Discussion Archives Index

Idea for a PK reject override...

Current Index

Posted by Ken on 08/05

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


Current Index