Talk:Policy:Player vs player conflict - Revision history

MRTSCR: /* Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher */

2016-10-29T03:32:43Z

Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 28 October 2016
Line 122:		Line 122:

	::I disagree that thumping should be consent. Same goes for gwethsmashing if/when it doesn't actually destroy a gweth. Part of the reason thumping/smashing exists is to allow players to police bad player-to-player behavior (vs it being an IC action). Giving someone the green light to harass someone in an exciting new PvP way would be counter to the spirit of that. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT\|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT\|talk]]) 23:50, 25 October 2016 (CDT)		::I disagree that thumping should be consent. Same goes for gwethsmashing if/when it doesn't actually destroy a gweth. Part of the reason thumping/smashing exists is to allow players to police bad player-to-player behavior (vs it being an IC action). Giving someone the green light to harass someone in an exciting new PvP way would be counter to the spirit of that. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT\|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT\|talk]]) 23:50, 25 October 2016 (CDT)
			:::There are offensive and defensive ways to handle disruptive behavior. Defensive methods include leaving a room, using gags/squelches, and removing one's gweths. Offensive methods include thumping, smashing, and attacking. Being closed/guarded is a choice to be protected from conflict by policy, i.e. to play defensively. Therefore only defensive options should be available to closed/guarded characters.
			:::Regarding OOC vs. IC, enforcement of this requires GM monitoring and intervention. Policy reform should include the goal of minimizing the need for GM intervention. Furthermore, history has clearly shown that players will use thump and smash for both IC and OOC reasons. This is unfixable as a significant portion of DR's population believe staying IC means saying things like "gods" and "pigeons." In short they do not truly differentiate between IC and OOC motivations. Therefore any practical policy change will anticipate that players will use thump and smash for both IC and OOC reasons.--[[User:MRTSCR\|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR\|talk]]) 22:32, 28 October 2016 (CDT)

TEVESHSZAT: Undo revision 456587 by TEVESHSZAT (talk)

2016-10-27T11:17:43Z

Undo revision 456587 by TEVESHSZAT (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:17, 27 October 2016
Line 105:		Line 105:
	I don’t have a solution for getting chronic reporters to distinguish between harassment and getting ice patched once by a WM. These people probably do need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given some special attention. However, being able to handle fewer consent reports, even if it means having to look into things and say this is/isn’t harassment, would be much better than limiting any of the conflict/pvp element of the game. There’s very little real conflict/pvp left, anyway. Can we please keep what has managed to survive. --[[User:CAMUS\|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS\|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (CDT)		I don’t have a solution for getting chronic reporters to distinguish between harassment and getting ice patched once by a WM. These people probably do need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given some special attention. However, being able to handle fewer consent reports, even if it means having to look into things and say this is/isn’t harassment, would be much better than limiting any of the conflict/pvp element of the game. There’s very little real conflict/pvp left, anyway. Can we please keep what has managed to survive. --[[User:CAMUS\|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS\|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (CDT)
	:This^ What the new vein of consent rules seem to do is ADD rules for people to have consent/report instead of removing them. What is the goal from a business perspective. We have Plat, Prime, and Fallen. Plat is no PVP and no problem. Fallen is all PVP open and no problem. Prime? Well if you want more griefing make more rules people can skirt around. Primary example is AOE in a hunting room. The intent isn't to have a confrontation with another PC but to hunt. Still if someone walks through and is hit then CONSENT is granted. Think of it this way, if you walk through a hunting area where a CRITTER does some insta-strike and you die what will a GM/GH tell you when you assist? The same rules should apply. You travel at your own risk, no consent granted. --[[User:RCHIGHT\|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT\|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2016 (CDT)		:This^ What the new vein of consent rules seem to do is ADD rules for people to have consent/report instead of removing them. What is the goal from a business perspective. We have Plat, Prime, and Fallen. Plat is no PVP and no problem. Fallen is all PVP open and no problem. Prime? Well if you want more griefing make more rules people can skirt around. Primary example is AOE in a hunting room. The intent isn't to have a confrontation with another PC but to hunt. Still if someone walks through and is hit then CONSENT is granted. Think of it this way, if you walk through a hunting area where a CRITTER does some insta-strike and you die what will a GM/GH tell you when you assist? The same rules should apply. You travel at your own risk, no consent granted. --[[User:RCHIGHT\|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT\|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

