Hostile Interactions, Mass PvP, Transition Abuse and Bad Blood

[RedGiant]

This is a potential powder keg, but I think we should also look at the current Ship-to-Ship meta. I recently became motivated to try the ship system out with a rental and encountered merciless mass PvP on more than one occasion. There is no meaningful way to disengage when facing a stacked crew, nor is "Yar" particularly meaninful RP IMHO.

[Skarain]

I'm glad a transition timer is being added. I can't stand being pushed through transitions by my own summons, or the spawn point for a transition being in such a place that it forces me through the transition again. This is a huge quality of life change, thank you.

Seconded! Upvoted. Liked. Subscribed.

[Wethrinea]

PvP would probably be more enjoyable to more people if there was a less 'life and death' implication to it IC. Sure, on the OOC level, you can always respawn, and the 2 hour debuff is only an inconvenience, but IC it always feels like there is the expectation that fights are nearly always to the death. Or ends with collars. Corpse-bashing and taking heads does not help in that regard.

If beating someone to the ground and bloody their nose, then leaving them to contemplate on their life choices was the default IC outcome of PvP, then it might be more enjoyable for the losing side. Likewise, if "getting your nose bloodied teaches you an important lesson" was the default IC mindset on the losing side, there would perhaps be less complaining afterwards too.

If the stakes are high, then the losing side will often be left with sore feelings, justified or not. There is no mechanical fix for that. A server culture that permits losing with a modicum of grace and/or dignity can take the worst sting out of it though.

[Kalthariam]

I will admit I'm one of the types that actively avoids PvP as a whole.

Generally I am not against PvP, however I am just not a fan of it.

The few times I have engaged, or been forced to be engaged in PvP I've seen things from large scale fights in a small area that get so chaotic you can't tell what's going on, to group fights over entire areas in which so much aoe is tossed around you can't move (or tell what AOE is friendly or not). I've seen people ganging up on one person despite said one person leaving when told to leave (the "out" being denied after it was given), or just people "ganking" (to borrow a wow term) lower level characters to be disruptive of writs and to try to rile up higher level players (Or you know, just kill and run).

There just seems to be alot of people that are just constantly seeking out any excuse to get into a fight and trigger something into PvP.

I've gotten into the habit now that if someone goes hostile, I just cease whatever I'm doing, and completely disengage and leave. Heck I constantly have disengaging spells constantly prepared in my cleric because who knows when I might need it. Even trying to talk and continue RP just seems to be a situation where I'm going to get attacked mid-typing and put myself at a disadvantage. Very little of it seems to come across as good faith to me.

Which I do have to ask, this three seconds of invulnerability, will it allow for people to just -teleport / Lens / Attunement potion out of the situation? Or does it prevent any actions as such?

[Xarge VI]

Being trigger happy is a valid mistake a character can make I think if only there was consequences for it in character too.
At least from my observation large scale PvP happens in a weird flux of IC and OOC. As many people as possible are dragged along as fast as they can to intercept the enemy and thus no one has real authority in the situation. Whereas I think most military force leaders would not look kindly upon soldiers that shoot before being told to do so.

A culture change as has been said many a times. But the easiest way to find more enjoyable rp is that the military force leader characters would be more concerned with the quality of their soldiers than the number. = enlist only the characters within the leader's immediate field of authority into a military engagement.

I think "inclusivity" has been shouted too much. It's good and necessary even to be ready to include new characters into your story, but not every aspect should include everyone. For example there is a difference between inviting denizens of the city to try to join the military force to protect the city - and shouting in the streets and sending messengers to every character you know "To arms, to arms! Villain number 13 has been spotted!".

[TurningLeaf]

I'm pretty new so far the only PvP I have seen on Arelith was either over a pickpocket, a summon, or whose dungeon it was. Most times there was some kind of complaint made to a DM I think, which was odd because the conflict was easy to see coming every time.

