Talk:Player killing
Having noted that this section is having a major update I wanted to make a point here before enacting any change. The first sentence of this article states that player killing is "the act of two or more players engaging in combat against each other." This is a fundamental point and one which I consider entirely wrong - hence writing here before fanning the flames by going straight to changing the text. Player killing - IMO - should be described as "the act of one or more players killing another". The current definition wrongly assumes that all player killing is consensual as it uses the phrase "engaging in combat" which implies consent/willingness and, for that matter, actual engagement. Running away because you do not wish to be PK'd is not engaging in combat. If you have to fight to defend yourself when you had no interest in seeking combat in the first place but were mugged by someone who thinks this is a fun thing to do, then this should not be described as "engaging in combat". I trust no-one will use the argument that if you go into the Wilderness, what can you expect? - this is 100% victim blaming. Going to the Wilderness to complete a quest or kill a boss does not imply you wish to engage in combat with another player. So, in my view, we need to amend the description of player killing. Camelus ferus (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- This page also describes PvP in general, which might be closer to the given definition. I think you might be trying to describe the hunter-vs-hunted dynamic that is only a small part of the PvP ecosystem.
- Besides, one cannot expect no player interactions in unsafe areas designed with PvP activities in mind, so calling it "victim blaming" is stretching it at best. If you enter the Wilderness, you have to be prepared for the possibility to engage in PvP combat in some capacity, even if it comes down to just tanking.
- As for the rewrite, it is pretty much halted due to no volunteers to contribute content on P2P PvP. Most wiki contributors seem to be more engaged in PvM or skilling, and a purely PvMer's perspective on the topic might be incomplete or biased. -PureF2P (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for your reply #PureF2P. However, after careful consideration, I must respectfully disagree as I do not think your response addresses my point. First, yes, you could argue that a player focused on PvM or skilling might not have a complete understanding of PvP or be biased. But, IMO, this disregards the fact that a PKer's perspective will almost certainly be biased too, and the whole thing about the Wiki is its aim for neutrality/objectivity. Defining an activity does not require that you take part in it in order to have a complete understanding (in extremis, war crimes, theft). You note that the definition "describes PvP in general". Again, I must disagree and I would refer to the Wiki's own article about the Wilderness and the section on "Combat types" where it makes very clear that PvP can be consensual or non-consensual: e.g. it says that 1-vs-1 combat is "arranged duels between willing players" whereas Hunting is "player killers target unwilling skillers or PvMers to kill them for loot" (N.B. my emphasis). I consider that the Wiki Wilderness article supports my view re the current definition of PvP in the Wiki's PK article. The only common point between consensual and non-consensual PvP here is that one player kills another. And *that* should be the objective core of the definition. If we use the word "engage", then we introduce bias and the "willing vs. unwilling" position is lost. I am not disagreeing (or interested) that the majority of PvP in the Wilderness may be consensual - that does not impact the core definition of what PvP is. Certainly, every time I have been killed in the Wilderness it has not been by choice: I did not go there to "pick a fight", nor would I ever choose to do so. Equally, I am not opposed to PvP - it is an integral part of OSRS gaming that some players may wish to "engage" in and I have no problem with that. But if you attack me, I (and a whole bunch of other PvMers and skillers) are not "engaging" in combat and that is central to the definition. We are being mugged and, having experienced that in real life, I did not "engage" then either (a real punch in the face hurts more than virtual ones). Of course, every player should be aware of the possibility of PK activity; the "Wildy" is 100% not a safe place, and all those signboards on its perimeter tell you that you "can" be attacked and killed by another player. But the fact that another player chooses to attack you is absolutely not the same as stating you are engaging in PvP combat. There are also a number of mini-games where you can choose to "engage" safely in PvP, e.g. Castle Wars, Clan Wars or Last Man Standing. But PvP in itself encompasses those who engage (the "willing") and those who do not (the "unwilling") and the definition needs to reflect that disparity.Camelus ferus (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed "engaging" into "partaking", I hope this fixes the issue. And I am sorry to hear you have been the target of physical violence. Take care!! 2A02:A420:6D:1C9F:2:1:5CAA:F38A 05:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I would have to say that "partake" is no more satisfactory than "engage" as its definition is to take a share or part - and is mostly used with food rather than combat. "Engage in combat" is just a longer way of saying "fight". So I do not think we are progressing. Sorry. I would go back to the central point that our current definition says PK is "the act of two or more players [partaking / engaging] in combat **against each other**" . . . or " . . . fighting against each other . . ." - but if I ain't fighting you but running away ('cos I am unwilling) then there is (1) no "against each other" and (2) no engaging or partaking. It takes two, as they say. So, how about this as a first paragraph - I have highlighted the changed/added text:
++++++++++
Player Killing (commonly known as PKing, player vs. player, or PvP), is the act of one or more players attacking another. Player killing differs from other forms of combat in that players do not fight against monsters whose actions are defined by RuneScape's game engine. There are various places throughout Old School RuneScape that players can participate in PvP activities such as Castle Wars, Soul Wars, Bounty Hunter, and the TzHaar Fight Pit. Although most PvP activities are undertaken willingly, some PKing, known as Hunting, may be against unwilling players (such as skillers).
