Table of Contents

PK-OK (long, but...)

The discussion board Topics

Posted by Fatale on 09/04

After reading through a week's worth of spam on the pk-ok issue, I have to say that it seems like a lot of folks are getting way too worked up over something that's been said to be nowhere near set in stone and not many ideas from imms have been posted about it. That being said, I had a few ideas of my own to address a couple concerns.

1. I think that people should still need to be pkenabled by an imm and should still only be allowed one character to pk with. This rule has been basically the only one in pk that I have never seen hotly debated, so it is agreed all around that people should be limited to one pkiller.

2. The pk-all folks will have to be protected from the pk-ok folks. I had two ideas for this, both would probably work. The first one is, if you attack someone and you're pk-ok, and you kill them, you will not be able to turn it off until they kill you. The other one is, if you're pk-ok, you will have to toggle pk-all on for a set amount of time after a period of time (For example purposes, one hour out of every 24, this is hours played not hours in a day). So after you've been on for 24 hours, you will either have to set yourself to pk-all for one hour or lose a minimal amount of experience until you have been pk-all for an hour. I think that this will relieve some of the concerns of the pk-all faction about not having enough people to kill and also not being able to retaliate on someone taunting them or being rude.

3. There should be a timer of sorts against multi. Either you can't be killed by the person who killed you again or you can't be killed for a set amount of ticks.

4. Have pk-ok be based entirely on befriend. You can't attack someone who you're not befriended to and vice versa, including pk-all people. Pk-all people can attack people who are pk-all with no limits.

5. Have two entirely different divisions in pkill, pk-sport and pk-rp. I personally think this would suck since it'd defeat the whole purpose of integrating pkill and rp together, although it'd seem that pk-ok will also do exactly that. Basically, when you ask to be pk-enabled, you get asked whether you want to be a sport-style pkiller or if you want to be an RP pkiller. (I think the division of this is self-explanatory) The biggest downfall I can see of this idea is that you could just tell the imm who's clanning you that you want to be an rp-pkiller but then kill them all for sport. I suppose a punishment for this could be made.

I personally like the idea of pk-ok. It'll allow the people who want to pk when they want to and will also allow people who want to randomly attack people to still do this (of course, there might be a drop in the number of pkillers, but there might not). I hope these suggestions can help breed more discussion on the topic, instead of the resentment I've seen towards a system that is only in the development stage. I know you've all heard about pk-ok, and I know a lot of you don't like the idea, but instead of just dismissing it, you should all participate towards a pk-ok system that is balanced and fair to all divisions of pkill.

Fatale the Redundant and tired of the constant talk of pk-ok

From: Darkheart Saturday, September 04, 12:15AM

One pker per player would, imho, eliminate all advantages I can see from the PKOK proposal, but that is just me.

The idea i have for selective pkok is this -- you have to be in a RP clan to enjoy selective PKOK, and your opponents are limited to those within your RP clan.

These clans should be bigger than the current 15, probably, and will probably more likely be a RP player grouping rather than a clan formed by ppl with similar thoughts.

Such clans, as i see it, could be headed by a patron imm, who would oversee joining and the time-to-time interclan interactions as RP miniplots and tinyplots occur.

The rest of the world will still be divided into PKOKall or nopk, but with players getting the option of having at least one pkokall, and several nopk or selective pk chars.

For example, I could have Darkheart as PKOKall, who could possibly decide to write an LT article, join a selective pk clan and effectively retire from pkokall.

At the same time I could have Agni and Papercut in "past-secs" clan or any other RPk clan who would battle others in that clan unless some tinyplot dictates that the past-secs clan fight with past-merc clan, which would probably work under "befriend clan."

This will happen all the while I have Warke hobbling about as nopk.

Darkheart Harkzael

From: Darkheart Saturday, September 04, 12:22AM

oh yeah, if i wasn't clear -- selective pkok chars won't be able to fight pkokall chars at all, unless with befriend clan. befriending a pkokall clan by a selective pkok clan would be done by paying the pkokall clan (from the selective pkclan) an amount of xp that is deducted by the xp of its members... or something like that :p

From: Pharku Saturday, September 04, 12:28AM

One pker per player is fine by me just as long as I am able to switch between them.. Not immediate but with say a week delay between switching off from pk with one, to enabling with the other.

From: Brew Saturday, September 04, 01:01AM

Instead of RP-PKOK clans, why not guilds (like I hear legend used to be) certain guildes should certainly be able to kill people assassins guilds, thief guilds, even wizard guildes

this would allow clans to stay tight knit groups of players, while a guild can be headed by an Imm

Then appropriate action can be taken against rule breakers by the guildmaster (an Imm) instead of a lax or linieant (sp?) player (add in approving :P) Just a thought



WWW Discussion Board