I love playing MMOs on PvP servers. I love PvE and I love a little PVP thrown in the mix. I do however think that attacking a player should have more consequences and there should be a calculation that you need to make whether or not it's 'worth it' to kill them. I was thinking perhaps a reputation system on the PVP server that made things cost more in certain cities if you were a known killer, or maybe even shunned altogether if you've went on a rampage killing lowbies unprovoked. There would be ways to gain favor again with the areas which wouldn't be too hard to complete, but would maybe just be an inconvenience. The whole idea would be to transmute the random 'oh look i have found another player, let me immediately start killing him' to, 'oh look, I found another player, is this person friendly? Do they want to kill me? Let's talk to them and found out. Are they spawn camping something that I need? Is that an ogre? KILL IT WITH FIRE!' What do you guys think we could do to create a tension point that makes players second guess immediately attacking others, and forcing them to make a choice?
Fair warning, we have had several of these threads and most end up getting locked due to people not being able to help themselves and turning these into forum PvP threads, which will not be tolerated, so please, as the OP, do your best to keep this thread on topic and away from personal attacks, or it will have to be closed like the rest. :)
Disclaimer:
We will have separate PvE and PvP servers, changes to either server will not affect the other unless it is a game wide patch for bugs, content etc. so there is no need to worry or feel threatened by each other's playstyles.
Among obvious possibilities for keeping pvp a bit more ....civilized ..... than outright free-for-all (and maybe most pvp players don't WANT it at all civilized - VR should perhaps do surveys on this):
1. Faction versus faction. You aren't an amoral mass murderer you are a hero fighting against the enemies of your people!
2. No gray ganking. You can't attack someone too many levels lower than you are unless they do something to permit it (attack you, buff your enemies, heal your enemies etc). A level 50 can make his or her way to a level 10 zone but he or she can't ruin the experience of the low levels there unless they permit it.
3. Reputation/honor systems penalizing certain actions, such as attacking significantly lower players where the fight isn't really a challenge. Or being in a raid or group that attacks an individual (again no challenge). Someone with poor reputation/honor may be fair game to all with no penalty for an attack under any circumstances - a disincentive for reaching that status.
Having played on the Sullen Zek server for a while (for those that don't know it was a no rules faction based EQ 1 PvP server) one of the best things about was when a high level started killing newbies and then the newbies would call for help from people on their faction and friendly high level players would come to the rescue of the newbies and epic battles would take place.
If you made it impossible to attack low level players that sort of emergent game play would never happen which I feel would be a shame. If you want PvP you should go all in and allow unrestricted killing, player corpse looting the lot really. I might even make a PvP alt if that is what the PvP servers are like. My idea of battlegrounds wasn't that popular so it looks like if I want any PvP I'll have to have an alt on a PvP server for a bit of fun when I'm tired of PvE for a bit.
Edit: Here are the rules for Sullen Zek:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39541
Cromulent said:Having played on the Sullen Zek server for a while (for those that don't know it was a no rules faction based EQ 1 PvP server) one of the best things about was when a high level started killing newbies and then the newbies would call for help from people on their faction and friendly high level players would come to the rescue of the newbies and epic battles would take place.
If you made it impossible to attack low level players that sort of emergent game play would never happen which I feel would be a shame. If you want PvP you should go all in and allow unrestricted killing, player corpse looting the lot really. I might even make a PvP alt if that is what the PvP servers are like. My idea of battlegrounds wasn't that popular so it looks like if I want any PvP I'll have to have an alt on a PvP server for a bit of fun when I'm tired of PvE for a bit.
Edit: Here are the rules for Sullen Zek:
Yeah Sullon Zek was awesom, there wasnt even play nice policies so training was legal.
I remember being in gfay and some necros and SK's were in zone by the PoK Book and next thing I see if a high elf paladin, with the fiery sword comes rolling in swinging that sword around, man was aweosm scene lol.
If they come out with a Sullon Zek ruleset type server i'd be hard pressed to choose that over PVE server.
The most meaningful aspect to me would be that PvE be extremely important. Im so sick of these empty kingdom building sandboxes with never ending mindless seige zergs. This has absolutely no value to me at all. It could be okay in addition to PvE, but not as the main focus. The main focus shouls always be PvEvP. You go to a dungeon and Raid just like in PvE, but now with the added elements: Is that other guild gonna slaughter us once we get halfway through the fight? Should we take them out before they take us out? Can we form a truce and work together? Competitve Raiding that is TRULY contested.