			Something to consider is a bounty system, in lieu of a reporting and consent system. Allow players to place plat rewards on peoples heads, and you'll have an interesting system that would encourage roleplay and discourage griefing. In tandem, jack up the justice penalties for murder exponentially, to discourage people from randomly attacking other players (percentage of wealth modified heavily by circle and skill discrepancy of victims). Keep the current profile options, but make them a guideline and less of a rule. Ultimately, in your face behavior modification is a good thing (unlike gweth smashing remotely, which hopefully if that comes back it requires melee range, being unhidden, and invokes a 30 second roundtime). But built in game checks can prevent abuse simply by way of discouraging people from getting too crazy with their destructive rampages.
			--[[User:Ashbomb\|Ashbomb]] ([[User talk:Ashbomb\|talk]]) 03:42, 27 October 2016 (CST)

	=== Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher ===		=== Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher ===

TEVESHSZAT: Reverted edits by ASHBOMB (talk) to last revision by TEVESHSZAT

2016-10-27T11:16:38Z

Reverted edits by ASHBOMB (talk) to last revision by TEVESHSZAT

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:16, 27 October 2016
Line 105:		Line 105:
	I don’t have a solution for getting chronic reporters to distinguish between harassment and getting ice patched once by a WM. These people probably do need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given some special attention. However, being able to handle fewer consent reports, even if it means having to look into things and say this is/isn’t harassment, would be much better than limiting any of the conflict/pvp element of the game. There’s very little real conflict/pvp left, anyway. Can we please keep what has managed to survive. --[[User:CAMUS\|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS\|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (CDT)		I don’t have a solution for getting chronic reporters to distinguish between harassment and getting ice patched once by a WM. These people probably do need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given some special attention. However, being able to handle fewer consent reports, even if it means having to look into things and say this is/isn’t harassment, would be much better than limiting any of the conflict/pvp element of the game. There’s very little real conflict/pvp left, anyway. Can we please keep what has managed to survive. --[[User:CAMUS\|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS\|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (CDT)
	:This^ What the new vein of consent rules seem to do is ADD rules for people to have consent/report instead of removing them. What is the goal from a business perspective. We have Plat, Prime, and Fallen. Plat is no PVP and no problem. Fallen is all PVP open and no problem. Prime? Well if you want more griefing make more rules people can skirt around. Primary example is AOE in a hunting room. The intent isn't to have a confrontation with another PC but to hunt. Still if someone walks through and is hit then CONSENT is granted. Think of it this way, if you walk through a hunting area where a CRITTER does some insta-strike and you die what will a GM/GH tell you when you assist? The same rules should apply. You travel at your own risk, no consent granted. --[[User:RCHIGHT\|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT\|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2016 (CDT)		:This^ What the new vein of consent rules seem to do is ADD rules for people to have consent/report instead of removing them. What is the goal from a business perspective. We have Plat, Prime, and Fallen. Plat is no PVP and no problem. Fallen is all PVP open and no problem. Prime? Well if you want more griefing make more rules people can skirt around. Primary example is AOE in a hunting room. The intent isn't to have a confrontation with another PC but to hunt. Still if someone walks through and is hit then CONSENT is granted. Think of it this way, if you walk through a hunting area where a CRITTER does some insta-strike and you die what will a GM/GH tell you when you assist? The same rules should apply. You travel at your own risk, no consent granted. --[[User:RCHIGHT\|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT\|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

	Something to consider is a bounty system, in lieu of a reporting and consent system. Allow players to place plat rewards on peoples heads, and you'll have an interesting system that would encourage roleplay and discourage griefing. In tandem, jack up the justice penalties for murder exponentially, to discourage people from randomly attacking other players (percentage of wealth modified heavily by circle and skill discrepancy of victims). Keep the current profile options, but make them a guideline and less of a rule. Ultimately, in your face behavior modification is a good thing (unlike gweth smashing remotely, which hopefully if that comes back it requires melee range, being unhidden, and invokes a 30 second roundtime). But built in game checks can prevent abuse simply by way of discouraging people from getting too crazy with their destructive rampages.
	--[[User:Ashbomb\|Ashbomb]] ([[User talk:Ashbomb\|talk]]) 03:42, 27 October 2016 (CST)