PS I got a build nerfed on Antiworld, still proud to this day lol

[Tabby]

I was once in a PvP fight, where the enemy was waiting at a Transistion Area, bombing the place with Cloudkill, that was a very bad and very distasteful way of doing PvP, i been in some PvPs, that one i reported on, because i felt more like "we gotta win this" than, lets add something to the RP experienxe...

Im all for this change, 10x thumps up!

[-XXX-]

Hot take: PC trophies incentivize players to run down opposition with overwhelming force as they shift the objective of PvP from "simply winning" to "kill the opponent no matter what, take head".

We'd likely have no need for mechanical measures like this one if players were perfectly content with simply chasing their opponents off an area as the goal of a PvP encounter instead of just having to claim PC trophies at all cost.

[ImWithThisGuy]

I greatly approve of and applaud the changes! Any change targeted toward making PvP more humane is worth a lot in my book.

Its clear that there is a great amount of pressure in PvP, and many people have either a bad habit of, or ignorance to, stepping on other people's toes. I also find myself avoiding PvP at great costs.


I know this isn't the thread for it, but there is one thing I would be interested to hear feedback on, from developers or otherwise:

What if we made subdual mode the default? In order to kill a player, you must first turn off subdual, EVERY time you log in. This forces players to take an extra thought, and a full step backwards in order to think; "Is this really necessary? Should I reconsider?"

And for those that turn it off every time they log in, it would be easy to then watch them more closely. Plus, it would show which players have an aggressive mindset, and could, perhaps, use a gentle nudge in the right direction.


I'm sure there are some unforseen issues with it, but what do you think?

[AstralUniverse]

What if we made subdual mode the default? In order to kill a player, you must first turn off subdual, EVERY time you log in. This forces players to take an extra thought, and a full step backwards in order to think; "Is this really necessary? Should I reconsider?"

+1

I'm against transition timer. I understand it's a problem in pvp but it's going to be annoying as hell, as Dr. B explained perfectly. Especially the part where you misclick transitions while your friend is getting rekt.

[Bunnysmack]

What if we made subdual mode the default? In order to kill a player, you must first turn off subdual, EVERY time you log in. This forces players to take an extra thought, and a full step backwards in order to think; "Is this really necessary? Should I reconsider?"

+1 as well. This sounds like a fantastic way to minimize lightly killing one another and help shift the culture of the server a bit further toward opportunities to talk rather than just killbash.

As a caveat, however, I DO think that something needs to be added to subdual to make it so lore/UMD are disabled while in that state in order to prevent the increasingly prevalent workaround of self-restoration to remove subdual malus and immediately strike back at an attacker.

[Void]

What if we made subdual mode the default? In order to kill a player, you must first turn off subdual, EVERY time you log in.

You're effectively proposing to punish every player who does not want to fight non-lethally.
I see this idea as horrible and would hate it with passion if it was ever implemented.

There has already been changes to subdual that reduced the weight of the decision to save life of your enemy. Originally subdual was only possible with specific weapons only, and with -4 penalty unless you had dirty fighting feat, and was impossible with magic. That mean if you wanted to save someone's life you had to pay the price, and decision had weight. You had to be careful, and had to consider the risks. That weight has been removed, and decision has been made meaningless.

This kind of feature feels like an attempt to force a specific behavior onto every character. The world is not sunshine and rainbows, it is dangerous, and most fights are to the death. Trying to force not fighting to the death onto characters simply feels very out of place.

Related:
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=36113&p=283761#p283761
---
If the idea was to avoid hurt feelings from PVP, then not participating in PVP in the first place is an option.

It is also worth remembering that there's 24hour rule.
http://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Twenty_four_hours_rule

The point of 24 hours rule is that two parties meet, they murder each other, then they go home and rest and cool off.
In case of subdual the conflict isn't over and the enemy is still present, so both parties can continue flinging insults at each other.
I think it is going to have an opposite effect, pretty much, and fuel hostility instead. People can also stand up and continue fighting.

