Illarion.org

Shouldn't molotovs be able to and have a higher chance to burn something rather than campfires?

Sounds logical.

Of course they should.

That has been an idea of our programmers too, but the abuse would be too high.

The burning chance is NOT thought for burning down buildings/things as an attack or the like.
The burning chance is a simulated ACCIDENT.

I have to remind you :
Any action to use fires with the intention to burn down anything is a system abuse and will, in this case, be punished with a permanent ban and/or character deletion.

Lovely tone of your post Damien. Always so optimistic aren't you? Just joking of course.

If it is abused it can be looked into Damien. Now, if some knight threw one at a bandit and accidentally burnt down a building I think it would be interesting RP.

But, if it is to hard to implement then so be it.

Does a knight carry molotov cocktails with himself to throw it at his enemys?
If yes, what for a person wouldn't think of the possibility that the fire could burn down the building next to it and would a knight actually throw a molotov then?

Groot Knorchen wrote:Does a knight carry molotov cocktails with himself to throw it at his enemys?
If yes, what for a person wouldn't think of the possibility that the fire could burn down the building next to it and would a knight actually throw a molotov then?

It was hypothetical. (Groot, Was your post supposed to be humorous, constructive, or demeaning? Just wondering)

The burning chance is NOT thought for burning down buildings/things as an attack or the like.
The burning chance is a simulated ACCIDENT.

I have to remind you :
Any action to use fires with the intention to burn down anything is a system abuse and will, in this case, be punished with a permanent ban and/or character deletion.

so martin and vilarions chars will be banned since they used it not as an accident but to burn down a building?

honestly...that feature was not needed. you are not allowed to burn down houses. it is just meant to make you stop starting campfires inside towns. in the past peoples often said that they miss the campfire sessions. where you could sit infront of the shop for example and talk with others. now you can't do that anymore. since there is the chance that you burn down the town.
it also means that cooks have either to use the never stopping flames in the towns, or they have to go far away from a town to cook something.

I think this feature would have been better with a possibility to avoid wildfires. like a new skill or simply a tool. like avoiding a fire to turn into a wildfire even by chance when using it on not burnable ground. like roads, mountainareas, marble, and so on. towns could build such spots as camp sides or so. or a campfire wont turn into a wildfire aslong as the char still stands infront of it, watching over the fire. the chance to turn into a campfire will be count once the char walks away from the fire, means leave it behind unwatched. not before.

Lrmy wrote:

Groot Knorchen wrote:Does a knight carry molotov cocktails with himself to throw it at his enemys?
If yes, what for a person wouldn't think of the possibility that the fire could burn down the building next to it and would a knight actually throw a molotov then?

It was hypothetical. (Groot, Was your post supposed to be humorous, constructive, or demeaning? Just wondering)

Of course it wasn't supposed to be demeaning.

But I don't think that the GMs will instantly ban everyone who causes a big fire, only the ones who intend to burn down something.

So the player of the knight wouldn't be banned for accidently burning down a building, I think.

Samantha Meryadeles wrote:

The burning chance is NOT thought for burning down buildings/things as an attack or the like.
The burning chance is a simulated ACCIDENT.

I have to remind you :
Any action to use fires with the intention to burn down anything is a system abuse and will, in this case, be punished with a permanent ban and/or character deletion.

so martin and vilarions chars will be banned since they used it not as an accident but to burn down a building?

honestly...that feature was not needed. you are not allowed to burn down houses. it is just meant to make you stop starting campfires inside towns. in the past peoples often said that they miss the campfire sessions. where you could sit infront of the shop for example and talk with others. now you can't do that anymore. since there is the chance that you burn down the town.
it also means that cooks have either to use the never stopping flames in the towns, or they have to go far away from a town to cook something.

I think this feature would have been better with a possibility to avoid wildfires. like a new skill or simply a tool. like avoiding a fire to turn into a wildfire even by chance when using it on not burnable ground. like roads, mountainareas, marble, and so on. towns could build such spots as camp sides or so. or a campfire wont turn into a wildfire aslong as the char still stands infront of it, watching over the fire. the chance to turn into a campfire will be count once the char walks away from the fire, means leave it behind unwatched. not before.