I believe Player vs Player is an important aspect of any games. Some have made it the soul purpose of a game and others they started out with PvP zone then move to arenas or battlefronts. I for one would love to see possible engagement with other players in game, but not with the purpose of greifing.
I'ts been a dream of mine to find "the" game that the player base would be mature enough to control its own player base. There could be endless reasons why one player attacks another. In any society there will be murderers, villains and so forth and a game should not be the "release" these people are looking for and encouraged. Yes we are talking about a game, but there are some ethics here that needs to be considered. If one person is sitting at home had a bad day and feels like destroying other people's day because he can and he has the means to do it for me that is wrong... There're so many other games out there that their sole base is to kill each other and in so many different platforms, and i hope Pantheon will not become one of these.
This subject has been desribed and discussed over and over and people will never have the same opinion.
This is why i suggest a controlled environment, and make PvP a fun thing to do.
- City Arena tournements
- City Arena practiced bouts.
- Maybe have a faction or guild fight other guild or faction for a time or until a goal that was agreed upon is reached. Pending on the grievance that was brought up to the powers at be. (Make it political in a way that would broaden the aspect of PvP)
- Example Having some sort of background on why the dark myr can't stand the humans or vice versa.
- If you wish to PvP to make sure you do some sort of quest line that would open it up for you, i sure this can be made interestingly enough that once you went through this line you know what to expect once you are done, this way those who doesn't want to PvP can be left alone and they can enjoy the game without being targetted because he is 10 levels lower than the other and he is in the wrong place wrong time...
There are so many good ways PvP can be implemented in a game such like this and in a way i got faith in what the devs will bring to the game will be what everyone is looking for!
Cheers
B
I'm not sure I like the idea of complete free for all PvP for this game, and I'm usually a FFA advocate.
FFA tends to bread a toxic community. While that may not be such a bad thing in a game that was never designed around community to begin with, it probably isn't great for a game that is designed around community.
Like Squall mentioned above, reputation never means much on a FFA PvP server. It always seems to devolve into everyone killing everyone at all times. While that's fun for a while (especially in a game like Darkfall, which had some ridiculously fun combat mechanics), it usually gets old fairly quickly. If there is a FFA ruleset server for Pantheon, maybe there should be some game mechanic that heavily penalizes killing everyone you see constantly. Otherwise the whole "community" aspect of the game is going to be lost on this server.
I have no solid ideas on how to fix this, but it may be best for the dev's to devise a ruleset that isn't strictly FFA. Or if it is FFA, come up with a system that limits a player's desire to kill everyone they see, maybe by inflicting harsh "murderer" penalties. And I do mean harsh.
Honestly my biggest issue with ffa pvp is group ganking. If the game is balanced, you simply can't beat a group of people alone, and when they suddenly jump you, you can't get away. It gets annoying for a primarily solo player like myself, and "go get friends and gank yourself" doesn't really cut it for me since I prefer my fights more or less even. I'm not trying to be moralistic here, it's genuinely not very fun for me to take someone out when they don't have a chance, so in PvP especially I'm actually much more likely to go solo or duos.
To counter it I think the penalties on pvping "too much" are a good start...But what do you do if the same guy keeps on attacking you? I remember on an older battlefield game someone on your own team could run you over with a plane and kill you. My brother and I got it into our heads to purposefully jump in front of launching planes to results we percieved as quite hilarious. People got negative kill scores, and auto banned from the server, for a very long time before we actually got caught.
If there are penalties for too much pvp, people can probably find ways to troll you with those very penalties.
I'm honestly not sure how we can make pvp civilized...tying who you are allowed to fight to your current faction list might help but definately won't solve the problem. It might just separate people who could otherwise be friends.
Level limits don't really solve the issue either because it sucks when the lowest level party member gets killed and you can't do crap, and you still can't do anything against a group of like leveled gankers/corpse campers.
Maybe when someone kills you, you and that person can't pvp each other for a while like a sort of you're-out-of-the-round penalty game? It's not an all around fix but it would help to reduce the overall amount of willy nilly pvp quite a bit.
IF VR really goes out of their way they can make the game identify things like "who struck first", so if someone attacks your group mate you are allowed to attack them, but if your group mate attacks someone you are not necessarily allowed to attack that person.
