PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: zanzibar on November 10, 2006, 11:22:28 am
-
A situation came up in game today where someone claimed to own a mob because they were in combat with that mob, however that individual had been in a full defensive stance, and was probably parked there to rank up in a high level of armour skill. So it's safe to say that the person had been "engaged" with the mob for quite some time, however it was in a full defensive stance.
The question: Should a full defensive stance constitute an attack? If it constitutes an attack, should it give ownership over the mob? Is it possible to "kill steal" from someone who is engaged in combat with a mob but in a full defensive stance?
For:
- Full defensive is an attack, even if you aren't hitting the mob.
- You are in combat with the mob, and therefore if someone else attacks the mob, they are interupting the combat.
Against:
- Full defensive is not an attack, it's merely defending yourself.
- Full defensive stance is basically saying "I'm not going to attack you, but I'm going to prevent you from hurting me". Therefore, it's not an attack.
- Since full defensive stance is not an attack, you are in combat with the mob, but you should not have a claim to ownership over the mob. Others should be free to attack the mob since you are not attacking it yourself.
Thoughts? I can see both sides of it, though I'm more inclined towards one side than the other.
-
If you stayed long enough to watch you would have seen it did not take long, also you knew the person was there as you and she spoke.
So now you have admitted you killstelled the merc, and it should get you punished as the game rules say you should.
"Killstealing"
Nobody owns a spawn, and nobody owns any attackable NPC unless they are already fighting it!
Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started an attack is considered kill stealing and will be punishable by GMs through warnings, and then further actions if the player continues.
There is no need to ask players around a spawn whether you can "join" - everyone has a right to hunt or attack NPCs, and no one can refuse to share with you, since there is no ownership.
-
As far as I can see, KSing is exploiting a weakness in the game to KILL a mob that someone is trying to KILL.
To me if the player is not actually trying to kill the mob then it probably isnt classed as KSing.
-
thought KSing was taking a mob that is already "engaged" in a fight with another player.
Mob trying to kill you would be engaged in a fight with you. If you chose to toy with that mob, or let him hit you a few times to see how much damage he can do to you, or take the hits to upgrade your armor skills, you are still engaged in a fight.
-
KS is BS in a roleplaying game. I refuse to accept it as its complete OOC.
-
KS is BS in a roleplaying game. I refuse to accept it as its complete OOC.
i agree, i always ask for a permission to join, i don't just dash in.
-
KS is BS in a roleplaying game. I refuse to accept it as its complete OOC.
That is an excellent point, the rule is totally OOC, its totally believable that IC if you saw someone engaged in a fight with an evil rogue trying to kill them you might try to intervene and help them out.
Unless of course you mean KSing is OOC instead of a rule about KSing being OOC
-
KS is BS in a roleplaying game. I refuse to accept it as its complete OOC.
Ok thats just stupid Nikodemus sorry for saying. It's a pointless comment as KSing is an OOC topic yes but we are OOC here so why would you ignore it here? Also fighting is tottally OOC. Do you really thinkk in reality we would be killing thousands on thousands of rogues gladiators and whatnot? It might be a RPgame but it's still a game with OOCbehavior and OOCrules against them.
As for what killstealing is. Janner posted the GMguidelines. One can discus if that guideline should be formulated like that or not, but fact is that those are the rules right now, so everyone who took a mob away from someone in fulldefence is breaking the rules pure and simple.
-
Garile:
I wouldn't post it if it was pointless. Of course KS is OOC topic as KS is OOC by itself and we are OOC also here. But appearently you forgot that your mind is undeveloped in that area, what also don't give you right to call people stupid for something you don't understand at all.
Try to remember this: We are OOC there, but we are talking purely about behaviour in game where everything is supposed to be IC
I said no word about killing thousands of things being also OOC, but i can completly agree with this. But i see you are just trying to make the game more OOC basing on OOC which is in it already and what sholdn't in the first place (I don't complain at devs as i know they did it this way to develop it furher later).
So if you refuse to RP in PS all the time, you are wasting its resources, as Talad said.
Idoru:
Unless of course you mean KSing is OOC instead of a rule about KSing being OOC
KS and any rule originating from it must be OOC.
-
Calling something you said stupid and calling a person stupid are different things Nikodemus.
And why do you asume I don't understand your point? I just said it was a stupid remark. Doesn't mean I don't understand why you made it and your post proves it was exactly why I thought you made the post.
I stick with my point. To ignore OOC stuff just becuase it is OOC in something that should be a mixture of RP and game and not just one or the other isn't the goal of Planeshift.
Also the fact that it might not be supposed to happen becuase we are all supposed to be IC makes it all the more important to have OOC rules against OOC misuse of the gamemechanics. So should it be ignored? Ofcourse not. It should be dealt with so as few people encounter it as possible.
-
I think I'll post here. not that my words mean anything, but the question interests me, so I post.
My view is one taken from how the game mechanics work.
Currently (as game mechanics can and do and will change over time), say I engage a mob, then run around not hitting it. The lock out that prevents others from attacking it, exceeds, and my sole "right" to that particular mob instance is negated. They are free to attack it and "take control" of that mob instance.
This time out is based on damage delt. If I'm not doing damage, I'm not engaging the mob, therefore I'm not owner of the mob instance, therefore, I'm not attacking the mob, thus it is free for anyone to engage in combat.
By defenition, attacking the mob requires me to be hitting it. If I am not hitting it for a period of time, this lockout expires, and the mob becomes free for someone else to attack, even it if is still currently attacking me.
Therefore, standing there in full defense, not doing damage, not keeping the lockout active, means you are not attacking the mob, therefore it is free for anyone else to attack.
Killstealing, would be if one player is doing damage to a mob, keeping thier lockout active to other players, and another player comming along, using a bug exploit to stop the curent player from being able to do damge to the mob, and take away thier lockout of said mob.
Simply comming along and attacking a mob that is currently attacking a character, but the character is not doing damage back, whether it be becuase of being in full defense or simply becuase they are too low a level to deal damage back. If they aren't doing damage for extended periods of time, the lock out expires, and the mob instance becomes available for anyone to take.
This then is not killsteal by definition, becuase, the game mechanics itself, allow for any player to come by and attack it.
----------------------------------------
another semi related topic: attacking and engaged in combat are not one of the same.
attacking is actively engaged with a mob with the intent to kill it/do harm to it. you are attacking a mob f you are doing damage.
engaged in combat encompases attacking in it, but they are not ne in the same since you can be in combat, but not attacking the target. full defense, you are in combt, as the mobis trying to hurt you, but you are not attacking the mob, as you have no intent to harm the mob since you are in full defense.
it's easy to confuse the two.
i hope this makes sense. writing posts after working 16 hour shifts and making them coherant is a bit hard.
-
It's not Kill stealing.
It is a type of Training.
~~Datruth
-
Killstealing, would be if one player is doing damage to a mob, keeping thier lockout active to other players, and another player comming along, using a bug exploit to stop the curent player from being able to do damge to the mob, and take away thier lockout of said mob.
It's not Kill stealing.
It is a type of Training.
~~Datruth
I hope you are refering to a different statement. Exploiting a bug is not training. Please specify what you are talking about.