It is worth keeping in mind that it is also possible to disable PVP entirely if it becomes too much problem for DM Team. Not sure how people are going to about resolving unresolvable conflicts this way, but there's pvp switch and it can be moved to other position than "Full PVP". I am certain that it is unlikely that DM team would do that, but that option is there.

[MissEvelyn]

I'm all in favor of making sub-dual the default mode. Arelith being an RP server and not an action pvp one, it simply makes perfect sense to have sub-dual be the default mode.

Even the setting itself expects sub-dual to be the norm. When you just get off the boat in Cordor as a new character and you speak to the captain, he mentions how if you get knocked out you will be carried to him, since he was the last one responsible for you. Notice he never mentions death, simply taking a beating.
Even the friendly NPCs expect subdual mode to be default.

If the Devs could also track who and how many people then turn off -subdual, even better. Gives them an idea of how many kill-bash happy people there are compared to those who don't toggle it off.
I'm sure something similar can be observed with how many people use -notells (I for one am curious to know!)

[Void]

I'm all in favor of making sub-dual the default mode. Arelith being an RP server and not an action pvp one, it simply makes perfect sense to have sub-dual be the default mode.

It makes it perfect sense not to have it as default because Arelith is a RP server. Because upsetting wrong people in a RP world can result in death. The proposal amounts to pestering to death anyone who disagree with this viewpoint. "Everyone who doesn't want -subdual should disable it on every login". Don't you think people have better things to do than doing this every time?

The core of RP is action and choices having consequences. And this seems to be one more proposal to remove both choices and consequences while turning it into some sort of MMO. I'm here for the storylines and not for a happy safe place where my character can never be hurt.

When you just get off the boat in

... in Andunor, the lines you receive are very different.

If the Devs could also track who and how many people then turn off -subdual, even better. Gives them an idea of how many kill-bash happy people there are compared to those who don't toggle it off.

Reading those sorts of passages is unpleasant. Same applies to this one:

And for those that turn it off every time they log in, it would be easy to then watch them more closely. Plus, it would show which players have an aggressive mindset, and could, perhaps, use a gentle nudge in the right direction.

The implication here appears to be that there's RIGHT way to play, which is subdual, and that there's WRONG way to play, which is no subdual, and that people who do not use the right way to play, are in a wrong mindset, untrustworthy, killbashers, should be watched out for, but MAYBE with enouth patience they can be reformed and made to change their ways.

Is that the intent? I surely hope not. Because it is "us vs them" mentality that breeds hostility and people getting upset at each other at OOC level. "Oh, he's non-subdualer, he must be a bad person" kind of thing.

The reason why people are upset after pvp is because they either put themselves into character shoes (bad idea), or are suffering from character emotions bleeding into their own psyche while playing character in 3rd person (character is a puppet/pawn). That's not a thing you can solve by introducing more mechanics or rules, you have to learn how to manage emotional bleed and adrenaline rush from pvp with practice.

The point is, there's consistent theme of trying to remove unpleasant consequences in a past few years. However, if your action has no consequences, is it still a RP server, and what is a reason for playing? The interesting stuff about this whole thing - for me - was always events, plots and the like. And not "leisurly uneventful daily life in hell". Remove any sort of danger, and it'll turn into a chat client with 3d models in it. At which point there would be no reason to stay, as all you'll ever be able to do is pleasant chats. What's the point in that?

To me it also seems to be that there's in general a trend in last 20 years or so of people trying to solve their problem by asking for rules rather than talking it out with another person.

The person you're fighting in pvp is someone you're supposed to be cooperating with on OOC level. Talk to people! Make sure things allright and so on. Instead of that, it seems there's an attempt to get back at people who fight to kill, proclaim that they're killbashers and untrustworthy. Seriously?

