+- NEUS Projects (https://neus-projects.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Sigrogana Legend 2 (OOC) (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. (/showthread.php?tid=5646)
Re: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. - Yark - 09-17-2018
"Akame" Wrote:You publicly put up postersThis is irrelevant to the purpose of this thread. There's a reason I said in my first post to set aside your personal opinions about last night specifically.
Bottom line is players can have GMs force players to unlock the doors inside their guild houses. It this a good thing?
Re: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. - Akame - 09-17-2018
"Yark" Wrote:"Akame" Wrote:You publicly put up postersThis is irrelevant to the purpose of this thread. There's a reason I said in my first post to set aside your personal opinions about last night specifically.
Bottom line is players can have GMs force players to unlock the doors inside their guild houses. It this a good thing?
Depending on circumstances, I'd say so. As long as it's IC-related and role-played properly, as doors are not indestructible objects and shouldn't be a solve-all go-to to end pursuits.
If it's a bad thing, I certainly haven't heard any convincing arguments why it is.
Re: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. - Trexmaster - 09-17-2018
Like it or not, GMs have the final say in situations of conflict between players. Someone has to, or we'd get nowhere.
If the logic of the request is silly, it'll likely be denied, and I would suspect the GMs are able to differentiate between a legitimate IC explanation behind a request for entry and people trying to abuse the system to grief people.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with GMs being able to say 'hey, unlock your doors' when IC dictates.
You can mechanically lock a house off from all players indefinitely, and you can instantly boot or even totally bar them, but roleplay takes precedence over mechanics. To refuse all access ICly even if they have the means to enter is godmodding. By the same token, the invaders should not always succeed either. This is what the GMs are there for--to decide how things go in such cases of conflict where one or both sides enter a stalemate and refuse to make a compromise that both sides are happy with.
As for issues with communal storage, it's a risk you'll have to take if you want an ICly and OOCly sharable storage. RP is RP, and this can involve theft. If you want complete security, you'll have to store things in the bank and pass them around as needed.
If it's any consolation, cases of people demanding entry into locked doors for the sole purpose of looting storage containers are rare. I don't doubt a GM would be lenient if the victim wished to keep their mechanical items if they weren't the crux of the RP.
Re: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. - Kensaii - 09-17-2018
SO what I got form this is.
-Grind idiots announced where they were
-People got ready for that day.
-Grind tried to lock everyone out lol
-GMs said no
-Now you're all having a hissy fit because you can't pvp for shit
YOu didn't even have anyone join your group for recruitment because they know how bad you are lol.
If you were smart you could of just had the owner logout and said that he had to go, because you pull shit like that all the time.
Re: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. - WaifuApple - 09-17-2018
calm down kensaii
Re: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. - Autumn - 09-17-2018
"Yark" Wrote:Yesterday evening, while role-playing a recruitment event inside our guild house, Ephemeral was forced (by pressure of a game moderator) to allow entry to a group of regular players who were mechanically locked outside. Furthermore, once these players were inside the guild house, we were told that we were not allowed to use locked doors to deny them access to any area of the guild house.
Effectively, this means that as long as the owner of a guild house is online an attentive, one is not permitted to deny the entry of others into his or her home, nor into sections of that home which are partitioned off by locked doors. Consider the implications of this decision. It means that any group of players, at any time, could role-play their way into your mechanically locked property for any reason. If you are role-playing a private initiation ceremony inside your home, then prepare to be invaded whether or not you choose to secure the area. If you use communal item storage crates for your friends or guild mates, then kiss your treasure goodbye. Or presumably, since one is evidently forced to unlock doors, one would also be forced to set all storage crates to public anyway.
Regardless of your personal opinions on yesterday's events in particular, is this really the sort of environment in which we want to play?
Hi, I won't comment much here but I do want to say that its not as dangerous as one might think initially, for one in your group's case it was rather special, as they are wanted by the empire for terrorist like actions, like idk ganking people randomly on their soil, and being a general nuiscance.
RP does take precedence over the mechanics of the game almost all of the time, that means that locking the house and barring people from it in the exact way you specifically did it is basically akin to godmodding, you're using a completely OOC control tool (which I don't blame) to maliciously bar entry in a situation where IC events taking place would eventually have them break through, I believe you guys were even given a bit of leniency GM help wise when this occured.
But I believe you're wrong about one thing here, and that is that an owner of the house is not permitted to deny entry of others to the house, thats not always true, should you want to be able to RP Privately off in a house somewhere that is more than fine, people do it all the time (And usually are given leeway when barring or kicking people out of their house), but in your group's case it ends up being really hard to do that, for one as I stated before you're wanted by the empire, bounty hunters are given free reign to cause a ruckus should they know where you are.
And secondly you guys were given the option of creating your house somewhere else when it was destroyed the first time, and you didn't. You decided instead, lets create our base in the exact same location as before, on empire soil where you are wanted at.
Now thats a very very shady thing already to do, but to act surprised and backlash whenever your base gets raided? I mean I don't really have to say that you guys quite literally asked for it.
Re: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. - Yark - 09-17-2018
I see that not a single one of you was able to follow the instructions given in the first post of this thread. Not surprising.
In any case, this will likely change once we demonstrate that it's a problem. After all, fleeing rules were changed twice because of us where before, nobody even considered that they might not make sense.
Re: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. - Autumn - 09-17-2018
"Yark" Wrote:I see that not a single one of you was able to follow the instructions given in the first post of this thread. Not surprising.
In any case, this will likely change once we demonstrate that it's a problem. After all, fleeing rules were changed twice because of us where before, nobody even considered that they might not make sense.
I was using the example of yesterday in comparison to others possibly suffering the same fate, which is what this thread is about isn't it?
I mean if you didn't want an argument, you could of just...not posted at all.
Re: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. - Yark - 09-17-2018
Your post was irrelevant because selecting a different location does not change the system described in this thread. Regardless of where a house exists, we can force owners to open doors inside. Is that really something we all want? Of course since most of you are short-sighted and uncreative you'll say yes, until we demonstrate that it's a problem. And then you'll be posting threads about it, just like you are wont to do about combat balance after you fight us.
(Also, it's "could have." Important, as a role-player, for you to know this.)
Re: The dangerous precedent set in Dormeho. - WaifuApple - 09-17-2018
Please keep grammar issues out of your argument. They're irrelevant, just like everything else you keep saying is irrelevant. Of course, being able to force doors open only works if you know where to actually force into, and you're not exactly subtle, and will probably see yourselves screwed over for trying so specifically out of spite. What happened to your group happened because it was called for.
Most houses aren't in use, so the harm you can really do trying to spite what happened yesterday is minimal. You'll just keep walking into houses that are empty.