	=== Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher ===		=== Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher ===

ASHBOMB at 08:42, 27 October 2016

2016-10-27T08:42:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:42, 27 October 2016
Line 105:		Line 105:
	I don’t have a solution for getting chronic reporters to distinguish between harassment and getting ice patched once by a WM. These people probably do need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given some special attention. However, being able to handle fewer consent reports, even if it means having to look into things and say this is/isn’t harassment, would be much better than limiting any of the conflict/pvp element of the game. There’s very little real conflict/pvp left, anyway. Can we please keep what has managed to survive. --[[User:CAMUS\|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS\|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (CDT)		I don’t have a solution for getting chronic reporters to distinguish between harassment and getting ice patched once by a WM. These people probably do need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and given some special attention. However, being able to handle fewer consent reports, even if it means having to look into things and say this is/isn’t harassment, would be much better than limiting any of the conflict/pvp element of the game. There’s very little real conflict/pvp left, anyway. Can we please keep what has managed to survive. --[[User:CAMUS\|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS\|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (CDT)
	:This^ What the new vein of consent rules seem to do is ADD rules for people to have consent/report instead of removing them. What is the goal from a business perspective. We have Plat, Prime, and Fallen. Plat is no PVP and no problem. Fallen is all PVP open and no problem. Prime? Well if you want more griefing make more rules people can skirt around. Primary example is AOE in a hunting room. The intent isn't to have a confrontation with another PC but to hunt. Still if someone walks through and is hit then CONSENT is granted. Think of it this way, if you walk through a hunting area where a CRITTER does some insta-strike and you die what will a GM/GH tell you when you assist? The same rules should apply. You travel at your own risk, no consent granted. --[[User:RCHIGHT\|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT\|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2016 (CDT)		:This^ What the new vein of consent rules seem to do is ADD rules for people to have consent/report instead of removing them. What is the goal from a business perspective. We have Plat, Prime, and Fallen. Plat is no PVP and no problem. Fallen is all PVP open and no problem. Prime? Well if you want more griefing make more rules people can skirt around. Primary example is AOE in a hunting room. The intent isn't to have a confrontation with another PC but to hunt. Still if someone walks through and is hit then CONSENT is granted. Think of it this way, if you walk through a hunting area where a CRITTER does some insta-strike and you die what will a GM/GH tell you when you assist? The same rules should apply. You travel at your own risk, no consent granted. --[[User:RCHIGHT\|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT\|talk]]) 01:00, 20 October 2016 (CDT)

			Something to consider is a bounty system, in lieu of a reporting and consent system. Allow players to place plat rewards on peoples heads, and you'll have an interesting system that would encourage roleplay and discourage griefing. In tandem, jack up the justice penalties for murder exponentially, to discourage people from randomly attacking other players (percentage of wealth modified heavily by circle and skill discrepancy of victims). Keep the current profile options, but make them a guideline and less of a rule. Ultimately, in your face behavior modification is a good thing (unlike gweth smashing remotely, which hopefully if that comes back it requires melee range, being unhidden, and invokes a 30 second roundtime). But built in game checks can prevent abuse simply by way of discouraging people from getting too crazy with their destructive rampages.
			--[[User:Ashbomb\|Ashbomb]] ([[User talk:Ashbomb\|talk]]) 03:42, 27 October 2016 (CST)

	=== Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher ===		=== Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher ===

TEVESHSZAT: /* Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher */

2016-10-26T04:50:20Z

Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 25 October 2016
Line 118:		Line 118:
	:It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR\|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR\|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)		:It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR\|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR\|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