There's plenty of ways to evade PVP, you know? Rather than requesting all fights to be non-lethal, maybe it would be a good idea to try talking things out of danger. Plenty of characters would be open for the opponent weaseling out of the situation, but would fight to kill if it comes to a fight.

[MissEvelyn]

I'm all in favor of making sub-dual the default mode. Arelith being an RP server and not an action pvp one, it simply makes perfect sense to have sub-dual be the default mode.

It makes it perfect sense not to have it as default because Arelith is a RP server. Because upsetting wrong people in a RP world can result in death. The proposal amounts to pestering to death anyone who disagree with this viewpoint. "Everyone who doesn't want -subdual should disable it on every login". Don't you think people have better things to do than doing this every time?

Notice that I never said or suggested that you'd have to turn it off every time you login, just that it's the default setting, much like -emote_style has a default mode.

If the Devs could also track who and how many people then turn off -subdual, even better. Gives them an idea of how many kill-bash happy people there are compared to those who don't toggle it off.

Reading those sorts of passages is unpleasant. Same applies to this one:

And for those that turn it off every time they log in, it would be easy to then watch them more closely. Plus, it would show which players have an aggressive mindset, and could, perhaps, use a gentle nudge in the right direction.

The implication here appears to be that there's RIGHT way to play, which is subdual, and that there's WRONG way to play, which is no subdual, and that people who do not use the right way to play, are in a wrong mindset, untrustworthy, killbashers, should be watched out for, but MAYBE with enouth patience they can be reformed and made to change their ways.

Is that the intent? I surely hope not. Because it is "us vs them" mentality that breeds hostility and people getting upset at each other at OOC level. "Oh, he's non-subdualer, he must be a bad person" kind of thing.

There is a whole lot of assumption happening on this bit, and I would kindly request words weren't put in my mouth.

To clarify, I thought it would be useful to the Team for statistical purposes, and I personally would love to know the percentage of people who use one vs the other. This isn't limited to -subdual. If I could, I would want to know how many play on -notells, how many people write with -emote_style 1, and so on.

All that said, there IS a right way to play, it involves following all the rules of Arelith. Within those bounds you are free to do anything you want.

[Void]

I'm all in favor of making sub-dual the default mode. Arelith being an RP server and not an action pvp one, it simply makes perfect sense to have sub-dual be the default mode.

It makes it perfect sense not to have it as default because Arelith is a RP server. Because upsetting wrong people in a RP world can result in death. The proposal amounts to pestering to death anyone who disagree with this viewpoint. "Everyone who doesn't want -subdual should disable it on every login". Don't you think people have better things to do than doing this every time?

Notice that I never said or suggested that you'd have to turn it off every time you login, just that it's the default setting, much like -emote_style has a default mode.

If the Devs could also track who and how many people then turn off -subdual, even better. Gives them an idea of how many kill-bash happy people there are compared to those who don't toggle it off.

Reading those sorts of passages is unpleasant. Same applies to this one:

And for those that turn it off every time they log in, it would be easy to then watch them more closely. Plus, it would show which players have an aggressive mindset, and could, perhaps, use a gentle nudge in the right direction.

The implication here appears to be that there's RIGHT way to play, which is subdual, and that there's WRONG way to play, which is no subdual, and that people who do not use the right way to play, are in a wrong mindset, untrustworthy, killbashers, should be watched out for, but MAYBE with enouth patience they can be reformed and made to change their ways.

Is that the intent? I surely hope not. Because it is "us vs them" mentality that breeds hostility and people getting upset at each other at OOC level. "Oh, he's non-subdualer, he must be a bad person" kind of thing.

There is a whole lot of assumption happening on this bit, and I would kindly request words weren't put in my mouth.

To clarify, I thought it would be useful to the Team for statistical purposes, and I personally would love to know the percentage of people who use one vs the other. This isn't limited to -subdual. If I could, I would want to know how many play on -notells, how many people write with -emote_style 1, and so on.