Some good points, Beaver.
BeaverBiscuit said:IF VR really goes out of their way they can make the game identify things like "who struck first", so if someone attacks your group mate you are allowed to attack them, but if your group mate attacks someone you are not necessarily allowed to attack that person.
I have seen this type of flagging system done a couple of times, and it creates some problems. For example, some guy purposefully getting hit by your AoE, and then his entire group being allowed to attack you. Of course, this could be solved by forcing people to flag for PvP. If PvP flag = false, then AoEs won't hit players. But I'm sure some people will forget to unflag.
I don't think anyone from VR has made a statement regarding PvP rulesets, right? So all we know is that there will be some type of PvP server. Hopefully the alpha/beta will be used to mess around with various pvp rulesets to see what works and what doesn't.
If someone chooses to be on a PVP server it should mean that they want to dish it out and that they are also willing to take it. It all does tend to boil down to wolves vs. sheep as who succeeds in becoming powerful in a community is decided, but 'this is what you came for', as the song goes. I hate PVP. Think it's totally pointless, personally. But it seems kinda silly that I, as someone who loathes PVP, would strive to curtail it on the server(s) that are being distinguished for it when there will be servers I can join that will allow me to avoid it completely.
I think one of the key reasons this happens is that people want to play with their friends. And when said friends have started on a PVP server, you are behind, and you are constantly being destroyed that is never a pleasant experience. I'm currently in this situation with some friends on WoW and the changes they are doing to their servers cannot come fast enough. There is nothing more annoying than trying to get a quest done and having somebody spawn your corpse, repeat one-shotting you.
But as much as *I* dislike this, again--I am aware that is what I signed up for. The best course of action I've found is to stay dead, watch a 10-15 min youtube video, and wait for them to get bored. I did not know the changes that are about to be made were happening, and (in the case of Pantheon) I still think that making pvp-specific servers that discourage pvp is kind of...pointless? I wouldn't be against having characters have level brackets where they get greyed out so that it would be impossible for too high leveled a character to kill them, but others have pointed out reasons that's a bad call. I'm totally against punishing pvpers for playing on a pvp server, because that is what they signed up for.
katryn said:If someone chooses to be on a PVP server it should mean that they want to dish it out and that they are also willing to take it. It all does tend to boil down to wolves vs. sheep as who succeeds in becoming powerful in a community is decided, but 'this is what you came for', as the song goes. I hate PVP. Think it's totally pointless, personally. But it seems kinda silly that I, as someone who loathes PVP, would strive to curtail it on the server(s) that are being distinguished for it when there will be servers I can join that will allow me to avoid it completely.
I think one of the key reasons this happens is that people want to play with their friends. And when said friends have started on a PVP server, you are behind, and you are constantly being destroyed that is never a pleasant experience. I'm currently in this situation with some friends on WoW and the changes they are doing to their servers cannot come fast enough. There is nothing more annoying than trying to get a quest done and having somebody spawn your corpse, repeat one-shotting you.
But as much as *I* dislike this, again--I am aware that is what I signed up for. The best course of action I've found is to stay dead, watch a 10-15 min youtube video, and wait for them to get bored. I did not know the changes that are about to be made were happening, and (in the case of Pantheon) I still think that making pvp-specific servers that discourage pvp is kind of...pointless? I wouldn't be against having characters have level brackets where they get greyed out so that it would be impossible for too high leveled a character to kill them, but others have pointed out reasons that's a bad call. I'm totally against punishing pvpers for playing on a pvp server, because that is what they signed up for.
Katryn, I know your post count is still low but I want to let you know that I have agreed with just about every post of yours I have seen. You explain your points well. They are presented in a very level headed and well thought out manner. This is another example of that. Well said.
Interesting article from a different multiplayer online game, today, on this topic. I wonder what the public response to similar changes to the death penalty will be, for Pantheon?
vjek said:Interesting article from a different multiplayer online game, today, on this topic. I wonder what the public response to similar changes to the death penalty will be, for Pantheon?
Eh, very different beasts in terms of gameplay and goals. SoT is primarily a PvP game too.
Some interesting thoughts here.
PvP means different things to different people. Not surprising I suppose.