-
Personally I would be annoyed if I came up to someone fighting who didn't finish the kill within five minutes. I probably would not wait that long and would just move along to the next one. Also it would depend on the type of critter, and ulbernaut can be expected to take longer than a rat, as long as I could see progress being made towards completion of the battle I would be fine with it. That said I will address the topic more directly. I think that full defense for training purposes is fine for the early-mid levels i.e. as long as it is not going to be more than five minutes. If you need more time than that and someone is waiting for you to finish, you probably should make the kill and let the other party have a turn. Once you are taking turns full defensive should be right out although defensive attacks should be acceptable. If you are taking turns you should be making progress towards the kill.
I have a high level of light armor and sword and I never do this it is a waste of my time. Pert of the reason it is a waste of my time is that my pockets are not deep and training keeps me poor. I think that I would not do this anyway as it is boring and you reduce you chance of getting a good drop by limiting the number of drops you see.
I really think you should not generally take more than a minute to kill something but again there are some considerations that might make it necessary.
As far as training with ruined weapons go, I don't do it, the worst weapon I will use is one that can be storebought. unless possibly it has some stat bonus which I feel a need for which I mostly do not.
-
Killstealing, would be if one player is doing damage to a mob, keeping thier lockout active to other players, and another player comming along, using a bug exploit to stop the curent player from being able to do damge to the mob, and take away thier lockout of said mob.
It's not Kill stealing.
It is a type of Training.
~~Datruth
I hope you are refering to a different statement. Exploiting a bug is not training. Please specify what you are talking about.
Standing in full defensive letting a monster hit you is a type of training, just as if you were to hit the animal and kill him.
In this case though you are training your armor, preferably your movement in it, as the gm's have written.
-
Shalmaneser, you knew I was training my light armour and you deliberately jumped in and took my mob so that you could start this discussion!
You have not actually said which side of the argument you favour, I would be interested to know.
This is how I see it in the context of the game:
The arena is a place where you go to train your combat skills; if it was a real place you would probably pay a fee to spend time with a sparring partner. How you use that time is your own business. You would not appreciate someone else coming in and using your training time without so much as a by your leave. You would probably start demanding your money back from the management. Therefore OOC reporting your behaviour as kill stealing is not unreasonable.
By the way, if you had not run off after asking me not to use that mercenary to train my light armour we could have discussed and come to some arrangement. I have no objection to sharing and if someone asks me nicely I will usually let them have the mob and move on to something else.
-
Facetious comment: I think the problem was you were tying up a mercenary and not a rat.
Out of curiousity was it one of the mercenaries that drop nothing? There is usually less trouble with these.
-
Facetious comment: I think the problem was you were tying up a mercenary and not a rat.
Out of curiousity was it one of the mercenaries that drop nothing? There is usually less trouble with these.
Good point, it must have meant something.
Next time probably try training with a useless monster.
L.A and M.A train just as fast.
-
Why do players just have to have the mob? Is it so important to level up, loot or get experience that you'd place it above everyone's right to have a good time?
If you find yourself in this situation, whether as the trainee or the new camper, ask yourself: Do I have to have this mob?
If you're the first: you can always find unwanted mobs with no loot, little experience and more secluded, so if you're objective is just to level up why not move on? If you want it all you're being selfish because engaging in combat with a mob for 10-15 minutes might not be against the rules but it is certainly not polite and inconsiderate to other players.
And if you're the latter: is it too much to ask to wait a few more minutes or come back in a while? It's not like the other person is not going to kill the mob ever. They will do that immediately after they level up and they will have to go to their trainer so the mob will be free. A simple "I'll wait but you should go find another mob after you're done in return" will do.
You can't prevent running into jerks (I'm speaking in general not about anyone in particular) but it certainly isn't worth getting mad or frustrated over it. Just move on and let that player who has to have the mob or they'll die be happy in their lonely and sorry little world. That you can be for them: sorry.
-
My question is, did you wait? Or did you just wait a second or two and then jumped in and started attacking?Or maybe you did wait, but you didn't ask the other person if they were done. If they weren't and said something like "Yeah this is gonna take a while" , then I could see taking the monster away from him. Because if you're doing something like raising your armour class i'm pretty sure you can do it at any monster and it doesn't have to be the best ones.
-
Garile, I don't think you are willing to change your way of thinking, to the point that you even claim dev team is working the way you want. Even when I quoted what Talad think about the time you don't RP and you obviously don't RP accepting OOC, thus playing along it, not even trying to change it to the way it should be.
You probably don't do it all the time, but it's enough.
More on topic:
The question was: What from the two options is KS.
The answer is: None of them, there is no such thing as KS in-game in PS. The moment you enter PS in-game, you are acting as your character and everything what is OOC don't exist for your character. Character first, Player second. So, even if KS exist for you as player, in-game you are acting as your character who can't be KS, coz its purely MMORPG artifact
Pip, what? mercenary being a mob? who cares you were training your LA. In 99% i can say you were acting OOC, coz even if in the given example you were apprentice and the mercenary your teacher who trained your LA, i doubt it was that way. I bet you would kill the mercenary with no respect at all what proves he was not teaching you.
Its another MMORPG artifact, you train on enemies you are supposed to kill because they are threatening you. At least in most cases.
So Pip, i rather say Zanzibar was acting IC with his char, rather than you with your what take all your rights away.
-
I have to say, I like the idea of paying for admission to the arena.
Maybe there could be even more types of skill trainers in there? This would make the Arena totally IC.
Nice idea Pip.
-
Pip, what? mercenary being a mob? who cares you were training your LA. In 99% i can say you were acting OOC, coz even if in the given example you were apprentice and the mercenary your teacher who trained your LA, i doubt it was that way. I bet you would kill the mercenary with no respect at all what proves he was not teaching you.
Its another MMORPG artifact, you train on enemies you are supposed to kill because they are threatening you. At least in most cases.
So Pip, i rather say Zanzibar was acting IC with his char, rather than you with your what take all your rights away.
I didn't design the game the way it is, the whole thing is quite unrealistic, we all have our own way of roleplaying who is to say one is right and another is wrong. Shalmaneser told me not to train light armour on that mercenary, he then disappeared before I could answer him. He came back a few minutes later killed the mercenary nearby and then jumped in and, without another word, killed the mercenary I was in combat with. That, in the very least, was rude. I was not leaving anyone else hanging around waiting and yes, in fact, I did kill the mercenary a few times during the process. (And there is a big difference between a teacher and a sparring partner)
I have to say, I like the idea of paying for admission to the arena.
Maybe there could be even more types of skill trainers in there? This would make the Arena totally IC.
Nice idea Pip.
Thanks I thought so too :)
-
First things first, nothing to do with GM rules, the BOSS man himself , please go to this link. http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=21538.0
Second it does not matter if it is a loot-able mod or not, everyone has a right to fight/train there own way, and to the loot.
Also would like to point out that I do not think any of you have been to arena for a long time, every thing is camped 24 hours a day mostly, so a empty one is a real big find. Would be very interested how you would explain how to train your light armor, within the mechanics we have at the moment IC.
-
it does not matter if it is a loot-able mod or not, everyone has a right to fight/train there own way, and to the loot.
I think the point about it not being lootable is that there is less competition for these mobs as loot is a consideration for some, if not most people.
