An apology and a question concerning Hostile settings

[Mothandric]

Firstly, an apology to the two players who were involved in a very bad CvC experience, one that left a sour taste in the mouth of everyone. I had set you both to hostile due to the actions you were in the middle of perpetrating, I ALWAYS set a player to hostile if I believe that it may come to blows. However, I generally prefer to speak beforehand. Unfortunately the following happened:

On setting you both to hostile and being close the autoattack kicked in and my PC immediately attacked. I only figured out that this was what happened later.

Also, on running past the downed figure of one PC autoattack once more kicked in, and my PC ended up deathplaning the other.

All was sorted out in tells but I still get the feeling that it didn't make for an enjoyable play session for anyone involved.

Again guys, sorry.

Now for the question:

Given that autoattack seems to be doing some really weird things at the moment when is a good time to set it?

In the warzone it's all a lot easier, you set hostile beforehand, but when the CvC is outside the warzone it can cause some problems, so.... When do people think hostile should be set?

Not setting hostile is not an option, although it doesn't affect melee characters too much it pretty much cripples spell casters.

[szabot]

I typically set hostile immediately performing a hostile action, and no sooner.

[spokeydonkey]

I set hostile whenever I expect combat to happen spontaneously. If its a high level fight, combat generally ends in a handful of rounds, and you lose if you're busy digging around the player list to set hostile. That generally means T'Nanshi vs. M'Chek fighting since that is generally attack-before-talking.

If I defeat someone, I try to turn it back from dislike to like (if I can remember). To prevent autoattacks.

For non-T'Nanshi faction PCs, if a situation seems to be heading for agression, I usually pull up the player list and click "dislike" just prior to attacking.

[methuselah]

What they said. Setting hostile before you attack is usually best.

Autoattack can really aggravate everyone involved.

Tells are your best friends in CvC. A friendly tell here and there can help to maintain a good level of fun as well as a minimal feeling of grief IMHO.

[Katroine]

Do you have to set hostile if you are an assassin sneaking up on your target?

[Urizen]

Do you have to set hostile if you are an assassin sneaking up on your target?

I could not find anything on this in the general Rules forum, however if you are a player involved in the war, there is a DM rule that you must set your opponent to hostile before attacking. This rule is discussed under "The rules of war (expanded)", which is in the CvC forum.

3. Set your enemies to dislike: This is always the responsibility of the attacker and can be done as soon as right after logging in or as late as a split second before the actual attack but the bottom line is that it must be done. A common accepted practice in War CvC is to set all the known enemies online to dislike upon logging in or before going on patrol.

That being said, I think generally it would be good form to set to hostile before you stab em.

If you've defeated someone, or you see someone else defeated, or are defeated yourself, its best to unclick those hostile settings, if youre not busy getting pwned. I've been dropped several times with the player window up looking to click someone to like/dislike

[Penumbra]

Do you have to set hostile if you are an assassin sneaking up on your target?

Personally (right or wrong) I would not set to hostile someone my character was sneaking up on. If they could see the character was after them or showing signs of hostility then I'd set them to hostile. But then the CvC I'm typically involved with is not in the warzone.

[Ravan Seiryu]

Do you have to set hostile if you are an assassin sneaking up on your target?

Probably a good idea to do so. If you didn't set your opponent to dislike. Every attack you make will count as sneak/death attack. Thus, giving you unfair advantage over the victim.

[Serineth Swiftpaw]

Do you have to set hostile if you are an assassin sneaking up on your target?

Personally (right or wrong) I would not set to hostile someone my character was sneaking up on. If they could see the character was after them or showing signs of hostility then I'd set them to hostile. But then the CvC I'm typically involved with is not in the warzone.

It is also a game engine technic. You SHOULD set them to hostile because if you don't then certain magics, abilities and items will not work as the person isn't hostile. So not only has the person now being attacked got to defend themselves, they have to pull up the player list and try and hostile the other person.

[Dralix]

I think most would recommend doing it immediately before attacking.

[Nimrod25]

My main has been attacked in elysia a few times without being hostiled, so i wound up timestopping to set the hostiles... one of the players then proceeded to complain to me for using 2 timestops.

Not hostiling before fights makes for nasty situations, where either the mage gets pwned or shouted at for running in cricles trying to stay away from the fighters while trying to set hostiles.

Do you have to set hostile if you are an assassin sneaking up on your target?

YES... or at least you should... if you fail to kill them on your first strike, hostiling them gives them a fair chance to respond, if you don't hostile then it means someone has to go set hostile in the player list if its a mage. Not hostiling against a mage is basically you taking advantage of the fact that many of the common spells do not hit non hostiles. If your char is sneaking up on them, then they cant see you hostile anyway (assuming they are successfully sneaking up on them).

