Can you maybe give some context?

Aftermath
Blackcohoosh
Cealoblocs
Collards
Fahijeck
Tyvlen

not to mention their other fake names

>>context answer i was randomly attacked by a player I had never seen, sealdtite was wearing a divine charm and engaged and attacked.

Was your profile set to open?

Had you recently had any interaction with any other characters who might be the spouse of the one that attacked you?

If no to both I'd think you should report them in game.

> was wearing a divine charm

Doesn't have much meaning besides that the character is less than 2 years old, You can wear your divine charm forever.

>>I don't understand how these attacks are even allowed. The challenge verb option is made for pvp and tournaments. Why is PC attacking even an available?

It's a violent world, it wouldn't make much sense to artificially prevent violence between PCs.

That being said there are already safeguards in place like PvP Stance and consent policy to keep it from getting out of hand.

I'm guessing since you skipped over the earlier questions about those that one or more of them probably covered why it happened in this instance?

so we are going to go with the idea of you can break policy and if your are not reported it is ok vs. not to have the option to disrupt the game in the first place by removing pvp conflicts(it would also prevent graverobbing)

side note
is your name a pathetic smile
or apathetic smile

1. no gm's would be involved if you can't combat another without use of challenge verb
zero of their time would be wasted


they wouldn't have to review why two people began fighting one another and evaluate what is policy abuse
it would be did you fight
who fought
with parameters of the challenge, over seeing the interaction
therefore vicea vie concordedly
they can focus on new game development and not drama.

it would stop consent of gangs/friends/ spouses


Please share your points on why PVP attacks with no consent are helpful and useful to the gaming enviroment




2. no graverobbing

>>side note
>>is your name a pathetic smile
>>or apathetic smile

Apathetic. I was oh so clever and edgy 17 years ago ....

>>1. no gm's would be involved if you can't combat another without use of challenge verb
>>zero of their time would be wasted

They would have to put in development time to remove PvP and player stealing at the least, possibly other systems that I'm not thinking of. Time that could be spent on useful additions to the game.

>>they wouldn't have to review why two people began fighting one another and evaluate what is policy abuse
>>it would be did you fight
>>who fought
>>with parameters of the challenge, over seeing the interaction
>>therefore vicea vie concordedly
>>they can focus on new game development and not drama.

This is already supported through PvP stance and consent policy. The only consults that should come up are the occasional grey zone conflicts between non-open players who didn't obviously cause the conflict through their own actions. I don't honestly think those are as common as some people like to make out.

>>it would stop consent of gangs/friends/ spouses

Gangs and friends don't gain consent. If this was the case we're either talking about an open player being attacked or a clear policy violation that wouldn't require much consult time to deal with.

Spousal consent is a feature of the current system. Personally, I think this one could be done away with but for now it is what it is.

>>Please share your points on why PVP attacks with no consent are helpful and useful to the gaming enviroment

Between open players? It's helpful and useful to the gaming enviornment because it's how those players want to play.

Involving non-open players I don't think PvP without consent adds much and advocate reporting in that situation. I also think it's more rare than not and doesn't warrant throwing out the entire concept of PvP.

PvP adds a sense of weight and consequence to our actions. It makes our game world more real and less chat roomesq, imo.

>>2. no graverobbing

This I'd be fine with seeing go away, but my solution would be to just remove graves, not through out PvP.

Still curious why you're against just reporting if this wasn't a case of you being set to open and/or otherwise giving consent to the attacker/their spouse?

@jhalisa

I was not a were character(which i know was a typo but could be used as a great way to describe alts) out of the box. If you are upset to the point of this you should look at other regions of the forum; thank you for understanding my point of view but I do not appericiate the accusations of me creating something that happened to me. thank you and safe paths. and you need a haircut #fartface

@smile I was unable to use report for whatever/whoever was making these attacks was removed from the game while engaging me.

so why are the uses and ingame benefits of having the option to attack without consent available?

Yawn another troll, can't even keep which troll account they're using straight.

>>Pre-AOL move

What a difference two decades of policy adjustments makes.

(That said graves are dumb they should just go away they serve no purpose but to antagonize and annoy. Boost the duration of Death Stings or something.)

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

heroquest!

>I guess that's my cue to chime in. Graves that magically appear where people depart is nonsense. Corpses should just be made lootable. Banditry should be a thing.

Depart (no modifiers) there you go.

>Re: Roguelike, I'd love an option for something like Diablo's hardcore character system. Having permadeath as an advanced (disabled by default) option should give everyone what they want.

Die, #goto tael, check in retire confirm, done.

All of this already exists in game but people don't use it.

>I tried this recently. I couldn't check in while in an inn.

I tried this 3 hours ago and could...?

