Pvp Default Rule.

[MrJoshy 130]

Agreed. PvP should not be the default unless both sides agree. PvP Default is in my opinion a stupid rule, and should not be a practice of the server.

[empirerebel 305]

I just want to point out that internet connection is not a problem in pvp. Some of the best pvpers on the server had terrible internet connections because in Minecraft pvp you can use that to your advantage. Terrible fps I understand, but I just wanted to clarify that you stating you have a terrible internet connection does not mean that you're going to be worse than everyone else. 

[Nandz64appeal 0]

It seems all sides are becoming entrenched, since have reasonable defences, but no one person has the answer everybody wants. Now, I haven't played since 2012, which invalidates my opinions from the get-go, but perhaps I can suggest an alternative?

(I'm sorry for the length of the post - I just wanted to have frequent line breaks as well as critically examine my arguments. I haven't really logically dissected any of them, preferring to just state any flaws I could think of on the spot).

Firstly, PvP should be kept default. It simply stops bickering. Bans and VA revokes, ever since I can remember, have been able to handle PvP conflict for bandits/ >10 skirmishes.

The problem noticed with PvP is that it reinforces the mindset found in raiding servers, i.e. Getting the best gear and attacking in groups.

People prefer RP, but because of "30-min battles", they feel it just isn't practical. But why are RP fights impossible? Simply because people want to win, or otherwise escape with their items, minas, and economic progress intact. Since the victor is undecided, they are willing to power game with characters lunging at the weak points of their enemy's armour at the speed of light.

But what if you could decide the victor beforehand? This is where rolling comes in as it stops power gaming since it decides the victor before the battle begins, allowing players to RP fight at ease.

However, the problem with rolling is that it is completely random, meaning it ignores the skills of a character, thus making fights feel unfair, as well as force players to do all sorts of negotiations, where they try to figure out how much to roll by. How can we then reduce the element of chance to make it fairer?

I therefore revive an old idea, but with a twist - levelling up, but without any actual PvP effects.

Now, the old RPG system did have many flaws which were inherent with the system. One was that levelling up was based around killing monsters in PvP, which was simply clicking mixed with territory manipulation (jumping onto trees to stop spiders from reaching you, etc.). This meant well connected warriors were swimming in weapon drops, mina drops, and constant levelling up, which rendered any RP training void.

However, without PvP boosts, this means that RP fighters are able to decide the victor beforehand with less bickering. To account for chance, players could roll the difference in their skill levels. If one side is unhappy with the outcome, it becomes PvP by default (all thanks to Native for giving me inspiration for this).

Obviously, this idea may have been suggested before, and it may also have obvious flaws which I cannot see, so in either case feel free to tell me.

One problem is how levelling up works. XP from monster fighting is bad - so perhaps it works by PvP killing? As Hawk Whitestorm / Penguin said before 2.0, this just means that two friends will keep killing each other in order to level up. This poses a significant problem - perhaps people accused for power gaming have their kill logs checked? This still allows people who aren't accused to run around as 19 year olds who have mastered the art of swordsmanship - not every one is Bruce Lee.

Maybe we should just whip and torture the development team until they give us a /fight command? This does incentivise RP fighting, but still doesn't solve the problem of XP farming. However, if we were to have to a /fight [username], we could put in effect Native's idea of a /roll which takes in armour and race into account. XP exploitation could be searched for the same way GMs had proposed to stop XP farms back when it came from mobs.

If we use a command, then how do we handle groups? Well, i don't really think more than two people would engage a single person, and even then only one assailant would actually fight, while the other one attacks the defender from the back. Even providing for that, the command just breaks down, meaning players will just have to be mature and let the advantaged team with more people, better gear, and better training win.

Again, sorry for the long post, it's just my two cents.

[Neri 3590]

This players questions have been answered and the situation resolved.

Should you wish to have this reopened, please PM me your reasons why it should be so.