PvP Rules Survey

[Cozdragon]

As you all know we recently reviewed our code of conduct for all players. As a result of this process we have been asked to clarify the rules around PvP.

Having discussed this as a staff we have decided the best people to make this decision are you, the players.

We are therefore asking you all to read and vote on the options below. You have 2 votes, please use 1 to choose the combat rule and 1 to choose the timescale rule.

Please note that combat between players is never acceptable at events or for 5 minutes following the end of an event. Training mobs onto players is also not allowed.

‘Red is dead’ is defined as meaning that if you are attackable, that you can be attacked.

We will keep the vote open for one week. It will close at 9am GMT on Monday 22nd October. Please encourage all players to participate. We will issue reminders in Discord, Facebook and in galaxy chat.

We will publish the results on here and add them as part of the code of conduct. These will be the rules by which we all play.

[jphogannet]

I realize I don't PVP much, as I am new to the server. But, from past experience on live and other Emu's and MMORPGs, I think the best system might be to leave "red is dead" as the "system rule" but instead build in penalties for the above mentioned "good sportsmanship" rules. If the system could be made to "tag" a player in combat with an NPC such that if the majority or even a significant portion of the damage comes from the NPC and not the player that instead of granting PVP points for the kill it actually incurs a small penalty on the PVP score. This tag should have a short timer that dies when a specific timeout occurs or all damage (not wounds) has been recovered from the battle.

Similarly, whatever time period is decided, make the system track the time limit and let's say for one kill of a player of that rank, you get 200 PVP points. If you kill them again, before that timer is up, you instead get a 20 point penalty. If you kill them a second time before the timer is up, 40 point penalty. Increasing the penalty and resetting the timer each time. Now, back to the kill with the NPC mob involved, no points, smaller penalty, say 10. But, it starts the timer. So, by killing a player who is tagged by a mob, you effectively deny yourself any PVP points for the duration of the timer from that player.

This would encourage good sportsmanship in the course of the game and the scoring system, without burdening our Admins, CSR's, etc. with additional administrative overhead to police the issue. They could still address blatant targeting or harassment of course, and the PVP scoring would provide a trail of evidence.

[Awesome]

pvp isn't meant to have rules, once u start making rules for when someone can attack a player or not, u go down a very slippery slope, one in which can be exploited is a gross manner. "You killed my SF toon while I was harvesting avian meat for my doc.", or "you killed my SF doc while I was trying to buff our team for PvE". Either pvp or don't. Once you put constraints on pvp its no longer pvp. This server needs to decide if its going to be carebear or for real. If you decide to be carebear, take away overt please as it is unnecessary. "Do or do not, there is no try"

[Mumbo]

Thanks for posting this survey.

I've voted for 'Red is Dead' only applies if the target is not in combat. I would have voted for 'Red is Dead' unless the target is fighting the boss or have a timed quest but, aside from the practical implication of knowing if someone has a timed quest, I don't know if 'boss' is sufficient enough to include high end mobs ( NS elders, DJM, etc ). Of course this not in combat rule shouldn't apply to players SF fighting faction mobs at a player base.

For the timer I voted for once per 24 hours unless by mutual consent. Being SF at a player base should be considered implicit consent. Personally I'm ok with being hunted/attacked multiple times in a 24hour but this option I feel tries to address the vindicative/abusive element that seems to be present whereby BHs focus on repeatedly hunting the same jedi in training. Sure I appreciate the argument they shouldn't get themselves on the term but given the population of this server I don't think its in the sprit of the game to pull the same persons mission over and over in a short window of time - its essentially bullying behavior designed to make someone stop playing.

As for Awesome comments I think there are some good points there. Yes making rules is a slippery slope ( see some comments I've made above ). But the rules are an attempt to articulate the spirit of the code of conduct the player base would like to see on the server. At the risk of offending anyone, I think a "don't be a douchebag" rule is what we all want. There are so many ways to deliberately and maliciously reduce, or even fully take it away, the enjoyment people get out of playing the game. I don't understand why people want to intentionally ruin someones game time. I'm not saying pvp ruins game time, but sometimes the way it is forced does indeed ruin other peoples game time.

Finally one of the reasons I feel the way i do about the forcing pvp on other players when they are engaged with high end mob/boss is the condition loss incurred on death. This isn't the only reason though.

I also think people need to quit with the bitching when they try to force pvp and the target isn't a taker - either by not engaging or running away. Every player should feel they can play the game however they want.

I personally often don't engage because its simply not worth the crystal decay. For instance if there was a reward for killing the BH that comes hunting or the imp jedi running around it would be different. And if the imp jedi has force run and I know they will just run away before the fight is over whats the point of engaging and wasting 20mins of time and a ton of crystal condition for nothing.

