Ok, I haven't completely thought this out, but I thought it might make
a good discussion... What if people can have a short list of allies
who can override a "reject" decision against them because they're an ally
of someone who was attacked...
OK, so A attacks B... B has a friend (C) who's an ally, but A is
rejecting C... Because C is on B's list, C can attack A even though
he's rejected.
This would be useful in cases of husband and wives being attacked (or
other family ties) As well as strong friendship or other RP situations.
Maybe if you could only have one or two allies and they're a perminant
decision - meaning that once you pick the person, you're stuck with
that decision until you or they perma...
Making it a perminant decision would also strengthen relationships
on the mud and force people to be serious and more "realistic" about
choosing lifelong-friends. And perhaps there's some sort of situation
where the allies are perminantly accepting each other so you'd have
to be certain the ally is trustworthy. (not sure about this part, might
open some problems.)
What do you guys think?
From: Fook
Thursday, August 02 2001, 01:35AM
I think this should probably be an Immortal
set thing and also probably needs major IC support.
Not to force RP upon those of you who just want
to run around killing folks and need a buddy for back up,
Maybe the first Ally is free, but any further Ally's need
major RP support, such as Family ties, marriages,
or something else equally bonding.
From: Chaykin
Thursday, August 02 2001, 01:37AM
I agree that this is an issue with pk that deserves some attention.
It happened to one of my characters recently that someone they were
very close to IC was attacked and there was nothing he could do to stop
or avenge it. That feeling of helplessness is the worst, and the practice
of killing one person and refusing to accept their husband/mate/whatever
is poor RP practice and downright cheap. It's great that we can pick our
battles under pkok, but this is a side issue that really detracts from
the IC aspect of it.
I know it's against the nature of pkok to have any situation in which a
person can kill someone who hasn't accepted them, but please give this
idea some consideration, or at least let's discuss it in hopes of finding
some sort of compromise or a better idea for solving this problem.
Chay and co.
From: Yui
Thursday, August 02 2001, 02:36AM
What we don't like the fact that you can have
a party of 21 AA's and 1 enabled punk accepts
only your tank and the other 20 people can only
get warnings for pk interferance if they do
anything?
Great idea though. Somehow IC pk should have
consequences. There is nothing like a pk
situation where the action can not be held
accountable by IC personalities.
The only quasi solution to this is to max
out your accept lists with IC adversaries but
then you would never know if the other idiot
has all of a sudden rejected everyone but you.
It would be nice if friends showed us all who
could jump you. This would allow for IC
groups mates to check the list and if the
other is not accepting the clan/both husband
and wife to politely just reject the idiot.
I feel pkok still has a lot of growing to do.
Yui
From: Archaon
Thursday, August 02 2001, 07:54AM
This is a GREAT idea!!
but i think if you are going to do that then make it
so that if person A attacks a group with persons B C and D, even
if person A is only accepting person B, then persons C and D can
still join in, as it is really anoying when you get jumped
in a group and the person is only accepting his target.
Also the permancy is a good but bad thing about it.
If you made it cost a redemption to change it then that could be good
the main reason why having it permant is bad, is what if RL causes
one of your buddies to either have to archive, or log on once in a while
Now that would really suck, having everyone on you list inoperative.
But if you made it so that when they archived that all ties dissapeard
then it would be abused. So to avoid this, i think the redemption
and perhaps Imm consent to chars that have been in archive for long period
would work best.
Hugeo and Victor
Well thats what i think anyway!
-Archaon
Oh BTW that last bit was from a TV show called victor and hugeo
From: Sammael
Thursday, August 02 2001, 03:11PM
I've never seen a group of 21 aa's. I see groups of 21 NON aa's who at
the drop of a dime all GO aa if you attack one of them. This is the
problem I'd like to see addressed. You almost have to accept only
one person of a group, otherwise the ENTIRE group will accept you,
then reject in 48 ticks. So you bring that upon yourself Yui.
From: Zafira
Thursday, August 02 2001, 06:41PM
It sounds like an excellent idea to me.
From: LadyAce
Thursday, August 02 2001, 08:48PM
The best thing to do in a group situation where people want to be able
to defend each other is to match up your accept lists.
With pkok, we took a major step away from any kind of compulsion to
fight some particular person in pk just because they want you to
fight them. We did that to give players more power to protect
themselves against harassment and against being forced to pk with
people they don't want to pk with. I am sympathetic to wanting to
be able to defend friends, but I really think that matching accept
lists are the best way to do that.
If we create situations of 'one-time choice' -- of any description --
we re-create the same problems of people not being able to change their
mind based on their experiences and circumstances.
-LA
From: LadyAce
Thursday, August 02 2001, 10:06PM
One additional thought ... it might be possible to have a command which
synchronized your accept list to someone else's with one word. Maybe
it could be a temporary thing which you toggled off with another command
later on, and you'd revert to your original list. I.e.:
SL group forms, synchronizes their accept lists, has their run, finishes,
toggles their lists back to the original when they finish.
Hmmm....
From: Ganymede
Thursday, August 02 2001, 11:19PM
The problem is, even if you and your friend/spouse/whomever have matching
accept lists, there's nothing to stop the attacker from having only one
of you accepted and attacking that person. You could both reject someone
who would do such a thing, but where that gets tricky is where clan
accepts are involved. If you're in a pk clan and have a lot of clans
accepted (as per the whole point of being IN a pk clan), clan members
don't have the power to do this.
Ganymede et al.
From: Yui
Friday, August 03 2001, 11:16AM
A lot of this issue is holding people
accountible for their actions.
Why do group jumpers who try and accept
only 1 member of the group whine when
the others attempt to defend or pk
interfere? If you are grouped with me in
an SL/PD/AT run then by gosh I'll keep you
alive else my mana will get too low for the
run, else we may not have enough hitters
and all the non-pkers die.. etc.
If that involves pk interference then by
gosh give me warning. As part of a group
it is my task to provide healing to keep
the group alive so they can complete the
run.
Members who tend to jump tend to do it
with impunity and expect not to be held
accountable by the group for their action
have no sympathy by me at all.
Such disgusting behaviour and loop holes
have turned me off the whole issue anyhow.
Yui
From: LadyAce
Friday, August 03 2001, 03:25PM
If you have someone accepted, then by definition you can't be charged with
pk interference. If you have matching accept lists, then you can do anythi
ng you want to help your friend, even if the attacking enemy has you
rejected. I can understand that this isn't the same as them having you
accepted...but the ability to wake, heal, chant spells or scrolls,etc.
can be pretty helpful.
-LA
From: Chaykin
Friday, August 03 2001, 07:05PM
...unless you aren't there when your friend gets attacked/killed. Yes
it's possible to help someone out who is grouped with you, but what
about simply holding a killer accountable for their previous actions
against a friend/husband/wife/child/etc when you are both in a pkclan?
Shouldn't there be a way to do this? To me, it seems counterintuitive to
the goal of forming communal bonds in an RP sense, otherwise.
Chay and co.
From: LadyAce
Sunday, August 05 2001, 03:13PM
If you're both pkclan members, then your GMs should accept each other's
clans ...
From: Yui
Sunday, August 05 2001, 06:10PM
gr pc
operate orphen have the builders have floorplans
you could buy from a shopkeeper with the
room names.
Yui
