Chayesh Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 It's not "No PK". Those two rooms are Cabaled Battle Only, Uncabaled get lost. As to the flip side of your argument, how is it HIS fault that you couldn't catch him in the other 29984 rooms and only caught up to him when he returned a captured standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Viri also proposed the creation of a no-PK tavern after he said that, as well as many other things that eventually weren't to be, or were. And, really, he also said that you were to be perm-banned for the MUD. Don't try to pull the Viri card. I have a whole deck full of them. Not to mention, fundamentally, it's not 'no pk', it's 'caballed pk'. Either way you look at it, it's reducing the danger of this game. If that is what you want to do in this game...well...nothing I can say. I agree completely that opportunists ganging up on cabaled people is trash. But, just because you made some rule, does not make what I did wrong, fundamentally. Since, again. - I was alone the whole time. - I had been chasing him around forever. Any skilled person knows how difficult it is to chase a full blown runner with no lag skill. - He never once engaged in a PK battle while I was chasing him. - He is a cabaled Elder and should have the most dangerous life in the game, aside from a cabal Leader. - No OOC motivations had anything to do with this. - He could have camo'd - This game is a dangerous world, with thieves and crooks ready to take your life at any moment. Cabals are an epitomy of this danger. Why do we make rules to shield them from it? Everyone knows my history here Raargant, I've been going out of my way to be respectful with this. Why do you feel the need to even bring it up? I've changed tremendously and plan to keep it that way. Nothing i've ever done has anything to do with what we are talking about now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 As has been stated many times by everyone including you, this is ultimately a game. A game has rules by which it is played. Rules define a correct way to play a game and a wrong way. Breaking the rules is, by definition, wrong, so, yes, it does. This is not a rule that we are inclined to change at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 As has been stated many times by everyone including you, this is ultimately a game. A game has rules by which it is played. Rules define a correct way to play a game and a wrong way. Breaking the rules is, by definition, wrong, so, yes, it does. This is not a rule that we are inclined to change at this time. I understand that every game created has rules. Yet, rules are man-made, and are prone to have flaws. All I am doing here is helping point out what are, in my opinion, some flaws. I'm trying to do it while remaining civil and respectful. If you are found guilty of murder because of a flaw in the law, but then are pardoned by the President (stupid example I know)...does that make the law right? Im not here to debate whether or not I broke a rule. I am here to debate the rule in question, in order to re-establish something that again, in my opinion, is being taken away from this game. Its not the point that I couldn't catch him. It's not the point that I chose not to wait for him to move away. It's not any of the points you have brought up. The point is that we have a rule that shields a cabal ELDER from being attacked. Plain and simple. Cabals are the epitomy of danger, are they not? Cabaled people are supposed to be some of the best played chars in the game, are they not? I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle here lol...but anyhow, again. I am not angry at anyone and I hope I've retained some maturity and respect in this thread. Just because I don't agree with the rule that's made doesn't mean I think anyone is dumb, or wrong. I think the rule was a mistake and I'm here to try and prove my point, in hopes that it can be modified, or, if i have my way, removed completely lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 In other news....I just realized I've been debating this for over two and a half real hours.....I need a life. And a beer. Maybe a hug too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRins Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 I can offer none of the above...but my advice is jager bombs. They get me through the tough times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 I still have that bottle of Soco lying around lol. Stench is trying to make me have a shot right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khran Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 heh, og names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 I hate you. That was more like a double shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iyorvin Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 I just have one thing to say, I don't care if any listen, think about, or discredit it. I won't argue for it, or supply reason at all. Caballed people should not be able to randomly kill uncaballeds. You give a little you have to take a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirax Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 I agree with Iyvorin on that a caballed character randomly killing non caballed characters should be scrutinized (sp) much the same as breaking the cabal interferance rule. I think the rule on cabal interference is good because cabal life can be very hard and very fast the last thing you want is to get killed by some non caballed after youve been running around fighting, claiming their standard, retrieving yours, and trying to heal up a bit close to your cabal in preparation of their incoming attack. I got summoned from just outside my cabal and killed whilst waiting to be attacked does this also apply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iyorvin Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 I agree with Iyvorin on that a caballed character randomly killing non caballed characters should be scrutinized (sp) much the same as breaking the cabal interferance rule. I think the rule on cabal interference is good because cabal life can be very hard and very fast the last thing you want is to get killed by some non caballed after youve been running around fighting' date=' claiming their standard, retrieving yours, and trying to heal up a bit close to your cabal in preparation of their incoming attack. I got summoned from just outside my cabal and killed whilst waiting to be attacked does this also apply?