All that said, there IS a right way to play, it involves following all the rules of Arelith. Within those bounds you are free to do anything you want.

Fair enough. Apologies if I overreacted.

The previous poster did suggest to make people turn it off every time, which is why I wasn't fond of the idea.

Have a nice <time of day>.

[MissEvelyn]

It makes it perfect sense not to have it as default because Arelith is a RP server. Because upsetting wrong people in a RP world can result in death. The proposal amounts to pestering to death anyone who disagree with this viewpoint. "Everyone who doesn't want -subdual should disable it on every login". Don't you think people have better things to do than doing this every time?

Notice that I never said or suggested that you'd have to turn it off every time you login, just that it's the default setting, much like -emote_style has a default mode.

Reading those sorts of passages is unpleasant. Same applies to this one:

The implication here appears to be that there's RIGHT way to play, which is subdual, and that there's WRONG way to play, which is no subdual, and that people who do not use the right way to play, are in a wrong mindset, untrustworthy, killbashers, should be watched out for, but MAYBE with enouth patience they can be reformed and made to change their ways.

Is that the intent? I surely hope not. Because it is "us vs them" mentality that breeds hostility and people getting upset at each other at OOC level. "Oh, he's non-subdualer, he must be a bad person" kind of thing.

There is a whole lot of assumption happening on this bit, and I would kindly request words weren't put in my mouth.

To clarify, I thought it would be useful to the Team for statistical purposes, and I personally would love to know the percentage of people who use one vs the other. This isn't limited to -subdual. If I could, I would want to know how many play on -notells, how many people write with -emote_style 1, and so on.

All that said, there IS a right way to play, it involves following all the rules of Arelith. Within those bounds you are free to do anything you want.

Fair enough. Apologies if I overreacted.

The previous poster did suggest to make people turn it off every time, which is why I wasn't fond of the idea.

Have a nice <time of day>.

No worries! It can be difficult to deduce tone and intent on the forums, I absolutely get it~

I also didn't say so, but the parts I didn't quote of your post, I agree with! There has to be RP consequences for actions, of course. It's simply that death isn't really a consequence on Arelith. But that's a whole different discussion that's been mauled over time and again.

[Curve]

Y’all quote too much.

[ImWithThisGuy]

The implication here appears to be that there's RIGHT way to play, which is subdual, and that there's WRONG way to play, which is no subdual, and that people who do not use the right way to play, are in a wrong mindset, untrustworthy, killbashers, should be watched out for, but MAYBE with enouth patience they can be reformed and made to change their ways.

Is that the intent? I surely hope not. Because it is "us vs them" mentality that breeds hostility and people getting upset at each other at OOC level. "Oh, he's non-subdualer, he must be a bad person" kind of thing.

Just to quickly clarify some things, as I feel you very far missed the intent of the question.

The reason people would have to turn it off is not because they can't be trusted, or because everyone that wouldn't use subdual is a self-absorbed kill-basher. It's relating to the heat of the moment, the stress and tension leading up to pvp, and how it very often clouds people's minds. You're absolutely right, this isn't ideal, but it is very real, and perhaps it shouldn't be.

I'd say it's much harder to tell people to be less invested in their characters than it is to make them think twice about how they are treating someone else's. It's really hard to intentionally be a kill-bashing jerk 100% of the time and be aware of it- I wouldn't say Arelith has many, or perhaps any of those. But on the other hand, it's very easy for any average person to lose that sense of context when you're distracted or under pressure. Leading to the posting of this thread by Irongron himself.

And there absolutely is a "right" way to play Arelith, and it's not by using or not using subdual mode. It's being aware and considerate of other players. I only brought it up to begin with because I feel it stands as a reminder; "The other person I'm interacting with is an actual person, and I should keep them in mind." There is nothing wrong with turning subdual mode off, even if it were the default. Nor is there anything wrong with following through with combat, with one party ending the lives of their enemies. But it's easy to take that too far and not even realize it; Permanent Subdual only stands to impression the user that they are treading on dangerous ground, and that they should be wary of their actions.

