Should a full defensive stance count as attacking a mob?

[Karyuu]

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.

[Pip]

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.

[Garile]

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.

[zanzibar]

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.

[Janner]

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

[Garile]

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"

[neko kyouran]

----------------------------------------

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.

[zanzibar]

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.

[Pip]

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?

[Kelod]

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.

[zanzibar]

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?

[neko kyouran]

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]

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.

[Nikodemus]

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.

[Pip]

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.