9.0 Combat Rules Update

[Yagi_Kamisama 210]

50 minutes ago, MeteorDragon said:

MRP is such a stupid name, which ferrymen mod changed it?

ferrymod cabal is back at it again with changing pvp rules

[Unwillingly 11178]

1 hour ago, Spoopy_Duck said:

Combat is considered “locked” 15 minutes after the initial emote with the intent to pursue combat, preventing others from joining unless both sides agree.

1. Once combat is locked, players involved in the fight will be “invisible” to everyone who is not in the combat.

2. Once combat has ended players are freely allowed to leave unrestricted by anyone outside of the initial combat. 

I know our options are really limited when it comes to group fights, but this is a really jarring rule that could 100% benefit from being reworded. Based on the replies, it reads like players are supposed to pretend this fight is completely non-existent RPly, like while this fight is happening you're supposed to keep on with whatever you were doing before (which I'm really hoping isn't the case). Is that right or wrong?

[tasty_cheesecake 915]

I'm still gonna rp being stuck in a time dilation field, except now I will simply have the memory of the combat be wiped from my mind after the combat ends.

[christman 2307]

im not calling it that

[Rigorous 1548]

8 minutes ago, Unwillingly said:

I know our options are really limited when it comes to group fights, but this is a really jarring rule that could 100% benefit from being reworded. Based on the replies, it reads like players are supposed to pretend this fight is completely non-existent RPly, like while this fight is happening you're supposed to keep on with whatever you were doing before (which I'm really hoping isn't the case). Is that right or wrong?

 

It's not "pretending". It is an instance of combat that has already occurred in role-play, but is still being acted out between the players in-game. You're free to spectate if you would like. It is a matter of fairness if anything that those involved are not interrupted, much less ganked after the scene transpires due to loot goblins.

If you had suggestions to make, what would they be?

[Shmeepicus 3942]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

MRP sounds like a way to justify mrp being roleplay. Now when 60th says "guys stop mrp chimping its a roleplay server!", then I can say "I'm MRPing!"

 

LOL

[ChaoticRoller 591]

1 hour ago, Spoopy_Duck said:

In order to join an ongoing combat scenario, you must make two emotes making your character’s presence known before being able to engage in the ongoing combat. Likewise, to leave combat you must emote three times unhindered, making your character's attempts to leave known.

1. The two emotes before joining combat must be fully non-combative, i.e you are not able to draw any sort of weapon, connect to magic etc.

2. Only one of two emotes needs to be emoted before combat locks, if combat locks after you have started you are free to continue emoting joining.

What if there is a player that emotes successfully and escaping from crp from the conflict going on within the area and those players go to deal with the issue and the player that escapes decides to come back and attack from behind? And in addition if a player is sneaking up, should they be in a channel that the person they are sneaking up on can hear? There have been many instances where players would sneak up or load crossbows/bows and such in quiet where the other party is unaware of and not able to see the emotes.

[Unwillingly 11178]

30 minutes ago, RIGOR said:

 

It's not "pretending". It is an instance of combat that has already occurred in role-play, but is still being acted out between the players in-game. You're free to spectate if you would like. It is a matter of fairness if anything that those involved are not interrupted, much less ganked after the scene transpires due to loot goblins.

If you had suggestions to make, what would they be?

To me it's a very obtrusive element to enforce upon people in which RP interactions are now to be perceived as time-skips, time warps, or what have you. It creates this gaping plothole where characters cannot so much as acknowledge the very real RP happening around them, despite it being physically there a couple of blocks away in a world that's otherwise interactive and tangible, with players themselves being the most influential tools of interaction the server has. It also doesn't account for the RP of the people who had been spectating up until that point and them in situations where they need to now suddenly ignore the fight that they've been previously RPly acknowledging for 14 minutes.

Like I said I know options here are limited, but I don't see the harm in allowing players the liberty to be RPly reactive to an ongoing RP interaction vs completely OOCly prone, even if it means the rules don't allow for them to influence the interaction. With this comes the expectation that players take the mantle of creativity and think of an RP reason as to why their character isn't partaking in this fight. Maybe a guard decides to usher bystanders away, secure the perimeter, or search for wounded civilians who may have been caught in the crossfire, etc. It's not perfect but this at least allows for people to interact with RP in a world that should be as interactive as possible.

[Rigorous 1548]

27 minutes ago, ChaoticRoller said:

What if there is a player that emotes successfully and escaping from crp from the conflict going on within the area and those players go to deal with the issue and the player that escapes decides to come back and attack from behind?

 

If they returned to the scene to confront them after a successful escape, this would be a separate instance of combat occurring afterwards, in which the timer would be re-set since it's a separate and newly initiated instance of combat. If this is done by mech flee, you cannot involve others in your PvP by having them status up. If this is done by getting away in CRP legitimately, and the combat instance ends, that means when you return to that place later to look for them, it would be that aforementioned second instance of combat being initiated if you draw weapons on them and they stayed. This, however, cannot be right after the fight ends. Those players involved (like you) are ultimately given the chance to leave if they would like once it ends. If they do not, then they are choosing to keep RPing.

 

And in addition if a player is sneaking up, should they be in a channel that the person they are sneaking up on can hear? There have been many instances where players would sneak up or load crossbows/bows and such in quiet where the other party is unaware of and not able to see the emotes.

