Proposal: OOC Rules for Ingame Wars

Korm Kormsen · Post by **Korm Kormsen** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:42 pm

Arameh_,

i understand your point about war tourists.
but if i think about the PKing or missunderstanding, (whatever it was), i got upset about,
my char did just what he had to do: moving around in the only town with all facilities.
or should all noobs stay in greenbriar and other "uninteresting" places, so that some oldtimers can play havoc in T.B.?

korm

Thurbert~ · Post by **Thurbert~** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:01 pm

Love you too stephen, especially for paragraph 6, like I care.

Tanistian_Kanea · Post by **Tanistian_Kanea** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:35 pm

I am defenatly think these rules should be more of guidlines, a basis. some of them are good. Here's what I think of the rules.

1. Not needed guidline for those that may have questions. Other then that players should know when they have been killed enough times so that they are no longer fit for combat, and should roleplay as such. They should also why they cannot and how long it would take to heel. For example a deep cut and sliced muscle would limit on arm off, takes a few weeks to heel before he is back and should have a scare. Were as if the arm was completly removed it doesn't grow back, a few weeks for stump to heel then he should no longer use that arm for sheild or holding weapons.

2. included in 1

3. Leader should have same amount of lives but should keep in mind real life wars. The leader would be directing forces from the back of the forces so that if he is attacked in generally means he has lost anyway. So leaders same as everyone else, they must think how to preserve themselves just like everyone else.

4. No interfering gm's. Armour and skills in dependant on the person in question and what the group has a whole can ofer just like rl.

5. Role play could have a certain amount of effectiveness in deciding outcome. A good example is fairies. A fairy with a bow couple hundred yards up could shoot down at you, you still have chance to dodge if you happen to see it, but he would be out of range of most bows so you wouldn't actually attack him even if he is in the square next to you. Same for ducking behind counters or barrels, wouldn't be able to shoot them till they pop up or you have a clear shot. I think i understood the question for this one but it is kinda misworded. So thats the answer i can best give for this.

6. Sorry for this one simple. If you loose items tuff luck. Thats life don't bitch about it cause we don't want to hear it.

7. This is part of six but seems to be a diferent rule. For consideration of time diferences simply pick a time that usually has alot of people on. For me in Canada this would be early morning around 10. Don't however call seige in the middle of the night when both countries are sleeping and you are the only ones on now that there are more people there should be at least 30 people on and the leader. As for bettle fields, as in real life the leaders send messengers and decide on a date in which they shall confront each other, this is also a a chance to surrender, offer freedoms ext. example. So surrender now or we attack. you have two days to decide. You now have 2 days to plan a conter attack.

This is my opinion. For these matters it is like a tell new players and others do as well. Think of this as real life. Act like it is real life. If it wouldn't happen in real life then it shouldn't happen here, with exceptions, Magic

.

Nalzaxx · Post by **Nalzaxx** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:58 pm

No no no no no.

Wars are fine the way they are. If you want to introduce ingame chivalry to wars then by all means go ahead. But just cut the OOC crap surrounding it. I find it highly suspicious you only post this after you start loosing.

In either case, this shouldn't be enforced. It is up to the individual RP of each character to decide his place and abilities in a battle.

As was said, this makes the game too number orientated and swayed towards those who have the long hours and desire to train their characters up.

GM's are an integral part of war which both make it interesting and yes, fair. I don't think you fully understand how much the temple was restrained as well as aided by the GM's helping us. In the same vein, pushed characters are there for a reason, it is ridiculous to keep them out of conflict altogether. We have our own restraints on what we can and cannot do.

As it so happens, Nalzaxx is the only pushed member of the temple remaining. So Galthran and co can do whatever the hell they like. Enough of your OOC banterings here. If you don't like something get ingame and change it.

Dónal Mason · Post by **Dónal Mason** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:03 pm

I agree with Nalzaxx. These proposals are utterly self serving.

Gort Greegog · Post by **Gort Greegog** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:08 pm

You people are PK CRAZY. I mean come on. I can see it now.

Bob: Hey Fred! John over there died twice already! I can't belive he logged on! ROFL
Fred nods and pulls out his sword.
Bob attacks John.
Fred slashes his sword with might and speed at John.
John: You have been killed. Go to the Yellow Cross to get Resurrescted!!!
Fred: Good they only have seven more to kill!
Bob: Yes, thoe Frank has died four times and one more we win.
Fred: Yea pretty much.

This will be every battle in the game. There won't be any fun in it. What if John had been oh lets say tailoring(Caugh-caugh.)and got pked? Wheres the Role Play. No, Wheres the fun?

I say we just set up a battle next weekend or someting. The winner will keep what they want. The looser will back down and forget the conflict instead of coing back in three days with more people they were able to round up.

Let's face it, no way this conflict will be near solved without OOC organzing.

Fooser · Post by **Fooser** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:48 pm

Why does a leader get 5? They are no less mortal than the people who get three. Of course they're going to get targeted, that's the risk that is taken in a struggle.

