i'm arguing for. I highly doubt you'll change your views on this. So I don't see a point of continuing to campaign for more competitive gameplay, nor sticking around, in game. I'll still debate this just for the sake of public debate if you care to continue.

You continue to say that there are other options available but you are wrong. There is only a single one of your sugestions that truely stops another player from attacking them and that is turning PvP off. None of the others actually stops someone from continually PvPing them
.
And this is still NOT the point. I have said this before and I will say it again. If one player engages in actions against another player, that are continous and on going, that the other player considers to be harrassing, then those actions need to be looked at by us as admins. And our job as always is to maintain a healhy place for many people to play.

[Expie]

I never unfairly repeat PvP, the people are in 10 DK range, I never attack farmies, and I don't spoil the game for people, they spoil it to themselves, by not being a good sport about it. Yes, they CAN turn off PvP, but they'd rather go around pretending to be next Jesus Christ, and nag with rightous indignation. PvP isn't for everyone, and if it spoils the game for them then by all means they should turn it off; it has nothing to do with bullying, and everything to do them not being cut out for it, yet being used to free turns and taking them for granted. [emphasis added]

I was unaware this topic was being discussed here until just a few hours ago. While there were many points brought up which need to be further addressed, I am most curious to know what you meant by the above statement, Xenogrant.

[Lauri]

If you're unfairly repeat PvPing someone to the point that it constitutes harrassment, you CANNOT expect that the target always has the means to prevent continued harrassment without admin intervention. Sure, they can turn PvP off... but is it fair to them if they're bullied into making that decision?

You, Xenogrant, are presently displaying textbook Asperger syndrome. You can't dance around muddying the point forever and hoping that it disguises the fact that your opinion is unchanged from page 1. The thread would go forever and you'd still be convinced that the world runs in two colours, black and white, and that there's no grey anywhere that matters or is fair.

No matter how long you try to argue the same point, you are presenting the same point of view. You believe it's acceptable to PvP specific people repeatedly because the game engine allows it. The staff do not. Your point is never going to change because you are not choosing to acknowledge the opposing view and so far you have never addressed it, but only backed up your own as a rebuttal.

You cannot hope to win by stretching this out for another ten pages. You are talking to an Aspie who has two more members of family who also are. Once you have dealt with an 11yo who lives in black and white, nobody else will ever manage to wear you down. I've seen it all before...

[RichPlaystation]

You can't dance around muddying the point forever and hoping that it disguises the fact that your opinion is unchanged from page 1. The thread would go forever and you'd still be convinced that the world runs in two colours, black and white, and that there's no grey anywhere that matters or is fair

So why are certain people bothering to put a point across in the first place?

[Xenogrant]

I was unaware this topic was being discussed here until just a few hours ago. While there were many points brought up which need to be further addressed, I am most curious to know what you meant by the above statement, Xenogrant.

I meant that people prefer feeling victimized rather than doing something about it.

You can't dance around muddying the point forever and hoping that it disguises the fact that your opinion is unchanged from page 1.

I don't think I'm disguising anything, if anything I've taken my ideas from page 1 further.

My believes are not a manefestation of some deep rooted psychological trauma where I feel the need to dominate people around me. It is a conviction I've developed from playing online roleplaying games, that went from being able to pick up items from people you killed 10 years ago, to no item loss/no XP loss upon death now-a-days. PvP in games is dying, soccer mom mentality is on the march, and I'm trying to reverse the trend.

Asperger seems interesting since I fall under a couple of categories acording to research, except I don't take interests in anything, have no superpowers in any one field, and I am quite graceful?(well I guess wikipedia shouldn't be considered research). If I do do have it, then I surely got the short end of the stick, where it's just all the cons and none of the benefits.

[Expie]

I was unaware this topic was being discussed here until just a few hours ago. While there were many points brought up which need to be further addressed, I am most curious to know what you meant by the above statement, Xenogrant.

I meant that people prefer feeling victimized rather than doing something about it.

I'm referring to the underlined, "rightous [sic] indignation" part. Also what's up with the, 'for you are righteous" reference in the poll? (which, by the way I've chosen not to vote in because of how it's been subjectively weighted). Subconscious or not, I find that rather interesting, given the identity and focus of the clan you've chosen to target for the second time in just four months.