I don't like PvP in MMORPGs. To me RPGs have always been "us against the monsters" and it's always been fundamental. Much more fun and very cathartic *because* we leave behind human conflict and can happily demonise the 'monsters' we kill. Every other game at the time was always about 'beating' your opponent - it was truly a revelation at the time to play RPGs where even the Dungeon Master wasn't really *trying* to kill you (well, the good ones weren't).
I'm in danger of painting myself as some kind of scaredy care bear, but I'm really not. Of course I enjoy traditional games too, though I've always played then for the challenge, not just to 'beat' the opponent (well, maybe with my brother, but that's another story). A 'good game' meant a tough and close game and both players having a satisfying time.
One of the great things about RPGs, though, is the compound joy of them being simultaneously more violent and gritty, more complex and interesting and yet there is no conflict between the players themselves.
Now I'm in even greater danger of sounding 'wussy': No losers? All winners? Participation medals will be next! But of course it's not that there are no losers in RPGs: You can 'die' and lose a character you've developed for years! And you are not all winners: In fact, you never really 'win' because the game doesn't 'end'.
In summary, I've always found RPGs vastly 'superior' to other games because they are total escapism from the reality of life. The lack of need for player 'conflict' is only a small part, but an important one.
'Tough guy' credentials are intact, though, because I like PvP in FPSs! Phew! I've played Battlefield since 1942 (the version not the year - though I often feel that old). It's an MMOFPS with 64 player battles, but has two teams, squad dynamics and other elements that mean cooperation and coordination are of great benefit (like real battle tactics if played well).
Still, though, some treat it as a total Death Match and go 'lone wolf' ignoring their team and its needs, not caring if they win the battle as long as they get lots of kills and nevermind how they get them, often choosing whatever is the easiest way including what some might consider cheating, glitching, griefing or at least 'dubious' tactics. They 'enjoy' the game to the detriment of their own team, never mind the enemy.
Me, I see the whole game as pointless unless you've had a challenging match. In real life games/sports we have leagues and carefully match up players of like ability so the games are more fun. It's an obvious and sensible improvement to the quality of the game, never mind fairness. Rules are created and enforced to see the game objectives followed, even in social games, because it's simply more fun and what's the point in playing a particular game if you ignore the objectives? There are also often specific rules to emphsise the competition and remove the conflict (like 'fouls' leading to penalties).
How does all that relate to Pantheon's potential PvP?
Why-oh-why would a game - any game - allow 'ganking' of low-level characters? Isn't it griefing and trolling? Worthless and deplorable? It's surely more about the gleeful strife some people enjoy than a competition between players.
*shrug* Perhaps I just don't get it. I never enjoyed pulling the legs off spiders or bullying smaller kids and that's how ganking seems to me. Murdering effectively defenseless people does not appeal in any regard. I've nothing against a 'win' requiring someone else to 'lose' but a gankee is a 'victim' not simply a loser.
Surely the best aspect of PvP is the additional challenge of fighting something with human intelligence behind it? Allowing ganking and the like is to allow the worst parts of human 'intelligence' into a game.
Just my opinion... Call me a 'carebear' if you like. My answer is "pick on someone your own size if you're so tough. Bullies are cowards" ;^)
First and foremost pvp needs to be built from the ground up not as an afterthought. The world needs to be built with pvp in mind. The class's need to be built with pvp in mind.
Second some sort of side vs side or faction based pvp system needs to be built into the game. You know who your enemies are and who your friends are. Side vs side seems to be the easiest to implement however i would love to see a faction based system where at times you factions may be friendly or at least neutral and at other times in conflict. Tie pve in to pvp. For example have pve determine if two factions come into conflict. Ie your faction keeps killing another factions npc guards. Kill enough npc guards and that faction is now in conflict with you. Conflicts will end either from pvp or pve or both.
Example Red faction and Blue faction are neutral. However red faction players are killing blue factions guards. At some threshold Blue faction becomes hostile to red faction. Blue faction mobilizes and starts slaughtering red faction players. Red faction wants to end the conflict so red faction players start killing natural npc enemies of said blue faction and at some point the two factions become neutral again. This would not be the only way of settling the conflict their could be quests involved or by a certain ratio of pvp kills vs the other faction forcing their surrender. Dependent on how the matter is settled bonus buffs could be gained by the winner.....