If they could see the character was after them or showing signs of hostility then I'd set them to hostile

How do you know when they can see and when they cant? i've seen on many occasions people sneaking around only to have someone turn round and say hi. So if you dont set hostile they just see someone walking up to them... then suddenly they're attacked and feel pissed for it. Besides, there are several epic mage players who would turn round and hit you with a high dc FoD if you attacked them without hostiling/warning simply because its a quick get out of trouble move. I know i've done it a cupple times without thinking.

[spokeydonkey]

Do you have to set hostile if you are an assassin sneaking up on your target?

Personally (right or wrong) I would not set to hostile someone my character was sneaking up on. If they could see the character was after them or showing signs of hostility then I'd set them to hostile. But then the CvC I'm typically involved with is not in the warzone.

(1) You should set hostile prior to attacking
and
(1) explain in tells ahead of time (better well ahead of time) that you intend to assassinate them. Part of CvC etiquette (and griefing rules) is making sure your victim knows why they're being attacked.

[Katroine]

(1) You should set hostile prior to attacking
and
(1) explain in tells ahead of time (better well ahead of time) that you intend to assassinate them. Part of CvC etiquette (and griefing rules) is making sure your victim knows why they're being attacked.

Is that a rule?
By the way, I am not an assassin, just looking for clarification, unless someone wants to give me four classes.

[Tangleroot]

Set dislike immediately before attack and explain to them afterwards. No use doing it beforehand, why spoil the fun surprise.

[Mothandric]

NOT setting to hostile beforehand with regards to sneak attacks is not good for the victim as you're generally dead before you can set the assassin to hostile or click on them with the radial menu. There's also the fact that certain 'defences' have no effect on the attacker if hostile is not set which puts the defender at a serious disadvantage.

As for the explanations, a tell saying "It's been done for IC reasons" afterwards is fine, half the fun is finding out why you've been assassinated.

If it's dealt with maturely fine, but set hostile either:

a) directly before the attack

b) well before the attack and trust the maturity of the player involved

[Penumbra]

Good points, all. I'll have to go try it out

[Lucien]

NOT setting to hostile beforehand with regards to sneak attacks is not good for the victim as you're generally dead before you can set the assassin to hostile or click on them with the radial menu. There's also the fact that certain 'defences' have no effect on the attacker if hostile is not set which puts the defender at a serious disadvantage.

As for the explanations, a tell saying "It's been done for IC reasons" afterwards is fine, half the fun is finding out why you've been assassinated.

If it's dealt with maturely fine, but set hostile either:

a) directly before the attack

b) well before the attack and trust the maturity of the player involved

I agree here. I see no compelling reason to tell the player in advance that you are going to assassinate them. A simple tell after the fact (like Moth describes) seems more than sufficient.

Frankly, though it may be metagaming, I wouldn't accept a contract from OR assassinate anyone I didn't know and respect OOCly. That's just more trouble than it's worth. If I know that both of them are good, mature, upstanding players, I will Death Attack to my heart's content.

[spokeydonkey]

NOT setting to hostile beforehand with regards to sneak attacks is not good for the victim as you're generally dead before you can set the assassin to hostile or click on them with the radial menu. There's also the fact that certain 'defences' have no effect on the attacker if hostile is not set which puts the defender at a serious disadvantage.

As for the explanations, a tell saying "It's been done for IC reasons" afterwards is fine, half the fun is finding out why you've been assassinated.

If it's dealt with maturely fine, but set hostile either:

a) directly before the attack

b) well before the attack and trust the maturity of the player involved

I agree here. I see no compelling reason to tell the player in advance that you are going to assassinate them. A simple tell after the fact (like Moth describes) seems more than sufficient.

Frankly, though it may be metagaming, I wouldn't accept a contract from OR assassinate anyone I didn't know and respect OOCly. That's just more trouble than it's worth. If I know that both of them are good, mature, upstanding players, I will Death Attack to my heart's content.

It's mainly to cover your ass if they claim it was griefing. A tell afterwords works, but its generally in your best interest to defuse potential pitfalls in advance.

Plus, any time you go to assassinate someone, you're taking an event that's fun for your character (getting to carry out a hit), and forcing it on someone else (your victim). Since you're forcing a fun event for your character onto another player, its the decent thing to do to warn them.

[Midknight]

Given that autoattack seems to be doing some really weird things at the moment when is a good time to set it?

I find that keeping your finger on the keyboard as to immediately give a move command to the character helps if you'd rather keep hostile up.

[Hert Snyder]

If I remember correctly, the Hostile setting is completely OOC info anyway... IC you shouldn't react any differently to someone BECAUSE they set you to hostile.

At least, that's what I remember.

[Katroine]

Not face to face. If someone sets hostile and is in eyesight, they are taking an aggressive stance and you can tell. That's what I was told at least.

[choraldances]

Not face to face. If someone sets hostile and is in eyesight, they are taking an aggressive stance and you can tell. That's what I was told at least.

Yup