Also would like to point out that I do not think any of you have been to arena for a long time, every thing is camped 24 hours a day mostly, so a empty one is a real big find. Would be very interested how you would explain how to train your light armor, within the mechanics we have at the moment IC.
I go to the Arena almost every time I go on-line, you have seen me. I agree it is congested. I think a lot of time it is because of multi-clienting players. Nearly every time I go there there is someone on most of the mobs on the spokes, the glads, the one merc and the rogues. Quite often I will run around checking all the spokes and I will come up to a mob with a character standing on it. More often than not 10-15 seconds later the mob and character are still standing then with no fight happening. I then move in to kill the mob. Sometime after I have done this two or three times the character miraculously comes to life and they start attacking when they see me appear out of the stairwell. This is particularly true of the Dlayo stoop. It may be that these people are really having inaudible conversations, in guild or group channels or by tells but to me if you are not going to work the mob consistantly you should step back to allow someone else to move in rather than to stay atop what you are not fighting.
I train my light armor the way I train everything else by fighting a lot of mobs. If that means I have to go off in the wilderness or under the temple to fight then that is what I do. There is a gang of 4 rogues on the way to Ojaveda, there are bandits and rogues outside Ojaveda and in the area beyond the magic shop. There are lots of unused mobs in the wilderness and if you kill them too fast you can use crummy weapons.
My light armor is now 50 so I am going to have to look for a new trainer as there doen't seem to be one in the arena anymore. I have to go to Oja to train my dagger anyway.
EDIT
I would like to suggest that the way to prevent congestion in the arena is to prevent the glads, mercs and rogues from dropping anything there. It really makes little sense to have an endless supply of weapons to be looted in a training facility.
-
I thought that if someone was attacking a monster (doesn't matter what stance) another player couldn't just jump in? Is it different when someone's using a defensive stance?
-
it seems so, to me it seems like you actually have to be causing damage, which doesnt happen on full defensive stance
-
I thought that if someone was attacking a monster (doesn't matter what stance) another player couldn't just jump in? Is it different when someone's using a defensive stance?
Neko kyouran explained the technical part quite well in his post. If neither you or the NPC make any damage, the combat lock on the server times out and everybody is free to take the NPC. The rest is just a discussion whether parking your character next to the NPC is equal to attacking it or not. And you won't train any LA if the NPC fails to make any damage either.
-
I thought that if someone was attacking a monster (doesn't matter what stance) another player couldn't just jump in? Is it different when someone's using a defensive stance?
Neko kyouran explained the technical part quite well in his post. If neither you or the NPC make any damage, the combat lock on the server times out and everybody is free to take the NPC. The rest is just a discussion whether parking your character next to the NPC is equal to attacking it or not. And you won't train any LA if the NPC fails to make any damage either.
Have to disagree there light armor was going up and a little damage was being done to the player. also if magic is used it to will cause the caster to own the bot, in this case no magic was used.
-
Have to disagree there light armor was going up and a little damage was being done to the player. also if magic is used it to will cause the caster to own the bot, in this case no magic was used.
If the light armor skill was going up and some damage was done as well, then it is a bug that the combat lock didn't work. Exploiting bugs (like kill stealing with magic) should be punished by GMs, but I'm still not convinced that there is a bug.
-
If you stayed long enough to watch you would have seen it did not take long, also you knew the person was there as you and she spoke.
So now you have admitted you killstelled the merc, and it should get you punished as the game rules say you should.
I would like it if you reread my post then reconsider your words.
KS is BS in a roleplaying game. I refuse to accept it as its complete OOC.
Something to add to that is that camping in general is an OOC behaviour.
Personally I would be annoyed if I came up to someone fighting who didn't finish the kill within five minutes.
the mercenary being camped was one of the only mercenaries that drop weapons. In particular, axes with modifiers. This person was camping that mercenary without killing it, even though right beside that player was another mercenary which was just as weak but dropped no loot.
Shalmaneser, you knew I was training my light armour and you deliberately jumped in and took my mob so that you could start this discussion!
No, I started this discussion because it's an issue that I had never encountered before and I thought it would be good if people had the chance to discuss it.
Shalmaneser told me not to train light armour on that mercenary, he then disappeared before I could answer him. He came back a few minutes later killed the mercenary nearby and then jumped in and, without another word, killed the mercenary I was in combat with.
A minor point, but it was actually much later than just "a few minutes later".
I thought that if someone was attacking a monster (doesn't matter what stance) another player couldn't just jump in? Is it different when someone's using a defensive stance?
Yes. The game does not register a defensive stance as an attack since you aren't hitting your opponent.
-
I thought that if someone was attacking a monster (doesn't matter what stance) another player couldn't just jump in? Is it different when someone's using a defensive stance?
That is right, if you are engaged with a monster in FULL defense that monster remains free for anyone else to attack, whether or not you are taking damage.
-
I thought that if someone was attacking a monster (doesn't matter what stance) another player couldn't just jump in? Is it different when someone's using a defensive stance?
That is right, if you are engaged with a monster in FULL defense that monster remains free for anyone else to attack, whether or not you are taking damage.
Rightfully so, in my opinion. If I'm not attacking a monster, then someone isn't stealing anything from me if they choose to attack it. It doesn't matter that the monster is attacking me.
-
If you stayed long enough to watch you would have seen it did not take long, also you knew the person was there as you and she spoke.
So now you have admitted you killstelled the merc, and it should get you punished as the game rules say you should.
I would like it if you reread my post then reconsider your words.
no need again you admit it here
Personally I would be annoyed if I came up to someone fighting who didn't finish the kill within five minutes.
the mercenary being camped was one of the only mercenaries that drop weapons. In particular, axes with modifiers. This person was camping that mercenary without killing it, even though right beside that player was another mercenary which was just as weak but dropped no loot.
So it was In particular, axes with modifiers.
Also would like to point out the other mercenary is much harder hitting, and at her level wold not be the right one to go for.
Shalmaneser told me not to train light armour on that mercenary, he then disappeared before I could answer him. He came back a few minutes later killed the mercenary nearby and then jumped in and, without another word, killed the mercenary I was in combat with.
A minor point, but it was actually much later than just "a few minutes later".
Again your only quibble was the time, you did not deny you attacked it even though you seen she was fighting it.
-
Also would like to point out the other mercenary is much harder hitting, and at her level wold not be the right one to go for.
Dude. If she can take on dark rogues, then I think mercenaries shouldn't present much danger to her.
-
Also would like to point out the other mercenary is much harder hitting, and at her level wold not be the right one to go for.
Dude. If she can take on dark rogues, then I think mercenaries shouldn't present much danger to her.
Glad you brought that up, you have a funny way of paying back her kindness to you.
-
Garile, I don't think you are willing to change your way of thinking, to the point that you even claim dev team is working the way you want. Even when I quoted what Talad think about the time you don't RP and you obviously don't RP accepting OOC, thus playing along it, not even trying to change it to the way it should be.
You probably don't do it all the time, but it's enough.
I am saying things? Show me where Talad said that, becuase how many times have dev members, GMs and moderators not already said this is a roleplayingGAME? How many times has it not already been said that people lik e powerlevelers are not going to be kicked out becuase they have just as much right to be there as you?