Squall said: One thing you learn in PvP is reputation doesn’t mean anything. People will always help people who are a holes. A holes are people like the ogre mentioned above (not just someone who kills you). Twinking needs to be controlled. In eq shortly after PvP a friend and I ran a level 9 Palidan and sk. It took 8 people to get us to zone because we were so heavily twinked. This should not happen. Corpse camping is cancer. One idea I can think of is let’s say I’m a character who is ally or has really high faction with various factions in game. Like any npc that is killed, maybe the player should take a faction hit. Maybe a significant one. This makes PvP work and more meaningful in some cases and adds some depth. Granted, it’s random. But if you kill some random stranger well... it stands to reason you wouldn’t know who their friends are. But if you stalk them..... well... you know what they kill and who their friends are (faction wise) to some degree. Take my highkeep ogre for instance. I killed goblins all the time. Imagine those goblins raised faction with the guards. If she kills me she takes a faction hit with those guards (assuming I’m in good standing). The better my faction the bigger the hit. I know there are issues here but it’s slmething. Because on PvP no one cares about how you do things as long as you win (in my experience).
Perhaps a reputation system on top of a pvp ruleset like race vs race( Or religion vs religion: It's called Pantheon after all, right?). If the system allows for attacking lowbies, perhaps a system that shows that this person is a lowbie killer, and a reward for killing that player until the penalty offsets. I think a reputation system that allowed for awards for killing players that are deemed 'playing dirty' would allow the inhabitatants of the game to police their own world; which to me is ,more engaging and exciting than a system that simply limits what you're allowed to do in game. Choice + risk/reward, action/consequence is always more interesting than limiting action. Perhaps if you kill lowbies, or kill the same players over and over, you begin accruing certain penalty points that are shown in your name or when someone clicks on your character, and if you kill that player, you get a gold reward, and a percentage of that gold, or all of it, would come from the players own bank account--or some other effect that causes the offending player to lose something of value and the player invoking justice some gain.
I have not read it mentioned anywhere about the different ways that pvp can be implemented into a game. My version of PvP is a 24/7/365 never ending struggle with tangible objectives. Other people believe in battlegrounds and scenarios that end in short periods of time and are instanced. WoW has open world PvP (minus starter zones). DAoC and ESO are not open world but have a zone(s) that are designated PvP with actual PvP objectives, but still maintained a bulk of their zones as PvE.
I have every doubt that any system could beat the standards that DAoC laid down when it comes to RvR (PvP). 3 Factions in a constant never ending battle that yielded PvE buffs if you held the bulk of the PvP objectives. 3 factions generally ensured that the dominant faction did not stay dominant for very long. On the other hand, the bulk of MMOs have gone the route of Them vs Us, 2 faction PvP which can tend to loose the balancing effect of 2 factions ganging up to bring the top faction down.
I am not a hard core PvP person; I devote about 5-10% of total game time to it, but it is a very necessary 5-10%. Saying that, I will most likely not role a character on an open world pvp server again as I do like a very solid discernable boundry between my 95% and my 5%.
In my opinion, in order for PvP to work well requires the dreaded "class balance" to meet the fundamental core of PvP which is one-on-one fights. The emergent social aspect is the P+1 to ꝏ, i.e. being ganged up on, the drama, the revenge, the grudges, the tentative peace, that whole catharsis that, personally, i find draining ("Ain'tnobodygottimeforthat!")
BUT, would certainly appeal to another part of me like if I had the time to relish all the social clique dynamics. If I was young again or in highschool/college and had nothing else to worry about except grades and who's doing what to whom, or lived a charmed life where I had enough money not to have ot worry about day-to-day and fell into the soul crushing adult level social machiavelianism that is associated, say, with things like the people that make the decisions of whose "relavent" in hollywood, or corporate backstabbing, or like the seemingly heartless way they treat people in the series "silicon valley" just because they have the money to throw around, that immature sniping that resembles the average day in the lives of most primates where they groom and eat in the AM for like an hour and the rest of the day they spend harrassing each other in mean ways reflected in the studies by various anthropologists. I thought humans were better than that, who knew!
Don't get me wrong I can see the appeal- no wonder we're so close genetically LOL and from a faith perspective, most certainly the "natural" in me, no fault of my own just born that way. But the cool thing is I have a choice, unlike the primates.