	:I disagree that thumping should be consent. Same goes for gwethsmashing if/when it doesn't actually destroy a gweth. Part of the reason thumping/smashing exists is to allow players to police bad player-to-player behavior (vs it being an IC action). Giving someone the green light to harass someone in an exciting new PvP way would be counter to the spirit of that. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT\|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT\|talk]]) 23:50, 25 October 2016 (CDT)		::I disagree that thumping should be consent. Same goes for gwethsmashing if/when it doesn't actually destroy a gweth. Part of the reason thumping/smashing exists is to allow players to police bad player-to-player behavior (vs it being an IC action). Giving someone the green light to harass someone in an exciting new PvP way would be counter to the spirit of that. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT\|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT\|talk]]) 23:50, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

TEVESHSZAT: /* Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher */

2016-10-26T04:50:07Z

Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 25 October 2016
Line 117:		Line 117:

	:It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR\|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR\|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)		:It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR\|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR\|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

			:I disagree that thumping should be consent. Same goes for gwethsmashing if/when it doesn't actually destroy a gweth. Part of the reason thumping/smashing exists is to allow players to police bad player-to-player behavior (vs it being an IC action). Giving someone the green light to harass someone in an exciting new PvP way would be counter to the spirit of that. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT\|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT\|talk]]) 23:50, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

MRTSCR: /* PvP policy is too legalistic */

2016-10-26T04:35:40Z

PvP policy is too legalistic

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 25 October 2016
Line 64:		Line 64:
	A simple framework like the above is likely be easier for players to apply and easier for staff to enforce. And if players know that they can stop the action if they're not having fun, they may be more willing to approach PvP with an open mind.		A simple framework like the above is likely be easier for players to apply and easier for staff to enforce. And if players know that they can stop the action if they're not having fun, they may be more willing to approach PvP with an open mind.
	--[[User:JULIAN\|JULIAN]] ([[User talk:JULIAN\|talk]]) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)		--[[User:JULIAN\|JULIAN]] ([[User talk:JULIAN\|talk]]) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (CDT)

			:There are two showstoppers with this idea. First, demands on staff time would be significantly increased if all situations were open to interpretation. Second, it would enable rather than discourage policy griefers, who could cry foul and avoid consequences any time they end up losing. In short, more labor intensive and more open to exploitation. We need to move in the opposite direction on both counts. --[[User:MRTSCR\|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR\|talk]]) 23:35, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

	=== PVP, Consent, Taking Death Too Seriously & Reducing Reporting ===		=== PVP, Consent, Taking Death Too Seriously & Reducing Reporting ===

MRTSCR: /* Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher */

2016-10-26T04:13:32Z

Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:13, 25 October 2016
Line 114:		Line 114:
	:All PvP acts should require being PvP open. Behaving aggressively while reserving the right to report isn't a valid choice and shouldn't be an option within game mechanics. Anyone who chooses to do unto others should expect to be done unto.		:All PvP acts should require being PvP open. Behaving aggressively while reserving the right to report isn't a valid choice and shouldn't be an option within game mechanics. Anyone who chooses to do unto others should expect to be done unto.

	It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR\|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR\|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)		:It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR\|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR\|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

MRTSCR: /* Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher */

2016-10-26T04:13:10Z

Being locked PvP open when using a gwethsmasher

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:13, 25 October 2016
Line 111:		Line 111:

	:Similar to that I'd like to see this go for player stealing even more than for gwethsmashing. I don't think it's the sole reason why player stealing is infrequent now, but I think the mechanic contributed to it. People could be fine with pvp and conflict within a RP context, but they might also feel that being locked open is a punishment, not want pvp outside of a RP context, or not want to be randomly killed without RP. Overall I'd like to see a lot more pvp and less restrictive pvp policy/rules. Which perhaps counter-intuitively means not locking people open for player theft and gwethsmashing. This would let people choose their battles and encourage pvp among lower levels when they get caught stealing or when they smash someone. A good middle ground would also be to lock people open if they are seen or caught, versus locking them open immediately upon an attempt.--[[User:CAMUS\|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS\|talk]]) 08:36, 21 October 2016 (CDT)		:Similar to that I'd like to see this go for player stealing even more than for gwethsmashing. I don't think it's the sole reason why player stealing is infrequent now, but I think the mechanic contributed to it. People could be fine with pvp and conflict within a RP context, but they might also feel that being locked open is a punishment, not want pvp outside of a RP context, or not want to be randomly killed without RP. Overall I'd like to see a lot more pvp and less restrictive pvp policy/rules. Which perhaps counter-intuitively means not locking people open for player theft and gwethsmashing. This would let people choose their battles and encourage pvp among lower levels when they get caught stealing or when they smash someone. A good middle ground would also be to lock people open if they are seen or caught, versus locking them open immediately upon an attempt.--[[User:CAMUS\|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS\|talk]]) 08:36, 21 October 2016 (CDT)