I think a tool is a great idea.. Maybe the tool allows you to keep the fire going and contain it at the same time, maybe it would need to be used on the fire every minute. This would keep fires going(easier for those campfire side rping adventures) as well as containing.

Heh, also...grass had better not be flamable in the winter(with the snow i mean).

Thats a proposal, there for the proposal board is used.

Oh, sorry Nitters my fingers were just spewing my thoughts...I'll post it there.

Damien wrote:Any action to use fires with the intention to burn down anything is a system abuse and will, in this case, be punished with a permanent ban and/or character deletion.

This is not true.

What is illegal is to try to burn down something using a million campfires (to get a high chance to actually start a wildfire). It is totally legal to try to light 2 or 3 campfires to try that.

Martin

I could also have written "many" before the "fires".
Even with a few fires, there is a good chance of abuse by just trying it again and again.

Then apparently martin doesn't consider it abuse. Could we get an OFFICIAL staff statement on this, on which everyone agrees?

Damien wrote:I could also have written "many" before the "fires".
Even with a few fires, there is a good chance of abuse by just trying it again and again.

"Again and again" and "a few" is a contradiction.

Martin

What if you really want to burn that with a valid RP reason? Like a siege or a raid dunno. Do you really have to ask a GM to come and plant a wildfire?

They wont ban you if you give them a good enough reason after words I don't think.

Avalyon el'Hattarr wrote:What if you really want to burn that with a valid RP reason? Like a siege or a raid dunno. Do you really have to ask a GM to come and plant a wildfire?

How would you prevent the next fool from burning down the whole map?

Martin

Care to explain your question better Martin?

Lrmy wrote:Care to explain your question better Martin?

Yes, I do care.

If everyone can easily start a wildfire, and a wildfire can burn down a whole forrest or a whole town (as it is now), how do we prevent every idiot from doing that?

Do I get paid for thinking for everyone?
No. Unfortunately not.

Thanks,

Martin

Em.. what one does IG should stay a IG problem not be brough OOC, IMHO.

BUT, do remember that in the medieval times, setting something alight on purpose, to start an inferno, was punished by decapitation.

impossible..

if you want that, we also need to implement permanent death than a normal punishment against doing that, also against the wish of the player.

And i would want a automaticall NPC service to kill everything, which comes closer than 5 yeards to my castle.

Since this is can cause damage at a large scale, I have noithing against punishing the one doing it with a permanent death - char ban (same this as the rule only bought IG)

Lennier wrote:And i would want a automaticall NPC service to kill everything, which comes closer than 5 yeards to my castle.

You don't need an NPC for this. There's the Silver Sword. ;)

martin wrote:

Lrmy wrote:Care to explain your question better Martin?

Yes, I do care.

If everyone can easily start a wildfire, and a wildfire can burn down a whole forrest or a whole town (as it is now), how do we prevent every idiot from doing that?

Do I get paid for thinking for everyone?
No. Unfortunately not.

Thanks,

Martin

Sorry Martin, I really did not mean to be rude if you took it like that, really , I am sorry. i just didn't understand your question and based upon the fact you got no response until you re-iterated the question, I do not think many others did either.

In fact, if you follow my first red line, you can't do much wrong. It may not hit the exact meaning of martins words but you're on the safe side of not getting banned then.
Although martins statement said that this line is not fully true since IF you want to PERHAPS burn down something and use a TOTAL number of only 1-3 fires(over a longer period of time of course), it COULD be considered as not necessarily a full abuse/ban reason.
Anyhow i still think that the whole map will burn down if we define it like that. There's Murphy's law, and it usually never fails.

Hmm....

1) Plant trees next to each other from town to town
2) Plant a few trees away from the town, touching
3) Set 'fuse' alight
4) Dance

speaking about that....can u grab a branch or somthing set on fire and use it as a torch and THEN light somthing/place/person up that would be cool....i think and cant you use a bucket of water and right click Use With... and put it out?

No.