Also there is a big difference in ignoring it IC and ignoring it OOC. This is an OOC place so if you say you are going to ignore it you mean you ignore it OOC aswell. So there is a problem and you aren't going to help solve it by reporting it or by telling the person that this is wrong.
Roleplaying means my character will ignore it. That doesn't mean I as a player will ignore it.
-
Also would like to point out the other mercenary is much harder hitting, and at her level wold not be the right one to go for.
Dude. If she can take on dark rogues, then I think mercenaries shouldn't present much danger to her.
Glad you brought that up, you have a funny way of paying back her kindness to you.
The Dark Rogue in question was unarmed while I was armed and attacking to kill, the mercenary in question was armed while I was defending. For the purpose of this training I could not use that mercenary as it did too much damage.
-
Along with Bereror, I don't think this looks like a bug but rather another of those "That wasn't nice" situations. It's not killstealing. Therefore I don't think there's much to argue about further - there's no "ownership" of an NPC someone is not actively attacking, it's nice to ask if someone's "using it," but you don't have to.
-
Also would like to point out the other mercenary is much harder hitting, and at her level wold not be the right one to go for.
Dude. If she can take on dark rogues, then I think mercenaries shouldn't present much danger to her.
Glad you brought that up, you have a funny way of paying back her kindness to you.
You've lost me.
-
OK jog memory time Jannerette was killing rogue, the MELEE one with a pair of IRON ss, not hard to do with them weapons, along comes you, skip a few details, surfice to say you were not wearing your glasses or contacts, because at this time yours truly was asleep in his recliner chair, AFTER you got close to see it was a female and not me, asked for healing potions, but you as normal got to close and had to run, Jannerette not able to help you take on both rogues woke me up. It was your lucky day, that I had been exploring with her and logged out there, after finding the rogues.
After Janner took on and killed the harder of the two, you found out she was not lying to you and you could indeed kill the melee one, without receiving damage, she even pointed out to you the best place to stand so as not to be attacked by the weapons bearing one.
Along with Bereror, I don't think this looks like a bug but rather another of those "That wasn't nice" situations. It's not killstealing. Therefore I don't think there's much to argue about further - there's no "ownership" of an NPC someone is not actively attacking, it's nice to ask if someone's "using it," but you don't have to.
Then you are leaving the door wide open for anyone to walk up and do as he did, yet again the rules set out by Talad, are wrong, according to you. he clearly says it is not allowed.
All form of attack are indeed a form of de-fence, and all forms of de-fence are also a form of attack, within the game mechanics you are wearing down your opponent, hopping to kill them at the end. If it was that you could yield to a opponent then you, could just walk away, but you cant. so what if it takes a long time to wear it down, same for you so what if you take a long time to wear down. like you the other players have the same opportunity to go find a monster out in the wilds, why dont they, simple to much bother to do so, so hay lets find some mug and basically mug them of there chosen kill, I can justify it by saying it is not against the rules.
-
Could you stop dragging this discussion off topic, Janner?
The topic is wether Full Defensive should be classified as attacking, not wether or not Zanzibar stole a kill. Could you for one time lie your childish fingerpointing aside, please?
In my humble opinion Full defensive is not "attacking a mob", but still classified as "being in combat with a mob". You are enduring the mob's attacks, so (under the current set of rules) it should be your decision wether or not to let someone else join in, by usage of the group function. On the other hand however it can be rather tedious for everyone else when a player parks his character near a creature, then leaves to do something else while his character levels in some armor skill, this practice, however, already as far as I can is forbidden. While I am not believing in "fighting fire with fire", I do believe that anyone who "parks" his character, that way, is in the least position to whine about killstealers.
-
I like you Cyl have a right to reply to a question, it is his post so I if I want to will reply to his question, also second part of my last post was on topic.
-
*reads the subject, the starting post...ignores the fuss*
You see a rogue attacking someone. This person doesn't attack but is defending itself.
You ask if he needs help, he doesn't answer...fine you go your own way.
The question is not
"was this dude fighting the rogue?"
it is
"was this rogue fighting the guy?"
He was, MOBs don't have stances
What really annoys people when they see this situation, making they wonder if they have the right to get the rogues attention has nothing to do with the will to help someone who doesn't answer nor offer to group...
It's when you start thinking the rogue is yours and that this guy doesn't let you have what you came for: XP
You can't even think he is training to parry, you look for an excuse to get back *your* mob to you without having to fear an accusation of KSing. Digging into the various interpretations of "roleplaying" until you find one that will allow you to KS legally in the name or RP.
I said it before, RPing is doing things in a characters'POV, IC. It is not preparing your char to play the role you defined. Chars are not empty bodies in need to be filled with gears and powers until the distant day where they will fit the role you want to play. As soon as you create them they start their living. And if you are unable to build a background consistant with what they are, it's not the CC system who is to blame, nor the leveling speed. Blame your lack of imagination regarding the stats, physical traits, family and motivations you give him.
Using spawns as tools to raise stats until they fit your liking is not RPing.
So, is it IC not to be able to attack an engaged MOB? yes it is. Your character can not attack an engaged mob unless you (the player) use an OOC bug to change the way the world exists for all chars.
It can look unrealistic in our world to be unable to backstab anyone because we feel like it, but for the character, the only "reality" his PS. And in PS you can not attack an engaged monster nor someone without his consent.
When your character can not do something, he can look for other ways (IC ones) or simply fail. Then he has to move on and look for something he *can* do.
When you KS in the game world, you cheat.
-
"Killstealing"
Nobody owns a spawn, and nobody owns any attackable NPC unless they are already fighting it!
Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started an attack is considered kill stealing and will be punishable by GMs through warnings, and then further actions if the player continues.
There is no need to ask players around a spawn whether you can "join" - everyone has a right to hunt or attack NPCs, and no one can refuse to share with you, since there is no ownership.
IN red also states FIGHTING not whether you are defending or attacking.
-
Could you stop dragging this discussion off topic, Janner?
The topic is wether Full Defensive should be classified as attacking, not wether or not Zanzibar stole a kill. Could you for one time lie your childish fingerpointing aside, please?
In my humble opinion Full defensive is not "attacking a mob", but still classified as "being in combat with a mob". You are enduring the mob's attacks, so (under the current set of rules) it should be your decision wether or not to let someone else join in, by usage of the group function. On the other hand however it can be rather tedious for everyone else when a player parks his character near a creature, then leaves to do something else while his character levels in some armor skill, this practice, however, already as far as I can is forbidden. While I am not believing in "fighting fire with fire", I do believe that anyone who "parks" his character, that way, is in the least position to whine about killstealers.
OK, since I feel I am being falsely accused here, I will explain what happened:
I log in and go in search of a mob on which to train my light armour. The arena afterall is where one goes to train up combat skills, is it not? I find a suitable opponent, a mercenary, and begin training. I do NOT go afk. I use a full defensive stance until I run out of stamina then I kill and loot the mercenary. There is nothing in the rules of the game to say I cannot do this.
Nine minutes after I have logged in Shalmaneser turns up and I say "hello" Shal says "Do not use this mercenary to train light armour" "If you would be so kind" But before I can answer he runs off and disappears. Twelve minutes later he reappears kills the mercenary nearby. I am in combat with "my" mercenary which is clearly shown by the animation of my arms but because of a deficiency in the game mechanics Shalmaneser is able to jump in, without another word, and kill "my" mercenary. Was I in combat with the mob? yes I was. Did Shal steal my kill? yes he did since I intended to kill it myself.