I specified Taelberts because #goto tael will put you in the proper room. Most inns, if compatible with the system at all, require you to be in a specific room. At this point in DR's function I wouldn't bet on more than Taelbert. I know it used to work with other inns.

>>Departing with no modifiers will magically create a grave, which is what I was saying is nonsense. It should just be a lootable, beautifully decomposing corpse. Departing with modifiers is fine as is. To be fair, a lootable corpse amounts to the same thing as a grave in terms of mechanics, give or take. It's primarily an aesthetic difference.

>>Retiring after dying does not at all give the same experience as never being certain whether when you depart you'll be waking up at a temple or riding a comet. An optional hardcore mode could do exactly that, while still defaulting everyone to not worrying about permadeath (really, it should just be called death - without the perma - and what we have now should be called something else, like rejuvenation or something, but that's just my pedantic side coming out.) Having to check in retire confirm and pretend it's death is not at all the same experience, and an optional hardcore mode hurts no one while benefiting those of us who want that experience.

>>The only argument I can see against an optional "hardcore mode" is that it requires some dev time to implement it, and some people might rather see that spent on other stuff.


it used to be this way (departing). Sissies cried and cried. Paladins had a ward that was actually useful thanks to that mechanic. Then they added graves. People still cried. Then they changed departing which makes rezzes pointless anyway. Still people still didnt depart the right way and they cried. Then they fixed it so you cant even drop items in your hands when you die but I'll bet there will be someone who cries eventually.

>>it used to be this way (departing). Sissies cried and cried. Paladins had a ward that was actually useful thanks to that mechanic. Then they added graves. People still cried. Then they changed departing which makes rezzes pointless anyway. Still people still didnt depart the right way and they cried. Then they fixed it so you cant even drop items in your hands when you die but I'll bet there will be someone who cries eventually.

This is a result of the game having higher and higher risks as characters gain years and years of stuff, let alone stuff that had a paywall to access, sometimes under a limited timeframe.

The "you could lose all your stuff and have to rebuild" worked fine when there was literally zero risk because everyone wore gear bought from Crossing shops.

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

>I could make an excel macro in 10 seconds that would randomize this. So that's not an excuse for you.

It's not the randomization that's the problem. It's that retiring is not the same as dying. Waking up at a temple, walking to an inn, and retiring is not at all the same thing as hitting depart and riding a comet.

I can't speak as to most people, but I'm mostly imagining being able to return to a Dragonrealms where I'm not 100% sure that my character will survive always. A dragonrealms where my characters have the possibility of a different ending than, "They lived forever, perhaps retiring, perhaps not." For me, it's an immersion issue, and a huge one at that. For instance, playing a character who seeks a good death in battle is completely nonsense under the current system. That kind of motivation can currently only end in comedic relief. I don't have to be sad or seek revenge when a friend dies, because they never actually die. I could go on and on, there's so much that's missing from the game now that it doesn't have even the option for permadeath anymore. Sure, ending the life of an enemy is a perk, but the real perk is that your own could also be snuffed out and that your methods (and consequently a huge chunk of your gameplay experience) must change accordingly.

Having it be a completely optional system, much like Diablo's hardcore mode, solves the problem of griefers.

>>I can't speak as to most people, but I'm mostly imagining being able to return to a Dragonrealms where I'm not 100% sure that my character will survive always. A dragonrealms where my characters have the possibility of a different ending than, "They lived forever, perhaps retiring, perhaps not." For me, it's an immersion issue, and a huge one at that. For instance, playing a character who seeks a good death in battle is completely nonsense under the current system. That kind of motivation can currently only end in comedic relief. I don't have to be sad or seek revenge when a friend dies, because they never actually die. I could go on and on, there's so much that's missing from the game now that it doesn't have even the option for permadeath anymore. Sure, ending the life of an enemy is a perk, but the real perk is that your own could also be snuffed out and that your methods (and consequently a huge chunk of your gameplay experience) must change accordingly.

You can do this for yourself though. You don't even have to do the inn retire thing if you don't want your immersions broken, you can cancel the character from the website.

>You can do this for yourself though. You don't even have to do the inn retire thing if you don't want your immersions broken, you can cancel the character from the website.

Again, canceling the character is not at all the same as the character dying. Just like retiring the character is not the same as the character dying. I envision being able to build on the death system in more RP oriented ways, for instance. We could have a graveyard where permanently-deceased PCs could be interred (assuming they have any friends who'd care enough to do so.) This sort of thing could be expanded on in so many ways, but currently it just doesn't exist.

It's not the abrupt ending or the loss of character/stuff that's important. It's the narrative. It's the game-mechanics. Again, I can't speak as to most people, but for me it's not at all about my stuff or whether I still have my character at the end of the day. It's about the story. It's about the impact on the game world. It's about friends in mourning over corpses. It's about visiting the graves of loved ones. It's about death - not deletion. They are not the same thing.