Consequences are indeed very important, but when you have so many people with different standards, those consequences are also perceived very differently. Further, with Arelith's death system, I'd say leaving more people alive is actually better for server health, because I know it bothers me way more when I see someone say "I just died, no big deal" than "Normally I wouldn't spare you, but..". The consequences are already in the hands of the losing party; They can choose what they are, or really, whether or not they roleplay those consequences at all. Can they do it in bad taste? Absolutely. And many do, but I'm digressing. The point is: The more consideration that goes into other people's expereince, the more likely they are to continue interacting, making more and better stories, and make better feels for all. I just feel this would be a good change towards that end.

The person you're fighting in pvp is someone you're supposed to be cooperating with on OOC level. Talk to people! Make sure things allright and so on.

This is absolutely my first pick! I'd love it if people would simply reach out and explain their intentions, and then work together for a better future, and always apologize for wrongdoings. But sadly, even advocating this for 15 years, I've not seen it become more prevalent. I do feel that a short reminder of others is worth a whole lot more than 15 years of background advice, having seen how little it's done in the long run.

[Marsi]

I find the perception of subdual as a solution to the bad feels of PvP interesting.

When you are killbashed, you die, lose a trivial amount of xp, respawn, then move on however you wish. "gah, I was waylaid!" and so on. Immediate restoration of autonomy, distance between the two parties, and the chance as the victim to create a narrative you are comfortable with (or to just pretend nothing happened).

When you are subdued, you are dominated. Unless you choose to die you have to suffer whatever the victor has in store for you, which could be far more humiliating than an instant trip to the fugue. You don't get the privileges and distance from the antagonist that death provide. There are no two ways about it - your character squirmed under their antagonist's boot.

When someone says they don't like PvP, I feel that what they fear is loss of autonomy. We all want to be in control of our character's story. It has nothing to do with the xp or the fugue hangover effects, it's the fact that someone can come along and perform an unwanted action against our PC. It makes far more sense to me to want that uncomfortable confrontation to be over as quickly as possible, and for the mode of defeat to be a neutral and uncoloured statement of fact: "they fell in combat".

So, I don't believe default subdual is actually a solution. If that were to happen, the discourse would just shift further and further towards abolition of PvP, because killbashing isn't really the issue here.

[AstralUniverse]

When someone says they don't like PvP, I feel that what they fear is loss of autonomy. We all want to be in control of our character's story. It has nothing to do with the xp or the fugue hangover effects, it's the fact that someone can come along and perform an unwanted action against our PC. It makes far more sense to me to want that uncomfortable confrontation to be over as quickly as possible, and for the mode of defeat to be a neutral and uncoloured statement of fact: "they fell in combat".

So, I don't believe default subdual is actually a solution. If that were to happen, the discourse would just shift further and further towards abolition of PvP, because killbashing isn't really the issue here.

I agree with you but I do think making -subdual the default, and having people need to toggle it to anything else, rather than death being the default and people having to toggle it to anything else, is a step in the right direction and would be a positive change over all. It doesnt straight up solves ANY problem but you say what people really fear is a lose of autonomy? well, if they are sub-dualed instead of straight up dead, they can choose whether to stay or to be straight up dead so it's no different than before except that they can choose to stay and watch the scene around them unfolding.

[Skarain]

I would not mind Subdual being on by default, with the option to turn it off.

Heck, even a persistent toggle (like autoloot settings) would be golden, to account to your preference.

It is very hard to "change your mind" and shout out "Wait! I surrender!" when PvP has already been initiated. If you spend even 1 sec typing, that Weapon Master is going to connect to you and press "Delete" (because you were busy typing).