It is indeed a question of whether Shal was killstealing, because if I had been using any other stance he would not have been able to attack the mob.
I agree with bilbous that if there was nothing to loot in the arena those who were after the loot would go elsewhere and leave the arena free for those who wanted to use it for combat training.
-
All form of attack are indeed a form of de-fence, and all forms of de-fence are also a form of attack, within the game mechanics you are wearing down your opponent, hopping to kill them at the end.
This not true. If you attack an enemy, then you are on the offensive. A full defensive stance isn't even an attack - a full defensive is saying "I'm not going to attack you, but I'm going to stop you from hurting me."
So, is it IC not to be able to attack an engaged MOB? yes it is. Your character can not attack an engaged mob unless you (the player) use an OOC bug to change the way the world exists for all chars.
Except that we aren't talking about a bug. The game doesn't register full defensive attacks as attacks because they aren't attacks. A person in a full defensive attack is not engaging their enemy. A person in a full defensive attack is not fighting their enemy, they're just defending themself.
Did Shal steal my kill? yes he did since I intended to kill it myself.
You were in a full defensive stance for most of 20 minutes. That very clearly shows that you had no intent to kill the mercenary.
-
I am in combat with "my" mercenary which is clearly shown by the animation of my arms but because of a deficiency in the game mechanics Shalmaneser is able to jump in, without another word, and kill "my" mercenary.
I don't see this as a deficiency, Pip. A couple of explanations have been posted here to explain exactly why this is allowable - it's to prevent a player from "claiming" an NPC without attacking it (and defending is not attacking) for ages. Imagine a situation where a group of players claim the entire arena through a full defensive stance, not allowing anyone to do anything, and not attacking themselves as well.
This is not a bug, and a player who comes in to take an NPC who is attacking you while you're not attacking back is not killstealing. That you "intended" to kill it later holds no meaning.
-
Then you are leaving the door wide open for anyone to walk up and do as he did, yet again the rules set out by Talad, are wrong, according to you. he clearly says it is not allowed.
No, Janner. The rules do not clearly say this at all.
All form of attack are indeed a form of de-fence, and all forms of de-fence are also a form of attack, within the game mechanics you are wearing down your opponent, hopping to kill them at the end.
This also is not true. If you attack an enemy, then you are on the offensive. A full defensive stance isn't even an attack - a full defensive is saying "I'm not going to attack you, but I'm going to stop you from hurting me."
Then you cant read it is clear to me it is.
IN a attack do you not defend from your enemies blows? In A defense do you not use weapons, hear I class fists as a weapon also, do you just defend, of corse you don't if the opportunity arises you strike. so both apply. Having boxed, and other forms of combat up to and including weapons, you do both at all times.
-
Janner: Defending is not trying to harm the NPC, therefore it is not attacking, and therefore this is not "killstealing."
-
That you "intended" to kill it later holds no meaning.
I inted to kill the rogue in the canyon area between hydlaa and Ojaroad 1, as soon as I log in il do it, if anyone is there between now and then you have been KSing. :D
I know this sounds silly but someones intention to do something (like Karyuu said) should have no bearing on whether its KSing or not.
-
IN a attack do you not defend from your enemies blows? In A defense do you not use weapons, hear I class fists as a weapon also, do you just defend, of corse you don't if the opportunity arises you strike. so both apply. Having boxed, and other forms of combat up to and including weapons, you do both at all times.
When attacking someone, you defend yourself from their blows, but you make blows of your own.
-
Janner: Defending is not trying to harm the NPC, therefore it is not attacking, and therefore this is not "killstealing."
Care to tell us all the command for full defense ?
Also care to explain why we have a full defense ?
Posted by: zanzibar. When attacking someone, you defend yourself from their blows, but you make blows of your own.? Is that not what I said?
Like I assume you are doing I am trying to point out a flaw in the game. Just because we may be in full defense, it is not real to assume we do not hit back if the opportunity arises.
-
Care to tell us all the command for full defense ?
I'm afraid I don't follow.
Also care to explain why we have a full defense ?
Perhaps because we like to give players some options on how they react to NPC attacks? Is it realistic to be limited to responding with blows of your own, or would it be better if players had the choice to only defend themselves as well? I can think of tons of scenarios where this can help RP.
Like I assume you are doing I am trying to point out a flaw in the game. Just because we may be in full defense, it is not real to assume we do not hit back if the opportunity arises.
A full defense is just that - it's not attacking. That's why it's a "full defense." So no, your character isn't going to hit back when the opportunity arises.
-
The command is /attack 5
A bit misleading don't you think.
-
Sure :) Plenty of things should be changed to something else.
But I hope you haven't been ignoring the reasons people have posted on why a full-defense allows others to kill the NPC you are engaged with?
-
Sure :) Plenty of things should be changed to something else.
But I hope you haven't been ignoring the reasons people have posted on why a full-defense allows others to kill the NPC you are engaged with?
Of course I have read there reasons and from there point of view they are good ones, but why should they as in this case just kill no word or may I, a few seconds of typing and no harm is done, but to just walk up and kill, is ignorant, not to say upsetting to the player how is trying to up there armor, also do they not need loot to pay for the training, why should they be the ones to move on,? There is two sides to every encounter.
-
And you are here on the forums to argue over a "He should have asked"? I do not consider this a valid topic of discussion, as it can very well be discussed in private without dragging everyone else into what doesn't involve them. Moreover, GMs are not around to enforce that characters "be nice" to one another and characters are MOST certainly free to be rude.
-
And you are here on the forums to argue over a "He should have asked"? I do not consider this a valid topic of discussion, as it can very well be discussed in private without dragging everyone else into what doesn't involve them. Moreover, GMs are not around to enforce that characters "be nice" to one another and characters are MOST certainly free to be rude.
I AM not hear to do that at all, I have a right same as you to point out what the existing rules stat same as you, also I have posted the said rules, and you say they are not implying what they clearly say they are.
-
I am in combat with "my" mercenary which is clearly shown by the animation of my arms but because of a deficiency in the game mechanics Shalmaneser is able to jump in, without another word, and kill "my" mercenary.
I don't see this as a deficiency, Pip. A couple of explanations have been posted here to explain exactly why this is allowable - it's to prevent a player from "claiming" an NPC without attacking it (and defending is not attacking) for ages. Imagine a situation where a group of players claim the entire arena through a full defensive stance, not allowing anyone to do anything, and not attacking themselves as well.
This is not a bug, and a player who comes in to take an NPC who is attacking you while you're not attacking back is not killstealing. That you "intended" to kill it later holds no meaning.
By your logic then "Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started an attack is considered killstealing and will be punishable by GMs through warnings," is a lot of meaningless waffle and I would be within my rights to go around, using magic to attack mobs others are using, just because I can. Thanks very much Miss GM.
There is a limit to the time you can go on using full defence (one min seven secs with weapons) because you run out of mental stamina and then you must kill it before it kills you. So you are not tying it up for ages doing nothing but defend. The situation you want me to imagine would be impossible.