[/quote'] LMAO. They can easily play ignorance here. How are they to know that is your cabal entrance? Some noob pin just pwned you and had to summon because they didn't know where you were Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirax Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Yeah true, but i thought everyone here was honest :eek: . Cant really moan about it to much as I was fully healed if under equipped, might have been harder to take had i been badly wounded and summoned whilst in battle. Have to remeber that tactic though Iyvorin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 It is never-ending with some of you people. We receive massive notes/complaints about how it is unfair that some uncaballed guy is saving a caballed guy's butt by killing guardians, or healing altars, and all other forms of "unfair play". Uncaballeds complain that they should not have their fun limited because their target is caballed. Obviously, it falls on the shoulders of the administrators to create a rule that is both fair and acceptabled by the whole playerbase. This is impossible, as someone will always find a reason to complain. Thus - we institute a rule that does not grant caballed players a pk shield AND it takes away some of the bothersome clannies and OOC people who like to interfere with cabal politics. Furthermore, Gangbanging is frowned upon. If it gets too out of hand, we do reserve the right to make it illegal. Consequently, we have not gone down that road again but it always remains an option. As it stands, this was never a problem in 1.0 because caballed guards were aggro against anyone who was not a member of that cabal. In the interest of alliances and to make the MUD newbie friendly (how many old timers remember being destroyed by those guards when they were newer?) we decided to adopt this new system. Frankly speaking, this is a lose-lose situation for the administration. If we remove or revise the mandate, we just open the doors for different problems. The rule is fine as it stands, and it is perfect in its simplicity: If you are not in a cabal, do not attack/heal cabal altars/guardians - also do not attack cabal members up to and including two rooms away from their cabal altar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Not to puff up myself, except I am, but this is where people like me come in handy. I don't think I've ever actively complained about something in my entire FL career. BAHAHA! Not that I don't agree sometimes with people, but I've never really cared enough to make it an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iyorvin Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 It is never-ending with some of you people. You people? YOU PEOPLE!?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirax Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Not to puff up myself' date=' except I am, but this is where people like me come in handy. I don't think I've ever actively complained about something in my entire FL career. BAHAHA! Not that I don't agree sometimes with people, but I've never really cared enough to make it an issue.[/quote'] Yeah but you openly admit to dancing worse to enjoying to dance, so your not perfect. Only kidding couldnt resist, now fox trot along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Kid Wonder Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Hell. Make the mobs aggro again. Number one way to show people that that place is not a safe place to be if you are not allied to or of that cabal. I got killed by the WM guardian when I first started and I learned: Don't go back there unless I want a face full of pain. Teaches you the places you shouldn't go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Yeah but you openly admit to dancing worse to enjoying to dance, so your not perfect. Only kidding couldnt resist, now fox trot along Touche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Hell. Make the mobs aggro again. Number one way to show people that that place is not a safe place to be if you are not allied to or of that cabal. I got killed by the WM guardian when I first started and I learned: Don't go back there unless I want a face full of pain. Teaches you the places you shouldn't go. Not real newbie friendly. And yes, I too got toasted by the WM guardian. Even tried to heal the Savant "warning" wounded elf warrior. Something we've considered but never come to consensus on is making them aggro toward a certain rank level and above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Frankly speaking, this is a lose-lose situation for the administration. If we remove or revise the mandate, we just open the doors for different problems. The rule is fine as it stands, and it is perfect in its simplicity: If you are not in a cabal, do not attack/heal cabal altars/guardians - also do not attack cabal members up to and including two rooms away from their cabal altar. I suppose that that is my problem. I think the world of Aabahran should be anything goes, for the most part. RP should be enforced strictly and without mercy, else the "world" ceases to exist. Nobody should be babysat. Nobody should be punished (as long as their RP is sound). It was strictly within my characters RP to kill the person I was going after. But, because of something OOC ( a rule that was established for reasons that I did not act within), i was punished. Multikilling and ganging is acceptable at 50 per the helpfiles as far as I remember. That's the way this game was made and that's the way it should stay. The world of Aabahran at the pinnacle is a merciless, ruthless world. Start throwing all these OOC morals and rules and theories into it...and you've eliminated some of the very reasons we all play here. Our characters can no longer be themselves because now we are too concerned with not breaking rules because if we do, we die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 I suppose that that is my problem. I think the world of Aabahran should be anything goes, for the most part. RP should be enforced strictly and without mercy, else the "world" ceases to exist. Nobody should be babysat. Nobody should be punished (as long as their RP is sound). It was strictly within my characters RP to kill the person I was going after. But, because of something OOC ( a rule that was established for reasons that I did not act within), i was punished. Multikilling and ganging is acceptable at 50 per the helpfiles as far as I remember. That's the way this game was made and that's the way it should stay. The world of Aabahran at the pinnacle is a merciless, ruthless world. Start throwing all these OOC morals and rules and theories into it...and you've eliminated some of the very reasons we all play here. Our characters can no longer be themselves because now we are too concerned with not breaking rules because if we do, we die. Nothing OOC, moral, or theoretical about it. It's a rule, plain and simple, like all the others we have here. You don't get to ignore the rules just like no one else can. Your opinion is your own and you're welcome to it. We, the staff, do not agree with you, thus, the rule stays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 FL is a game. Albeit a highly addictive one, it is still a game. We have more to think about than one players fun. We have to think about things that make it fun for everyone. This is the purpose of rules. There are times that we have to restrict PK for RP and there are other times we have to suspend RP for PK purposes. It is all give and take. As has been the general conclusion from watching both sides (With the mandate and without), the staff has been able to agree that the mandate better serves the game at this point in time. It stays. p.s. I suspect the only reason we have heard the sudden outcry is because under my initiative, we have started punishing violaters of this mandate quite harshly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Well I hope this thread shows that it's not just ONE players fun that's being diminished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fīv Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Aabahran is a dangerous place but it is also a HUGE place of over 30000 rooms. That is a false statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.