++++++++++
Thoughts? I have assumed that, given all the various minigames, the majority of PvP is of the 'willing' variety - but I really don't know the scale of Hunting. Camelus ferus (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like "one or more players attacking another" is too specific to the one-sided PvP with an unwilling participant. If PvP is listed as one of the synonyms for PKing, this does not really fit the definition of activities literally called "player-versus-player". I also don't think "hunting" is an official or widely used term, especially with a "hunter" skill being in game. If anything, I'd rename the article to "PvP" or "Player-versus-player" and go from there, possibly using the term "player killing" solely to describe the one-sided PvP that you're talking about. The proposed changes would not make the article more informative. Making the distinction between willing and unwilling participation should be one section or a paragraph within the article describing various types of activities, not the first thing that the players read.
- Players might feel forced to engage with other players in a PvP zone and don't think they're participating in PvP in the slightest, but from a technical point of view it is PvP. Even tanking falls under the umbrella of what we can call PvP activities. To give a concrete example, Fist of Guthix from RS2 was described as a PvP minigame even though one of the players was mechanically forced to play defence in each round. I'd go as far as to say that every activity in a dangerous zone has a PvP element.
- "Victims" are very much a part of the PvP ecosystem, it's an unfortunate consequence of how it was designed. However, I could argue about them being completely "unwilling", since entering the unsafe areas requires a conscious decision in the first place. You might go as far as to call it "victim blaming", but these are not comparable scenarios to the real life situations. My guess is most people do not think that attacking other players in OSRS is in any shape or form comparable to physical violence. By going into the Wilderness, you have to acknowledge that you are entering a dangerous area in a MMO game with punishing death mechanics and an active PvP scene. The possibility of getting attacked is always there, and should be taken into account. You're a part of it once you jump over the ditch.
- That being said, there's a lot to improve in this article in general. The first few paragraphs are a mess, and don't really serve as a good introduction into PvP. The rest mostly consists of links to other articles, or tables without enough context to make sense to a layman. Changing a few definitions here and there is a band aid solution for a much bigger problem: outside of the F2P articles, PvP is poorly documented on the wiki and mostly out of date. Simply put, this article needs a complete rewrite, and it's not related to whether "engaging" or "partaking" implies consent. -PureF2P (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Really appreciate your effort in this. I see where you are coming from. Part of the problem lies in the fact that various descriptions for combat types are in the Wilderness article - including "Hunting" which I would agree with you is by far not a good term to use. I'd suggest "mugging" as a replacement if only because it more accurately reflects the "unwilling" element of a skiller being whaled upon by a PKer (and "opportunistic gratuitous violence" is not something that trips off the tongue . . .) but I suspect that's me opening another can (more like barrel!) of worms. I guess once one article is changed then you have a domino effect. I am a professional editor so I am aware of the problems faced here. If I manage to come up with a suitable alternative defintion for PvP I shall come back here and see what you and other editors think. Don't hold your breath..... Regards Camelus ferus (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback (Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:58:58 GMT)
[edit source]Well, agreed. There was an effort to document OSRS PvP on the wiki, but there weren't many contributors that would tackle the related articles outside of the F2P ones. If anyone would like to rewrite these, I can help with proofreading and formatting. -PureF2P (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
How hard is it to understand this difference? You literally have wildy, the epitome of pking, and various minigames (especially pvp arena), which are all pvp activities. Even at the most rudimentary level, people would associate pvp with "safe sparring"; while pking would be "defending yourself in the wild", compound with the fact that you risk your items lost to the one who pked you. Pretty sure every osrs player understands these differences
Also, pvp game modes are missing, e.g DMM
A ton of popular pking spots are missing too, such as chaos temple and wildy agi course