			:All PvP acts should require being PvP open. Behaving aggressively while reserving the right to report isn't a valid choice and shouldn't be an option within game mechanics. Anyone who chooses to do unto others should expect to be done unto.

			It is true that "being locked open" seems punitive, when in reality being PvP open is a fun way to expand one's DR experience. Therefore it should be reframed: Instead of a timed lock open as a consequence of PvP actions, simply prevent all PvP actions without first voluntarily switching to open. This should include stealing, attacking including casting non-damaging debil spells, thumping, and gwethsmashing. Also add flavor text to reinforce that being PvP open is a valid and fun choice rather than a penalty.--[[User:MRTSCR\|MRTSCR]] ([[User talk:MRTSCR\|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (CDT)

CAMUS at 13:36, 21 October 2016

2016-10-21T13:36:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:36, 21 October 2016
Line 108:		Line 108:
	I wish the penalty was reduced from using things such as gwethsmashers or thump could be reduced from 24 hours or instead of being locked open if you're closed, you be locked to guarded? Because I know that IC I have wanted to use gwethsmashers before but haven't because I am terrified of being a target for 24 hours. Would 2-3 hours work better instead? It gives the chance for the person to retaliate without being targeted for the next 24 hours when the gwethsmashing only lasts six hours.		I wish the penalty was reduced from using things such as gwethsmashers or thump could be reduced from 24 hours or instead of being locked open if you're closed, you be locked to guarded? Because I know that IC I have wanted to use gwethsmashers before but haven't because I am terrified of being a target for 24 hours. Would 2-3 hours work better instead? It gives the chance for the person to retaliate without being targeted for the next 24 hours when the gwethsmashing only lasts six hours.
	:I thought the gwethsmasher locked to open time was 4 hours but I've not done it so could by 100% wrong. Also, if you pull off a smash or thump you have won a stat contest which means you don't have much to worry about (in most cases). This doesn't provide consent to anyone but the smashed/thumped. I don't see the need for changes to this. --[[User:RCHIGHT\|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT\|talk]]) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (CDT)		:I thought the gwethsmasher locked to open time was 4 hours but I've not done it so could by 100% wrong. Also, if you pull off a smash or thump you have won a stat contest which means you don't have much to worry about (in most cases). This doesn't provide consent to anyone but the smashed/thumped. I don't see the need for changes to this. --[[User:RCHIGHT\|RCHIGHT]] ([[User talk:RCHIGHT\|talk]]) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (CDT)
			:I wouldn't mind seeing this go, mainly because I'd like to see more people using gwethsmashers. I think a lot more people would use them, except (like you said in your case) many people are afraid of being locked open. I'm not 100% sure what the intent was initially, if it was intended to deter people from using gwethsmashers or not. However, that seems to be the result. It would be nice to see smaller characters being able to spark up conflict-driven RP this way without necessarily inviting anyone to kill them for any reason (including without roleplay).

			:Similar to that I'd like to see this go for player stealing even more than for gwethsmashing. I don't think it's the sole reason why player stealing is infrequent now, but I think the mechanic contributed to it. People could be fine with pvp and conflict within a RP context, but they might also feel that being locked open is a punishment, not want pvp outside of a RP context, or not want to be randomly killed without RP. Overall I'd like to see a lot more pvp and less restrictive pvp policy/rules. Which perhaps counter-intuitively means not locking people open for player theft and gwethsmashing. This would let people choose their battles and encourage pvp among lower levels when they get caught stealing or when they smash someone. A good middle ground would also be to lock people open if they are seen or caught, versus locking them open immediately upon an attempt.--[[User:CAMUS\|CAMUS]] ([[User talk:CAMUS\|talk]]) 08:36, 21 October 2016 (CDT)