Meaningful pvp is hard for everyone. People dont feel like they should be punished for killing someone on a PvP server which is funny in an MMORPG considering the role playing part of the game. People who kill indiscriminatly are punished in the real world even in an anarchy type setting. The thing is there are no true anarchies in the real world and online games are about the closest humanity has come to true anarchy in which no one gives a rats ass. Sure... we had Anti PVP guilds on Rallos Zek but do you know what this meant 90% of the time? All it meant was the people in the guild would not kill you and certain other guilds that were "flagged" as pvp were fair game but really no kind of punishment reward system ever came from this. I think there could be some built in system although not everyone would be happy about it. Also, i dont think new players should be destroyed to the point they dont want to play. Sure... this is something many expect when joining a pvp server, but hell give the kids the start
Manouk said:In my opinion, in order for PvP to work well requires the dreaded "class balance" to meet the fundamental core of PvP which is one-on-one fights.
I think this sums up the anti-PvP rhetoric fairly well. The dislike seems based around various games that people have played which were either world PvP (1 vs 1 in many cases) or some form of Ranked small group to 2 man matches. Both of those options had their proponents screaming for better balance of classes.
If PvP is done differently it can be a group based effort which requires no balancing between the classes, hence, no PvE ramifications. You build the group just like you build a raid, and that includes toothless pure heals and near toothless augment/buff/debuff classes. If you don't like your gimped buff bot in PvP, run something else. Granted, this really does apply more to the concept of segregated PvE and PvP zones instead of world PvP.
In regards to the OP and "more meaningful PvP"; Darkness Falls in DAoC was the ultimate dungeon that started off somewhat easy and a bit soloable but as you got deeper and deeper it quickly changed to group and then to raid content. It was accessible only if a realm (3 realms in that game) held a majority of PvP objectives. The transfer to another realm could happen at any time which meant other realm players could still be inside to harrass you until dealt with. The draw of Darkness Falls was that it was a PvE dungeon with a PvP element to it and contained farmables, coinage, crafter mats, raid targets with great loot, and a never ending nervewracking "look over your shoulder in fear" suspense. It was always heavily favorable to keep control of Darkness Falls for your own realm.
I don't understand the need for a "meaningful PVP" in a MMORPG, as a matter of fact, I absolutely hate this concept. The only fun I've had in pvp in an MMORPG setting was on EQ (Vallon Zek), where there was barely any incentive to PVP at all. The only direct reward for pvp was the victim's coins. The fact that pvp existed everywhere (pre-luclin), however, turned the experience into something completely different to other servers. Some ppl pvp'ed for fun, others for RP'ing reasons and often it was used to take over camps and such. The community created pvp etiquette and rules that most ppl followed which solved a lot of the grief you experienced on non-pvp servers. As such, I thought pvp was a great tool for the community to police itself, especially at the end game, as contested raid spawns could be settled through pvp. Even with all the problems it had, such as immortal healers (on VZ at least), atrocious balance, the extra opportunity for griefing, the good pvp brought far outweighed the bad for me.
I am not interested at all in any game mechanics that forces pvp on players (say to control zones, earn gear and such) or that reward pvp beyond cosmetics. That said, if VR wants to implement battle grounds, arenas, duels, that's all fine with me. I will respect other people's enjoyment of these activities, as I respect people wanting to enjoy their MMO in a non pvp environment. However, I simply want world PvP in my MMO. I feel it adds a lot to an mmo experience, beyond the e-peen measuring contests, titles and whatever devs can come up with. I simply can not get this type of experience from other pvp type games or MMOs.
The actual mechanics, balance and ruleset of world pvp is not all that important to me at this point. The mere fact that VR have said that they plan to support alternate ruleset servers is great, as it also allows different pvp rulesets across different servers. When/if they decide to make a pvp server, I hope VR will reach out the pvp community to see what it really wants. My biggest fear is getting a pvp ruleset made by and for people who have no intention of actually joining a pvp server or want to be protected from pvp on a pvp server.
katryn said:But as much as *I* dislike this, again--I am aware that is what I signed up for.
Katryn made a great post earlier (go and read it!). What it really highlights for me is that people should be aware of the choice they make when they pick a server and should be held responsible for it. The game should definitely drive this point home even harder when a player is about to join or create a character on a pvp server. This should include not only informing of the ruleset but also its implications, like ganks, penalty for dieing in pvp, how it might alter the play nice policy and such.