#4, happens to much, unfortunately

#6 in my experience isn't possible for some people, they just have no class at all

Edit: I see there was an edited version later that was different, but I was too lazy to read, so yeah

Restrictions = lame

Garett Gwenour · Post by **Garett Gwenour** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:51 am

Leaders get five because as I recently encountered, I log on and 5 enemies log on and attack me

This doesn't happen to someone like Liles or Tahlian or whatever.
And no, these rules won't help me at all. If one of you could actually provide an arguement about how they are utterly self serving instead of simply throwing that out there to satisfy your own half baked conspiracy theories.

Damien · Post by **Damien** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:25 am

There are enough stupid, cheap war games around.

All illarion needs is some time related weakness / fighting inability after being hurt badly.

Errian Abêth · Post by **Errian Abêth** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:25 am

Leaders get five because as I recently encountered, I log on and 5 enemies log on and attack me

Still it doesn't give a leader more lives than other people have. Everytime the important persons are more at risk than others.

Even if the rules are not selv serving... I think there were a lot of good reasons named to not establish them...

Aristeaus · Post by **Aristeaus** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:18 am

Stephen and Grant have lost a life

Garett Gwenour · Post by **Garett Gwenour** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:26 am

Haha indeed

Nevas · Post by **Nevas** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:48 am

Garett Gwenour wrote:If one of you could actually provide an arguement about how they are utterly self serving instead of simply throwing that out there to satisfy your own half baked conspiracy theories.

Well, obviously, Stephen Rothman is an illuminati.

Duh.

Fooser · Post by **Fooser** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:11 am

omg I challenge you to a duel!

And you!

And your momma!

---

/impressionofRPGforum

Ku 'Agor · Post by **Ku 'Agor** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:11 am

Grant's lost atleast six from Ku. >.>

Garett Gwenour · Post by **Garett Gwenour** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:07 am

I am more then willing to accept these rules and force those with stephen to accept them as well if others would. I feel this should be tried so wars do not drag on and on.

Gort Greegog · Post by **Gort Greegog** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:54 am

What is there to stop people from logging in and killing some one that is alone? Stephen can just pick off the other side.

Ku 'Agor · Post by **Ku 'Agor** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:46 pm

I don't even think there is a war. Stephen is in hiding, Grant gets his ass kicked by everyone, and Trollsbane has a new leader. All that basicly remains is giving the dwarfs a bunch of keys.

Garett Gwenour · Post by **Garett Gwenour** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:36 pm

Stephen is in Silverbrand and is around pretty often actually.

Poots · Post by **Poots** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:25 pm

in silverbrand?

Hu'greu · Post by **Hu'greu** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm

yeah I seen him there, but now hes in trolls bane, try both thoses place if you want to find him

Retlak · Post by **Retlak** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:32 pm

Why do i never see Stephen in Silverbrand? i am always there lol.

Siltaris · Post by **Siltaris** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:16 am

I am against these rules. It is a RP game and not a strategy game. Play, win, loose, whatever. But no crappy rules whereafter most people will argue about people who maybe have broken the rules.

Korm Kormsen · Post by **Korm Kormsen** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:26 am

talking about rules...

why not make another rule?

the next governer of trollsbane has to be elected by its citizens within.... days.

end of proposed new rule....

Fooser · Post by **Fooser** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:32 am

I like my rules better:

1) Stephen is nub.

2) Stephen loses by default.

3) Whoever beats Stephen loses by default as well if Fooser is involved.

Who's with me?

Garett Gwenour · Post by **Garett Gwenour** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:49 am

#me pwns fooser, go back to BF2 sarge.

Maliss · Post by **Maliss** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:18 am

What amazes me is every other roleplaying game i have encountered manages to employ rules regarding combat.
Rules of engagement are a widely used term in role play shard/game world...
These avoid pking, allow winners to be decided and stop wars being held at 3am in the morning.
I would love to believe that illarion does not employ such due to the mature and fair manner in which players conduct pvp encounters and war fare.
Yet such was not my experience, seemingly the reason for not clearly defining wars, town sieges and takeovers etc is we cannot enforce them?

If his do not work find some that do work for you all, as even when i played. It was common place for one faction to wait for all the guards to log off and come to town to look for a fight.
If you wish a game non skill based, encouraging crafters, pure rp and warrior characters in a dynamic non GM controlled world.
You really are going to have make some rules around combat and what constitutes a siege and when a war/location is lost.

Brian/pendar etc etc

Korm Kormsen · Post by **Korm Kormsen** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:55 am

Maliss,

generally you are right, i think...

but:

...and stop wars being held at 3am in the morning.

3 am for whom?

9 pm would be a fine time. mid western time? that would be 3 am in england and 4 am in germany

in this multinational game you cant evade inconvinient times, i think.

korm

Edit: for me it's 1 am now, i go to bed. good morning to the germans, who are standing up at 7 am now....

Pendar · Post by **Pendar** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:40 pm

That is why there need to be rules that encourage both sides to link up. One side gets on earlier, one side stays up later maybe host it on a weekend.
And in this manner your problem is solved.

Devrah Liioness · Post by **Devrah Liioness** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:18 pm

PENDAR?!