Shalmaneser knew I was engaged with the mob this way and therefore he stole the kill. If, however, I was being attacked and using full defence while trying to get away I would have thanked him for rescuing me. It is the character's intentions that count. If the second instance had been the case there would be no argument. The fact that I was willingly engaged with the mob and Shal knowingly took the kill because he had something to prove makes it kill stealing in my opinion.
-
Pip, there is a difference between an unintentional bug/side effect and a coded in system. There seems to be a real issue over competitions of magic and physical combat, but in this case the full-defense lockout is done on purpose, to prevent people from tying up an NPC by doing nothing to it. Neko shared a hypothetical situation in which tying up an NPC for ages is indeed possible.
I am the person who made the addition to the Player Policy on killstealing, and if I suddenly did not word it to everyone's liking, I apologize. Killstealing is abusing a bug. Using a purposeful feature of the game is not. If someone kills the NPC before you get the chance to, it's exactly similar to the issue of spawn camping. Someone got to the kill before you, like someone may get a parking space before you in real life. It's not an issue to run to the police about.
-
Neko shared a hypothetical situation in which tying up an NPC for ages is indeed possible.
If you are basing your judgement on what Neko said, you need to think again, because Neko has obviously not tried it.
He says:
If they aren't doing damage for extended periods of time, the lock out expires, and the mob instance becomes available for anyone to take.
In fact what happens is that full defence stance actively turns off the lock-out it does not simply expire. In fact it is more effective than the stop attack command which continues to keep the lock-out active for that extended period. It takes 15 seconds to be able to take the mob from someone in full defence.
-
hmm well I have trained armor a few time luring a few clackers to me hoping to train faster that way ;)
attacking one full defence. But does this last long? No mental stamina as already mentioned runs out a lot faster then that even half a rank is trained. (atleast at my level).
Now I'm not sure how much mental stamina can be improved but the scenario of everlasting tying a mob down specially with the autoattackfunction is hardly going to ever happen
And why is it so bad if a rogue is tied up for a while? Is it so different for the other player if I kill the rogue a few hundred times or only ten times? Becuase when looking at the example I doubt Zanzi would have asked to join in if Pip would have just been killing the merc.
Well don't really care what the rules say but glad to hear Karyuu changed it becuase the rule Janner showed I would definately explain as that attack 5 is still fighting atleast. Since when is defending not part of fighting? But anyhow Karyuu changed it so guess that isn't a matter anymore.
-
Janner: Defending is not trying to harm the NPC, therefore it is not attacking, and therefore this is not "killstealing."
Care to tell us all the command for full defense ?
Also care to explain why we have a full defense ?
Posted by: zanzibar. When attacking someone, you defend yourself from their blows, but you make blows of your own.? Is that not what I said?
Like I assume you are doing I am trying to point out a flaw in the game. Just because we may be in full defense, it is not real to assume we do not hit back if the opportunity arises.
I meant that if you aren't hitting back, then you aren't making an attack.
By your logic then "Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started an attack is considered killstealing and will be punishable by GMs through warnings," is a lot of meaningless waffle and I would be within my rights to go around, using magic to attack mobs others are using, just because I can. Thanks very much Miss GM.
I think you're being unfair and even a bit rude. The whole idea is that the NPC isn't yours because you aren't attacking it, and therefore no one is taking it away from you. So it isn't killstealing - nothing is being stolen since the NPC isn't yours. If you were attacking it, then you'd have a claim on it, but in full defensive stance no attack is made.
-
No further point in talking about this as this does not mean what it says.
"Killstealing"
Nobody owns a spawn, and nobody owns any attackable NPC unless they are already fighting it!
Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started an attack is considered kill stealing and will be punishable by GMs through warnings, and then further actions if the player continues.
There is no need to ask players around a spawn whether you can "join" - everyone has a right to hunt or attack NPCs, and no one can refuse to share with you, since there is no ownership
-
Well I guess "fighting" should be changed to "attacking" with the addition that "the use of /attack 5 (full defence) is not considered attacking" or "attacking involves the player damaging the attackable NPC"
-
----------------------------------------
another semi related topic: attacking and engaged in combat are not one of the same.
attacking is actively engaged with a mob with the intent to kill it/do harm to it. you are attacking a mob f you are doing damage.
engaged in combat encompases attacking in it, but they are not ne in the same since you can be in combat, but not attacking the target. full defense, you are in combt, as the mobis trying to hurt you, but you are not attacking the mob, as you have no intent to harm the mob since you are in full defense.
it's easy to confuse the two.
-
Janner, I feel that you're repeating what you've already said without really reading the responses I and others have posted. We don't feel that an attack is even taking place in these situations.
-
engaged in combat encompases attacking in it, but they are not ne in the same since you can be in combat, but not attacking the target. full defense, you are in combt, as the mobis trying to hurt you, but you are not attacking the mob, as you have no intent to harm the mob since you are in full defense.
EXACTLY; I was in combat therefore I was "fighting" therefore it was kill stealing.
IN red also states FIGHTING not whether you are defending or attacking.
For:
- Full defensive is an attack, even if you aren't hitting the mob.
- You are in combat with the mob, and therefore if someone else attacks the mob, they are interupting the combat.
Whichever way you look at it, the second part of Zanzibar's argument for, is true.
A person in a full defensive attack is not engaging their enemy. A person in a full defensive attack is not fighting their enemy, they're just defending themself.
Not true, in full defence you are engaging your enemy in attacking you and it is a form of fighting.
You were in a full defensive stance for most of 20 minutes. That very clearly shows that you had no intent to kill the mercenary.
Also not true. You did not stick around, and in that time I killed the mercenary 3 or 4 times. If you had stayed to talk about it we could have come to some arrangement.
A full defense is just that - it's not attacking. That's why it's a "full defense." So no, your character isn't going to hit back when the opportunity arises.
During combat one can change ones stance as often as is appropriate. Are you saying that every time you change to a full defensive stance you are no longer in combat?
Here is the pattern for the training strategy:
Attack the mob as normal, change to full defence, when stamina runs low change stance again and kill mob. Whole thing takes about 2 mins on average.
So you think that it is ok for someone to come in and attack the mob while I am in the middle of it?
-
My two tria... If I'm walking down the street and get attacked by a person my first reaction would be to defend myself to the fullest extent (full defense?) and would consider dealing damage to the attacker part of defending myself.
-
I think from a practical point of view, we can't allow people to monpolize spawns using the full defensive stance. It would simply lead to no good. I'm still of the opinion that a full defensive stance means you have no intention of killing the mob, and therefore others should be allowed to step in and attack it. I'm also still of the opinion that a full defensiev stance means that you're defending yourself fully and NOT attacking your oponent back, and therefore you have no claim over the mob. But I don't think I'll be able to change your mind on those two points. But again, from a practical point of view, bad things would happen if we allowed people to monopolize spawns using the full defensive stance - as others have said. Can we agree to that?
-
Pip, you are't understanding it.
Apples are fruits. They grow on trees. Strawberries are also fruits. They definately do not grow on trees. Both apples and strawberries are fruits but they do not both grow on trees.
Attacking your enemy is a form of combat. One with the intention to harm your enemy. Full defense is also a form of combat, with no intention to ever do anything to your enemy but to wear them out so they stop attacking you. Both are forms of combat, but both have very deffernt intentions.
