Minotaur Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 I thought the game didn't start till you hit 50 and got into a cabal... *shrug* The rest is just leveling,training, and developing RP to me. I always laugh at the people who pk between 10 and 30. It's just silly. Longevity at 50 has more to do with your skill, and how many people you pissed off then if you are cabaled or not. If anything I'd rather have the cabal skills and responsibility than just get ran over by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 The game starts the minute you enter the realms. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of it. Your character enters the realms and, regardless of race, class, alignment, or your intentions for that character, the game has begun. Your development has started, and it won't always go the way you choose. Sometimes you're going to get thrown curve balls that will completely and totally alter your character, and possibly ruin some of the plans you stupidly made when you rolled up your character. However, it is the true player who rolls with the punches, and takes what comes at them, and turns it into something enjoyable. When their fully trained ogre warriors is turned into a gnome bard with no practices and 40% in all their skills, they stick to it and play it out. Most people don't do this, and there has been a severe decline in condeaths here. I'll admit it, I'm guilty - a lot of times when things take a turn for the worst, I throw in the towel. But, that doesn't make it right. Anyway, here are my thoughts: 1) Gameplay starts at level one. Always. 2) Cabal Warfare is fine the way it is. If you don't like it, don't join a cabal - it's that easy. You don't need a cabal to enhance your RP, and a cabal should not make or break your ability to PK. To use an analogy: "If you push on your forehead and it hurts, and you push on your wrist and it hurts, and you push on your knee and it hurts, chances are, you have a broken finger. Stop using it to push things." 3) Good changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calron Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 To use an analogy: "If you push on your forehead and it hurts' date=' and you push on your wrist and it hurts, and you push on your knee and it hurts, chances are, you have a broken finger. Stop using it to push things."[/quote'] Heh, thats funny. Never heard that one before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBwillie Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 It's from The Amazing Jonathan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Actually, it's an blonde joke that the Amazing Jonathan stole to utilize the ever-apparent stupidity of Psychic Tonya/Tanya (however it's spelled). One of the better Comedy Central Presents, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English lad Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Did the amount of experience given by guild quests get decreased with the recent changes? By quite a lot it seems. Also that it no longer sends goods to kill other goods is great, that said if the intention is to make every quest available to goods, then maybe the ones that send people to the Guild Trainees in Valmiran could do with looking at, as these involve someone killing a good in some cases to get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Giving that up so that one day we can see six healers leading the six cabal with everyone having 'Trade' and a 'World of Peace' would suck harder that thai hook.....well suffice to say it will just plain suck. Dude, I think that would be fun. Imagine, all the cabals are at peace. Aabahran has found it's age of peace once again. What's our job as PKers? Destroy that peace. I think it would be sweet to ravage all the peaceful cabals, but thats just me. It would make for an awesome world plot. EDIT: Good changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I thought the game didn't start till you hit 50 and got into a cabal... *shrug* The rest is just leveling,training, and developing RP to me. I always laugh at the people who pk between 10 and 30. It's just silly. Longevity at 50 has more to do with your skill, and how many people you pissed off then if you are cabaled or not. If anything I'd rather have the cabal skills and responsibility than just get ran over by them. When your character starts at level 1, you are a living, breathing, thinking person – which means you can harbour feelings of hatred, jealousy, fear, devotion to a cause etc. that would cause you to lash out at certain others depending on your interactions and/or knowledge of them. When people say that the game starts at 50, what I think they usually mean is in terms of PK being a lot more balanced. If your character has a roleplay reason to attack somebody, then why wouldn’t they? Because they’re not at level 50? That’s like getting into an argument with someone to the point where you’re going to fight, and then saying, “Look mate, I just found out my wife has been having an affair with you, cheating on me every night of the week, and I want to really punch you, but you’re only 31 years old – I’m going to come looking for you on your 50th birthday.” There is no reason other than the OOC knoweldge that it's a one-sided fight NOT to fight, unless it's your in your character's personality and roleplay not to fight. Simple, just like it is (or, should be), at 50. If you believe the game is unbalanced pre-50 then it’s perfectly reasonable to create IG reasons as to why your character wouldn’t want to PK pre-50. If not though, pre-50 PK is fine as long as there’s a good reason there (just like with PK at 50). Someone just abusing a class power spike to prey on other people below pinn is a different story though, and those people need to receive a solid Glasgow Kiss. Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Also, especially for new people, jumping headfirst into lvl 50 pk is an option, but taking it slow is a good idea too in my opinion. My first character barely didn't pinn. I think he got to level 48 or so and I got hammered multiple times as was to be expected. But then I started to take it slower, I made another char, pked ( and by pked I mean attempted to) at lvl 20, 30, 35, and worked my way up. YEah, I got some of the trashtalk about pking lowbies, but hell, I was learning. I was too newbish to know of any sort of power spike to take advantage of and I could limit the amount of skills coming at me by fighting at lower ranks. The other day even, my rank 16 invoker got attacked by some ogre warrior and it was great fun. Even better when I figured I'd better call it a day and cast invis. He walked in and grumbled as I chuckled at him. I don't mind being attacked at lower levels and I don't feel bad when I do it. I do believe that attacking training people is low, as well as multikilling/ganging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I do believe that attacking training people is low' date=' as well as multikilling/ganging.[/quote'] For the attacking training people bit, IMO you are utilising a distinct advantage, which exists because a player is neglecting their standard ‘survival duties’ – who/where and keeping affects such as detect invis up (for classes that can cast/commune for it). It’s just like hunting down a victim and then catching them without sanctuary. It’s their own fault, because it is perfectly easy to avoid getting yourself killed training and anyone who says otherwise is being lazy. Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyeSeeU Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Maybe the ability to study/assassinate while in combat or immediately after being in combat should also be removed? What? Try studying while fighting and see how much you "study". Changes are great!!! I was well,... happy when I read them. THANKS AGAIN TO ALL THE STAFF!!! CABAL WARFARE... I will simply say that this mud "FL" "AABAHRAN" needs the ctf vendetta system, logicaly think about this. Warmasters pride themselves in WAR with physical prowess. They think their knowledge is the way. Savants think their knowledge is the way. So both sides can't be both right... right? This is why they will always be at war. I call it the forever battle of knowledge and power. The LAW bargins with no man child or woman. You say there are crooked cops, but the law itself is not crooked. For this very reason Tribunal and Syndicate should never not be at WAR. If you wanna be a crooked Tribunal then by all means RP a crooked Tribunal. Syndicate in my eyes should be ruthless when the price is right, as in two headed, snakish, backstabbing, anything to collect that bounty. How could a respectful organization like the Tribunal accept peace from another organization that will forever try and get over on the Tribunal. If I do not make sense then oh well, its early... well late and I am tired so goodnight folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wayward Knight Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 The strict adherence to cookie-cutter examples of roleplaying 'types' defining each cabal is another thing that Raargant should address, that the staff tried to address by adding subcabals. It apparently failed, as is loudly evidenced, for example, by almost every Sigil that has ever been in Knight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wayward Knight Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Here's my idea for a change: in the spirit of the 'who' list change, how about no longer allowing 'who group' compared with 'who pk' to allow you to discern who in your pk range is on the opposite spectrum of alignment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aulian Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Here's my idea for a change: in the spirit of the 'who' list change' date=' how about no longer allowing 'who group' compared with 'who pk' to allow you to discern who in your pk range is on the opposite spectrum of alignment?[/quote'] Lets also try and keep things atleast slightly newbie friendly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Here's my idea for a change: in the spirit of the 'who' list change' date=' how about no longer allowing 'who group' compared with 'who pk' to allow you to discern who in your pk range is on the opposite spectrum of alignment?[/quote'] Even though I disagree, I'm curious... how would you go about doing this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 "The strict adherence to cookie-cutter examples of roleplaying 'types' defining each cabal is another thing that Raargant should address, that the staff tried to address by adding subcabals. It apparently failed, as is loudly evidenced, for example, by almost every Sigil that has ever been in Knight." Someone explain me what this has to do with SIGIL ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 I dont get that RP type for cabals either... I mean...if your not the type of person to join group A...then..your not gonna join group A. And if group B shares your views..then hot dog! sign me up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wayward Knight Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Pali - by making evil and good aligns able to see each other in their who group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Pali - by making evil and good aligns able to see each other in their who group. Except you can't group with them, so doing so violates the entire premise behind the who group command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aulian Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Except you can't group with them' date=' so doing so violates the entire premise behind the who group command.[/quote'] Yup and this would make it very newbie unfriendly because how are they to know who they can hunt iwth and who they cant if they are playing a good/evil? They would spend 90% of the time just trying to find someone they can rank with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wayward Knight Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Actually, yes, you can group with them. Maybe it was a bug at the time, but it's been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Actually' date=' yes, you can group with them. Maybe it was a bug at the time, but it's been done.[/quote'] A good can only group with an evil if a neutral char acts as the group leader (and doing so is, by the way, illegal... expect consequences such as outcasting if you do this). You cannot directly group with a member of the opposite alignment, so members of opposite aligns do not show up on who group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wayward Knight Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Then it must have been a bug at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.