 

Somebody doesn't necessarily have to "see" a crossbow being used. That being said, it is important that there is indication of an RP weapon being present, and silencers don't exist for crossbows. This would vary circumstance to circumstance. If the player is within distance to shoot but obscured from sight, there is a chance the person being shot at would be unable to hear, but it would still depend heavily on what moderator is present and the behavior of those participating in the RP. For instance, it is frowned upon to do instant kill headshots, and depending on the circumstances of that RP it could be ruled as unfair. It depends on what is happening at that moment in-game and the attitudes of those involved. More can be found in the Combat Rules themselves, or in our Community Guidelines statements.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Unwillingly said:

To me it's a very obtrusive element to enforce upon people in which RP interactions are now to be perceived as time-skips, time warps, or what have you. It creates this gaping plothole where characters cannot so much as acknowledge the very real RP happening around them, despite it being physically there a couple of blocks away in a world that's otherwise interactive and tangible, with players themselves being the most influential tools of interaction the server has. It also doesn't account for the RP of the people who had been spectating up until that point and them in situations where they need to now suddenly ignore the fight that they've been previously RPly acknowledging for 14 minutes.

 

CRP/PVP lock has been a thing for sometime. If the players were there witnessing it for the prior 15 minutes, they are there in RP, but not combatants. To be a combatant, you need to signify you will be engaged in the fighting according to this rule-set, and that often is indicated by drawing a weapon or any such admission of participation. As such, somebody cannot decide after CRP lock has happened to arbitrarily enter the fight. Fights between people tend to be resolved in real life in a matter of minutes, this is intended to represent that.

Like I said I know options here are limited, but I don't see the harm in allowing players the liberty to be RPly reactive to an ongoing RP interaction vs completely OOCly prone, even if it means the rules don't allow for them to influence the interaction. With this comes the expectation that players take the mantle of creativity and think of an RP reason as to why their character isn't partaking in this fight. Maybe a guard decides to usher bystanders away, secure the perimeter, or search for wounded civilians who may have been caught in the crossfire, etc. It's not perfect but this at least allows for people to interact with RP in a world that should be as interactive as possible.

 

This is something that can be discussed. That being said, it really falls down to something as simple as "I did not feel like involving myself in somebody else's affairs." In the case they're a guard, but cannot participate due to the rule, they can simply say they were not RPly present for it.

IMO the rule itself has as much veracity as many of our rules which are also custom-tailored to player decision making. The majority of the time too many people getting involved in these situations just results in fighting, accusations of meta-gaming, etc. If people do not wish to use this rule in their own custom combat system they're doing with other people which are agreed to between all parties, then they do not need to arbitrate their combat in this kind of way and can resolve these matters amongst themselves without Mod intervention. Which, ideally, is how players ought to speak to one another. The rules at the end of the day are a fail-safe for when things cannot be handled in this way.

It's a firm boundary being set to keep matters from escalating and getting out of hand, and ensuring the fairest CRP experience can be given to all parties involved at the end of the day.

 

Little bit tired, will revise these tomorrow, and if I got anything wrong about any of this Spurf will amend it once he sees it.

[Samler 1047]

Still very opposed of having the roll combat rules removed.

[ChaoticRoller 591]

11 minutes ago, RIGOR said:

If they returned to the scene to confront them after a successful escape, this would be a separate instance of combat occurring afterwards, in which the timer would be re-set since it's a separate and newly initiated instance of combat. If this is done by mech flee, you cannot involve others in your PvP by having them status up. If this is done by getting away in CRP legitimately, and the combat instance ends, that means when you return to that place later to look for them, it would be that aforementioned second instance of combat being initiated if you draw weapons on them and they stayed. This, however, cannot be right after the fight ends. Those players involved (like you) are ultimately given the chance to leave if they would like once it ends. If they do not, then they are choosing to keep RPing.

So this would be a separate encounter, and if their previous combat was going on for longer than 15 minutes they can't return to just strike you in the back correct? As for this would be a separate fight in itself for the same fight that they left successfully in.

 

13 minutes ago, RIGOR said:

Somebody doesn't necessarily have to "see" a crossbow being used. That being said, it is important that there is indication of an RP weapon being present, and silencers don't exist for crossbows. This would vary circumstance to circumstance. If the player is within distance to shoot but obscured from sight, there is a chance the person being shot at would be unable to hear, but it would still depend heavily on what moderator is present and the behavior of those participating in the RP. For instance, it is frowned upon to do instant kill headshots, and depending on the circumstances of that RP it could be ruled as unfair. It depends on what is happening at that moment in-game and the attitudes of those involved. More can be found in the Combat Rules themselves, or in our Community Guidelines statements.

This makes sense but what about a player sneaking behind another player emoting in a quiet channel (#q or #w) not giving the other player knowledge of the sneak attack which I feel could end up causing issues in the future for those that crp this way.

[Periphonics 358]

The victor of the combat scenario allows the losing party to either soulstone or /d20. Using either prematurely or in bad-faith can result in a perma-kill the losing party’s characters.

the aspect of the premature/mad faith pking the losing party has be confused? perhaps its the wording, but it sounds as though if the victor using the ss/d20 in bad faith the loser may in up with a PK, which sounds unfair? do correct me if i'm reading this wrong, however it raises concern to me that the victors could hold this power based off of written rule

[ScreamingDingo 16992]

Quote

Mechanics-based combat roleplay (MRP) is also considered RP, however, it uses Minecraft combat to simulate the encounter.

"Hey, did you see how the King did combat?> He was swinging and jumping at the same time, they even took leaps from 15 block walls to pursue the enemy! At one time he even regurgitated a boat and started sliding along the ice. So cool."
 

[lemonke 1873]

:(

[chacmul 274]

i didnt know we turned into tg manuel