And as for "doing something about it," believe me, nothing works. As X-Kal pointed out, you can't just "move out of level range" as a player with a vendetta (on a fast broadband-type connection) who is determined to make your game life miserable will merely adjust their playing schedule to accommodate any changes. I've tried keeping ahead of your player level (can't log in often enough, or inclement weather/RL obligations get in the way); allowing you to move ahead (you just get stronger, accentuated by your access to the Storm Giant race); seriously considered disabling PvP (which would be extremely counterproductive at these mid-DK levels); buying oodles of temporary hitpoints from Cedrik (wastes gems, may not work and may negatively affect forest fights); and sleeping in the fields instead of the Inn, which caused me to get killed more often, albeit occasionally by someone else. :P

The interesting thing is, until recently I've been away from LotGD for the most part since early August (due to my sister dying from cancer last month); but I came back to a "666"-type bounty on my head, plus the two or three times I logged in (to prevent inactivity deletion) you were still attacking. Coincidence? I know it was you who set the bounty(ies) because they were placed before I logged out and were still there after your successful attack(s).

That was not surprising; but it makes one wonder just how much of this reflects your clan's decisions to target a RANDOM clan each month, and how much is motivated by a personal grudge on your part. Because to the best of my honest recollection, I have never attacked you in PvP, nor interacted with you in any way prior to your PvP targeting. In fact, as I was discussing with a friend recently, I seldom PvP at all, as I find it counterproductive as a game strategy. So the chances that I inadvertently multi-killed you in the past, or members of your small clan is almost nil.

I used everything at my disposal to gain even the slightest bit of an advantage, every inch of the rope to pull myself up, and now it seems like it's all for naught....

I think the PvP in the game exists exactly for the reason of being able to kill people who annoy you. PvP is harassment, it is bullying, it is usually unfair, it is and has the application of being personal. It does not require intervention, it is PvP's nature. It's 0 sum, somebody feels good at expense of others....

My DKs are like 10 days, due to PvP from level 6 and up, even though it'd be more xp to convert to FF, and due to me usually picking fair fights, and loosing a good portion of them....

So much for your "advancement" argument, eh? Make your mind up.

If I see someone whose name I recognize I'll attack them, since if their name stands out I assume I was killed by them at some point. I'm more likely to remember people with colors in their names

Do you attack everybody with a custom-colored name -- a type of "Equal-Opportunity" assassin? Because that's not what your player profile indicates -- you're obviously concentrating on players from the <MAD> clan, including (more recently) Taliesin twice in one day (who by the way is more than 10 DKs lower than you). It costs money to change one's name; and I don't see why anyone should be forced into doing that on account of one player's repeated harrassment.

[JCP]

1. Everyone should be able to play and enjoy the game. Picking on certain people and bullying them isn't "right" - even if the game code allows for it.

1.a. Similarly, "just because I can" is not a valid excuse for any action. If you go so far as to find loopholes to justify your actions, you should not take those actions, from a moral standpoint anyway.

2. Clans are more trouble than they are worth. Clans can function as social groups, but targetting people based on or because of clan affiliation is one of the many problems with the system.

3. There are very good reasons why the classic server does not use code that restricts PVP targets. Any such code - including options in the official distribution - was seen as detrimental to gameplay and punishing people for their success.

4. There is a serious flaw in the logic of the original post. You cannot simultaneously enjoy PVP because of the large factor that luck plays and target the same players consistently because you know that you will win.

5. Targetting the same population *should* be inefficient. I haven't done the math, but you're better off taking on different targets to maximize your xp winnings, rather than continuing to deplete the same targets over and over again.

Reiterating the first point - NO server will survive without players, so if you enjoy playing it is in your own best interest not to discourage anyone else from playing. Yes, you want to have fun, but not at the expense of others.

Players who are aware of the realities of the "meta game" that the server admins are involved in, and have fun while allowing other players to have fun as well - these players are the ones that allow servers to exist and prosper.

There is no server code that will force you to be considerate of the time, effort, and enjoyment of others, and there shouldn't have to be.

[bad]

Oooops I'm a little intimidated to talk after JCP.

Well I didn't read all the posts (except the wise words of JCP of course!) but I'll add my two cents anyway. :D

If you think that what you are doing is right you shouldn't not worry about PvP. If your not sure if it's harrasment or not maybe you should reconsider attacking that person again.

You should also make sure that your clan is behind you (and I don't mean for clan war but for moral support). If your clan doesn't support you, find another.