[Awesome]

"do not engage a target while in combat" is the absolute worst thing that could happen to pvp. All I would have to do if I didn't want to pvp is always plop myself next to npcs and PvE with my jedi. Once someone came along I could engage the nearest NPC and poof im untouchable, since jedi are AoE experts I could chain along forever(some mobs Jedi don't need buffs to defeat). There are a lot of players that don't like pvp and never make a jedi because of it, making this rule would bring forth tons of "PvE" only jedis. Jedi was meant to be pvp first class, thus the BHs. Another thing to consider is the FRS we are waiting to be implemented. A non combat rule would destroy that entire game mechanic. Anyone voting for a non combat rule is clearly looking to avoid pvp until they themselves decide they are ready or in fact want to pvp. First shot only exists for BHs and it should stay that way. If you don't want to be attacked, don't be SF or Knights. The perma overts know they are at risk 100% the time, it should remain that way. Some of us do like the thrill of being attacked at any moment, that's pvp to its fullest. Making a non combat rule will be the first step into other rules like "don't kill afk players" and "don't kill unbuffed players". After that there will be more rules, "you guys had 4 on 2, no fair!" Im sorry this is long winded but I hope you all can see what happens with ruling things that clearly shouldnt have rules.

[Mumbo]

Awesome - would what you propose to address the issue of players deliberately attempting to interfere with other peoples game play in a way that is intended to achieve nothing else but cause distress and diminish other peoples enjoyment of the game ? yeah you can argue they shouldn't be SF, but sometimes people forget to switch off SF and with group content in the game, forcing pvp on people in those situations can disrupt not just one persons but multiple peoples time.

[scionyoto]

Red is Dead, simple as that if you don't want too be attacked stay on leave or even combatant, or if your a jedi don't do your knight trials simple as that. i'm not really seeing why this is even being discussed lol, But since it is my above statement stands don't wanna get attacked don't put yourself in the situation in the first place...

[Awesome]

Anytime a Jedi goes out into the world (leaves his private house), he risks pvp encounters . To say a Jedi being attacked is diminishing a gaming style or enjoyment of that game time is like complaining about a krayt killing your toon. You know the risks and have to play accordingly. If you don't want your Jedi to be in jeopardy make sure to never attack npcs or get vis and never go SF. To me it sounds like you want your cake and eat it too, Jedi isn't meant to be a PvE only prospect, it simply is meant to PvP first and foremost. Lets face it, how boring is it to have a Jedi that only kills animals and never gets vis. This is the reason non pvpers never Jedi. Risk = fun to this Jedi, that's why I play Jedi.

[Buzzo]

i agree that the pvp rules should remain the same, what is at actual issue is rules of conduct, and abuses of the pvp system. so red is dead is all fine, but what about repeat killing the same person over and over again? What about threatening and toxic actions like telling someone they will disrupt every bit of pve someone attempts? comments from awesome on that? the fighting is fun but i think there needs to be rules of conduct in place to prevent abusive actions, i dont think they should be tolerant at all of toxic pvp behavior, there needs to be a line defining what griefing is and a rule made against it. There is a massive difference between normal pvp and abuse. I think this survey is barking up the wrong tree with that, pvp doesnt need to change, but the code of conduct needs some very specific definitions where some of this stuff is concerned.

[Awesome]

pvp in this game is a choice. If you don't want to be in harms way, don't roll Jedi or pick a faction. That's why there is a neutral position in the game. To make rules regarding code of conduct in pvp here would be too "Gray" like ive described before in this post. Clone camping (the repeated killing of a player once he/she clones after dying in battle) albeit bad form was aloud in Live if you all remember. They made jedi able to clone to shrines as an alternative. Ever hear anyone bitch about "Shrine camping"? I haven't. Whose to say what bad form is or not. Bhs use situations of opportunities all the time to catch their mark. So is observing galaxy chat to figure out where your target is or is going to be at a given moment a violation of code of conduct? Finding a red target fighting an elder for a badly needed crystal and engaging them a violation of code of conduct? Engaging an unbuffed doc inside a player base a violation of code of conduct? The more rules you put into place on this subject will only whiplash into more rules needed. Do the intelligent thing and keep pvp outside any rules of conduct. If you do not wish to participate, do not enter the arena. Risk is what makes pvp fun, without risk there is no pvp. There's already rules about smack talk in place, those are directed to "The Pit". If you are planning to make a Jedi to pve with, don't. Just ask those on Basilisk who thought "hey ill make a Jedi so I can hunt elders". The day Basilisk makes rules of conduct for pvp is the day ill reconsider my position on this matter. Basilisk is the closest thing we have to live there is. All the good and the bad. We are trying to "emulate" the game we all love right?