Again, by definition, attacking is the intent to do harm to your enemy. In full defense you have no intention to harm your enemy. Ergo, full defense, while still a form of combat, is not the same thing as attacking.
The game mechanics are written as such. If you are not harming your enemy, you are not attacking it. Therefore the mob is not yours to claim, therfore it is free for anyone to kill, threfore, it is not kilstealing.
----------------------------------------
Lets now review the official ruling of "killstealing" as it is stated in the players policy: (I have made keywords red.
"Killstealing"
* Nobody owns a spawn, and nobody owns any attackable NPC unless they are already fighting it!
* Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started an attack is considered kill stealing and will be punishable by GMs through warnings, and then further actions if the player continues.
* There is no need to ask players around a spawn whether you can "join" - everyone has a right to hunt or attack NPCs, and no one can refuse to share with you, since there is no ownership.
Now if you look at the words in red you see a problem. There are many ways to fight a mob. Fighting, IS the same as combat. It is a word used to describe many different styles of both self defense styles (both with intentions to harm, and with out) and also offensive manuver styles that are intended to harm said enemy. On the other hand, the next key point shows that you must be currently attacking a mob in order to be considered killstealing. Once again, attacking, is any fighting style with the intention to cause harm to the enemy. (NOT full defense. see above for why.)
So they contradict each other. That is where the problem lies. The solution? Change "fighting' to "attacking".
---------------------------------------------
I'd also like to make one last point.
During combat one can change ones stance as often as is appropriate. Are you saying that every time you change to a full defensive stance you are no longer in combat?
While in combat, fighters do not normally use the same fighting style throughout the entirity of combat, unlike how it is in PS. They will switch from a multitude of individual techniques, as the way a fight plays out, strategies, how the opponent moves, soroundings, etc, all change constantly. While this may call from switching from an attacking style tenique to one of a full defense style technique and back again, and all this time you do remain in combat, yes, but you do not remain in an attacking style when you are using a full defensive type of technique.
While you are still considered to be in combat (recall combat is used as a word to describe all fighting technques), your intentins have changed, you are no longer attacking the enemy to harm them during full defense, therefore, yes, someone does have the ability to come along and finish off the job while you are still in combat. If you don't like this fact, don't use full defense. You still gain experience for armor while in a normal attacking style. You will level up just the same, it will just take longer. And that is the trade off you pay for not letting anyone else in on combatting the mob. The SECOND your intention changes to "how can I harm this person attacking me", you are not in full defense any more, and you are in some type of attacking style of combat.
There are two options:
1) never use full defense, no one can take over the mob in mid combat, but armor training takes longer.
2) use ffull defense to train faster, but except the risk that comes with it. that being anyone can come by and finish off the mob since you are not attacking it.
Notice carefully the way killstealing is written. It is not written to say "killstealing is when a person comes along and takes the kill while the other person is in combat". It states that "killstealing is when a person comes along and takes the kill while the other person is attacking it."
Again, see above for why these are not the same thing.
And I don't think I can make it any more clear than that.
-
Pip, you are't understanding it.
Of course I understand, I'm not stupid, I just don't agree. If Shalmaneser ran around the arena, butting into every combat he could, and upset 5, 6 or 7 different players, that would be ok would it?
Notice carefully the way killstealing is written. It is not written to say "killstealing is when a person comes along and takes the kill while the other person is in combat". It states that "killstealing is when a person comes along and takes the kill while the other person is attacking it."
Look again yourself; it says "Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started an attack is considered kill stealing". Look again at my strategy; I start an attack and then remain in combat I am therefore fighting it; "Nobody owns a spawn, and nobody owns any attackable NPC unless they are already fighting it!"
I think from a practical point of view, we can't allow people to monpolize spawns using the full defensive stance. It would simply lead to no good. I'm still of the opinion that a full defensive stance means you have no intention of killing the mob, and therefore others should be allowed to step in and attack it. I'm also still of the opinion that a full defensiev stance means that you're defending yourself fully and NOT attacking your oponent back, and therefore you have no claim over the mob. But I don't think I'll be able to change your mind on those two points. But again, from a practical point of view, bad things would happen if we allowed people to monopolize spawns using the full defensive stance - as others have said. Can we agree to that?
No, there can be no monopoly like that as I have already explained. It would be impossible to tie up a mob using full defence any longer than if I used a defensive stance. The simple fact is that you were annoyed because you wanted the mob. I would have let you have it, if you had engaged in a conversation about it but you prefer to exploit the game mechanics to upset people.
-
No, there can be no monopoly like that as I have already explained. It would be impossible to tie up a mob using full defence any longer than if I used a defensive stance. The simple fact is that you were annoyed because you wanted the mob. I would have let you have it, if you had engaged in a conversation about it but you prefer to exploit the game mechanics to upset people.
Yeah, and you wont even think to treat it In Character and instead you become upset as player x) But i'm not complaining, so many people behalve in this way that it almost sounds like right, heh.
But why the arguing? There was a problem, Zanzibar made a thread to clarify the matter and now people still argue. I don't know, maybe the rules still need small edit to make things clear.
But it doesn't really matter. Pip wanted to have the mercenary who drops good weapons, so she fighted it and the fact it was uneffective if someone else wanted to kill the mercenary too, it did not matter. Now, Pip would probably change the tactic if Shalme...(damn, Zanzibar is simpler to remember xP) politely explained whats the deal. But to do so, he would have to go most likely OOC, because explaining would included spawning and stuff which is OOC. Also, Zanz being IC probably doesn't like explaining himself, so he doesnt do it ;)
So even if there was any chance in being IC, the OOC rules spoil it all. Its funny if you remember this game is supposed to be roleplaying.
So stop arguing people, waiting for the rules to be clarified even furher or because it has no sense at all.
-
There was a problem, Zanzibar made a thread to clarify the matter and now people still argue.
No, Zanzibar made the thread to start a debate which is exactly what is happening. Shall we have a vote now?
I am voting for the motion.
-
Pip, you are't understanding it.
Of course I understand, I'm not stupid, I just don't agree. If Shalmaneser ran around the arena, butting into every combat he could, and upset 5, 6 or 7 different players, that would be ok would it?
Your statement here:
Quote from: neko kyouran on November 10, 2006, 09:11:26 AM
engaged in combat encompases attacking in it, but they are not ne in the same since you can be in combat, but not attacking the target. full defense, you are in combt, as the mobis trying to hurt you, but you are not attacking the mob, as you have no intent to harm the mob since you are in full defense.
EXACTLY; I was in combat therefore I was "fighting" therefore it was kill stealing.
Implies that you do not understand what I am trying to say at all. Also, I don't believe I ever called you stupid, simply that you are in error with your logic. Please don't let a simple thread on a simple little forum on the internet of all places personaly effect you.
To answer your question: As long as he stays within the confines of the game mechanics, yes, let him and anyone else kill whatever the game will allow them to kill such that it does not violate the rules set forth by the players policy. As I stated, ther are two chioces. You pick the full defense chioce, you take that risk. That's just how it is.
---------------------------------------
Notice carefully the way killstealing is written. It is not written to say "killstealing is when a person comes along and takes the kill while the other person is in combat". It states that "killstealing is when a person comes along and takes the kill while the other person is attacking it."