When you're a god you'll always be killed by the same person again and again, some of them that you hangout with in the village. If not by this player it's by another, the result is the same, loss of experiences. Yes it's frustrating but you've got to adjust your strategy in function of being killed every other day (apart from whining but that's probably a waste of energy).

[Mess]

...(except the wise words of JCP of course!) ...


For once, I found something to agree with. ;)

Rest of the post is off-topic. Sorry, just couldn't resist the bad in me. :P


... some of them that you hangout with in the village. If not by this player it's by another, the result is the same, loss of experiences...
Yeah, right! You talked me into suiciding on you. :P

...Yes it's frustrating but you've got to adjust your strategy in function of being killed every other day...
Ah yes. Be afraid, be very afraid. Muhahahaha :twisted: :P

[Xenogrant]

If you insist on dragging this out in front of everyone, contrary to what I suggested in PM, and want to make this about you, instead of PvP etiquette/policy in general, then so be it, but like Lauri said, everything that could be said, has been said already so from this point it's all rehash if you insist on it.

I'm referring to the underlined, "rightous [sic] indignation" part. Also what's up with the, 'for you are righteous" reference in the poll? (which, by the way I've chosen not to vote in because of how it's been subjectively weighted). Subconscious or not, I find that rather interesting, given the identity and focus of the clan you've chosen to target for the second time in just four months.
A line I remembered from Deadwood, contrary to what you may believe, my world does not revolve around you. Just because I killed you about 7-10 times total in a span of a few months, and set 2 bounties on you for being a crybaby about it, is not proof of the contrary.

you can't just "move out of level range" as a player with a vendetta (on a fast broadband-type connection) who is determined to make your game life miserable will merely adjust their playing schedule to accommodate any changes.
I've tried keeping ahead of your player level (can't log in often enough, or inclement weather/RL obligations get in the way); allowing you to move ahead (you just get stronger, accentuated by your access to the Storm Giant race);
You coulda made a point there, if you didn't contradict yourself in the next sentence, so this obviously doesn't apply to me.

I know it was you who set the bounty(ies) because... Good catch, you must've read my first post in the thread where I said "...set bounties on them for a few days if they're not in my level range"

seriously considered disabling PvP (which would be extremely counterproductive at these mid-DK levels); buying oodles of temporary hitpoints from Cedrik (wastes gems, may not work and may negatively affect forest fights); and sleeping in the fields instead of the Inn, which caused me to get killed more often, albeit occasionally by someone else

So you've considered that PvP to FF conversion greatly outweighs being killed by a player, started thinking analytically about ways to avoiding being killed, and thought about Cedrik, varying log off locations and other options at your disposal? Problem solving and thinking must not be allowed in this game, admins do something quick! We can't break away from the routine, of log in, convert PvP to FF, and mash L key on the keboard followed by Until End, until forest fights run out and logging off feeling that we've had a productive and meaningful game day.

That was not surprising; but it makes one wonder just how much of this reflects your clan's decisions to target a RANDOM clan each month, and how much is motivated by a personal grudge on your part. Because to the best of my honest recollection, I have never attacked you in PvP
I've shared it with the clan, that I find your protests to me engaging you in combat humourous, even though we were breaking even in XP loss/gain at first, and that a month later you were still complaining, so the officer picked your clan members as priority targets, for the month of september again, for the lack of other suggestions. Having half a dozen of players in a clan, half of whom don't log in regularly tends to have that effect.

In fact, as I was discussing with a friend recently, I seldom PvP at all, as I find it counterproductive as a game strategy
Then we both agree on you turning it off.


So much for your "advancement" argument, eh? Make your mind up.
I think that people who attack farmies are scum, I refuse to attack people who have no chance of winning, guess you got me there.

you're obviously concentrating on players from the <MAD> clan, including (more recently) Taliesin twice in one day (who by the way is more than 10 DKs lower than you)

You missed the key part of the quote, you do the most crying, so you stick out in my memory the most. Here's the repost.
[/quote]f I see someone whose name I recognize I'll attack them, since if their name stands out I assume I was killed by them at some point. I'm more likely to remember people with colors in their names; so if it comes as something personal which it wasn't to someone and they start to nag it only makes their name stand out more. [/quote]

[Furion]

:puts a cup over the thread and watches the flaming die out.