RP is mandated before any RP. Maybe it is just me, but I would like my opportunity to be on the ground, slowly "dying" and watch at the person who approaches to perform the killing blow. It opens up more RP options: you can give them a final, fearful look, or beg for your life, or act in disbelief, or curse them with your last words. And if you do not wish any of that, type -unrelent to instantly die.

Subdual made it more possible to have dialogue once the dust has settled. Before it was introduced, I was part in a fight in where I clearly had no chance, wanted to surrender/continue RP, but I was killed before I could type that. They did resurrect me afterwards, after some OOC tells to "bring word back to your masters" (was playing a slave at that time).

That is just my humble opinion why I wish subdual was used more. It enables dialogue and the RP to continue after defeat.

Sure, it does not solve any "toxicity" on itself, but having subdual on by default on new characters might help to set a new standard that encourages more RP before and after any conflict.

[Void]

The reason people would have to turn it off is not because they can't be trusted, or because everyone that wouldn't use subdual is a self-absorbed kill-basher. It's relating to the heat of the moment, the stress and tension leading up to pvp, and how it very often clouds people's minds. You're absolutely right, this isn't ideal, but it is very real, and perhaps it shouldn't be.

Look,. when you're dead, you're in fugue, and away from your adversary. When you're not dead, you're still there, the conflict isn't over, and you both can keep flinging insults at each other and escalating it further, hating each other more. What's more, your adversary can lock teleportation and beat you up few more times with you being unable to escape by means other than disconnect. Keep in mind that there's no -suicide command as that's non-T theme, so unless they use a lasso, you're stuck in the situation once subdued.

So, what's the point of it? The less hostile option is to kill. The death penalty sucks, but the conflict will be over and you'll be forbidden to interact with each other for 24 hours. Unlike subdual, when once you've beaten them up you now want to toy with them a bit more.

When you're subdued, the dust hasn't settled and the conflict isn't over. Means people get opportunity for escalating it further, going into OOC territory and resorting to namecalling. Like Marsi said, it is domination move and as a result it can be much more upsetting than death.

Dying gives person who lost the fight the opportunity to end the encounter in definite way. Replacing death with subdual takes away that opportunity and gives more control to the one who won. There won't be a dialogue either, as the best option would be to simply lense away if possible.

[Kalthariam]

I mean.. can't you just "Give up" When subdued and just die?

I don't think anyone can really trap you with subdual.. at least I've not seen such be a thing. Is there a way to prevent people from resurrecting you when you die?

[-XXX-]

I find the perception of subdual as a solution to the bad feels of PvP interesting.

When you are killbashed, you die, lose a trivial amount of xp, respawn, then move on however you wish. "gah, I was waylaid!" and so on. Immediate restoration of autonomy, distance between the two parties, and the chance as the victim to create a narrative you are comfortable with (or to just pretend nothing happened).

When you are subdued, you are dominated. Unless you choose to die you have to suffer whatever the victor has in store for you, which could be far more humiliating than an instant trip to the fugue. You don't get the privileges and distance from the antagonist that death provide. There are no two ways about it - your character squirmed under their antagonist's boot.

When someone says they don't like PvP, I feel that what they fear is loss of autonomy. We all want to be in control of our character's story. It has nothing to do with the xp or the fugue hangover effects, it's the fact that someone can come along and perform an unwanted action against our PC. It makes far more sense to me to want that uncomfortable confrontation to be over as quickly as possible, and for the mode of defeat to be a neutral and uncoloured statement of fact: "they fell in combat".

So, I don't believe default subdual is actually a solution. If that were to happen, the discourse would just shift further and further towards abolition of PvP, because killbashing isn't really the issue here.

IMO characters who never lose tend to be shallow and boring. So if I want to play an interesting character, I need to accept the fact that they will lose and be humiliated at some point. Personally I'm OK with that because it adds something to the character.
That being said, I'd much rather have this happen with my participation as a player than without it (killbash, take head, brag with it).