Look again yourself; it says "Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started an attack is considered kill stealing". Look again at my strategy; I start an attack and then remain in combat I am therefore fighting it; "Nobody owns a spawn, and nobody owns any attackable NPC unless they are already fighting it!"
Please reread the bottom half of my post. I specifically stated this is false. Just becuase you are in combat doesn't mean you are attacking the mob. Notice the wording, you have to be ATTACKING the mob for it to be killstealing. In order to be attacking such mob, you have to be in a stance with intent to harm. Full defense is not a stance that shows any intent to harm, therfore you are not attacking, yet still considerd in combat. I also specifically addressed the "fighting" part. Here, I'll make it easy:
Now if you look at the words in red you see a problem. There are many ways to fight a mob. Fighting, IS the same as combat. It is a word used to describe many different styles of both self defense styles (both with intentions to harm, and with out) and also offensive manuver styles that are intended to harm said enemy. On the other hand, the next key point shows that you must be currently attacking a mob in order to be considered killstealing. Once again, attacking, is any fighting style with the intention to cause harm to the enemy. (NOT full defense. see above for why.)
So they contradict each other. That is where the problem lies. The solution? Change "fighting' to "attacking".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a difference between combat/fighting and attacking.
And I'm done here. At Niko's request, I will leave it at this.
EDIT: fixed a typo
-
Implies that you do not understand what I am trying to say at all. Also, I don't believe I ever called you stupid, simply that you are in error with your logic. Please don't let a simple thread on a simple little forum on the internet of all places personaly effect you.
I don't take it personally at all, I am just using your own argument against you, my logic may be different from yours but it doesn't make it wrong.
To answer your question: As long as he stays within the confines of the game mechanics, yes, let him and anyone else kill whatever the game will allow them to kill such that it does not violate the rules set forth by the players policy. As I stated, ther are two chioces. You pick the full defense chioce, you take that risk. That's just how it is.
This is where the argument lies. I believe it does violate the rules set forth in the players policy.
Please reread the bottom half of my post. I specifically stated this is false. Just becuase you are in combat doesn't mean you are attacking the mob. Notice the wording, you have to be ATTACKING the mob for it to be killstealing. In order to be attacking such mob, you have to be in a stance with intent to harm. Full defense is not a stance that shows any intent to harm, therfore you are not attacking, yet still considerd in combat. I also specifically addressed the "fighting" part. Here, I'll make it easy:
Now if you look at the words in red you see a problem. There are many ways to fight a mob. Fighting, IS the same as combat. It is a word used to describe many different styles of both self defense styles (both with intentions to harm, and with out) and also offensive manuver styles that are intended to harm said enemy. On the other hand, the next key point shows that you must be currently attacking a mob in order to be considered killstealing. Once again, attacking, is any fighting style with the intention to cause harm to the enemy. (NOT full defense. see above for why.)
So they contradict each other. That is where the problem lies. The solution? Change "fighting' to "attacking".
No, the solution would be to ask Talad, whose policy it is supposed to be, whether he means "attacking" or "fighting". Who are you to say it is false? I have never tried to argue that being in full defence is the same as attacking, only that you are still engaged in combat and therefore " if someone else attacks the mob, they are interupting the combat."
I will certainly be very wary of using full defence now but if you don't know that someone else can interrupt your combat while using full defence it certainly looks and feels like kill stealing. The essence of the rule is surely that once you are in combat, another person does not have the right to take your kill. I can see many instances where the ability to take the kill from someone else in full defence would be useful and desirable.
There seems to be a very fine line here between IC and OOC misbehaviour. But I still think that the rule should read "Taking an NPC from someone when they have already started combat is considered kill stealing and will be punishable by GMs through warnings, and then further actions if the player continues."
-
There was a problem, Zanzibar made a thread to clarify the matter and now people still argue.
No, Zanzibar made the thread to start a debate which is exactly what is happening. Shall we have a vote now?
I am voting for the motion.
This could have still been talked about, and could have been done in a civilized manner, if he OOC explained he wonted to challenge a rule, or even not done anything in game at all.
But no he had to go and spoil someone's in game fun by being him.
So in future all who want to train armor must now do it in Defense mode, as that will give you the max amount of time fighting it, also will deal miner damage on your enemy, and I will instruct my guild, and advice others to do it in pairs. so that it is tied up non stop, till the pair are fully trained, That way no rule is broken, no one can but in, unless they have a faster computer.
So well done on sorting out yet another problem, in way rules are worded.
-
I am kind of torn between the competing ideas. I am inclined to side with the full defense argument, it is a tacticthat was used by Mohammed Ali (rope a dope) and Joe Frazier in different styles. But to preserve legitimacy for both sides I suggest that if you are in full defense you should continue to trash talk your opponent as an "attack" can be verbal as well as physical.
One could also see attacking as being in the set to work definition of the term.
Attack \At*tack"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Attacked; p. pr. & vb.
n. Attacking.] [F. attaquer, orig. another form of attacher
to attack: cf. It. attacare to fasten, attack. See Attach,
Tack a small nail.]
1. To fall upon with force; to assail, as with force and
arms; to assault. "Attack their lines." --Dryden.
[1913 Webster]
2. To assail with unfriendly speech or writing; to begin a
controversy with; to attempt to overthrow or bring into
disrepute, by criticism or satire; to censure; as, to
attack a man, or his opinions, in a pamphlet.
[1913 Webster]
3. To set to work upon, as upon a task or problem, or some
object of labor or investigation.
[1913 Webster]
4. To begin to affect; to begin to act upon, injuriously or
destructively; to begin to decompose or waste.
[1913 Webster]
If we are going to argue semantics let us at least try to agree on which sense of the terms we are arguing about. There are certainly more senses of the word than I have listed and what is the definition of is anyway? :o
*Aside The kde dictionary application is quite useful even though it relies on public domain sources on the internet.
-
If Shalmaneser ran around the arena, butting into every combat he could, and upset 5, 6 or 7 different players, that would be ok would it?
You were in a full defensive attack. There were not 5, 6, 7 other players in a full defensive attack. You were different.
Pip wanted to have the mercenary who drops good weapons, so she fighted it and the fact it was uneffective if someone else wanted to kill the mercenary too, it did not matter.
Pip did not want to fight or kill the mercenary. She wanted to block its attacks as a way to powerlevel light armour.
There seems to be a very fine line here between IC and OOC misbehaviour.
I seem to remember Talad saying that camping spawns is an OOC behaviour, if that means anything to you.
This could have still been talked about, and could have been done in a civilized manner, if he OOC explained he wonted to challenge a rule, or even not done anything in game at all.
I am not challenging a rule.
-
<Talad> in this scenario, I think someone that joins repeatedly when the other is in full defense, is kill stealing
<Talad> so should be prevented
<Talad> I will say that this should be done a number of times to become annoying and punishable
<Talad> so when done 5-10 times, even if on different players, it becomes killstealing as a general technique used by this player
This seems settled as of right now. I will make changes to the Killstealing portion of the Player Policy so that there are no more ambiguities, and ask everyone to be careful with what they do in-game.
-
/me burns incens to Talad
/me hugs Karyuu
/me adds amused: Another quoting contest ended ;-)