Trosis wrote:
Wars before CRS: that's true. And people did it well. This was also while the playerbase was at large and had more freedom to create these stories.
Truth. (though to be sure, there were still lots of badly-played wars before CRS too)
Trosis wrote:
I'm still bitter that all the vets have been banned.
Bitterness not withstanding, this statement is hyperbole, not factual. A handful of vets have been banned. In most (all?) of these cases, the vet in question had received multiple warnings but still chose to break established rules until the ban was applied. It sucks, but I can't make those choices for them. For the record, there's nobody who has been banned just for harsh PK or PK+loot with RP justification. Nor for engaging in a harsh PK or PK+loot
without RP justification- every occasion I can think of resulted in a verbal warning or a small penalty. Remember also that a ban from the forums is NOT the same as a ban from the game.
Trosis wrote:
I would rather go back to that time far more than I would like to log in with 1 person online and then practice spells for 3 hours. You take the good with the bad, and that builds character.
True, me too. I'd rather go back to the time of 30+, 60+ who lists. I also never want to go back to the time of flagrant, brazen cheating. You may not know how bad it got.
Trosis wrote:
Revisit my Tribunal Warfare post from a year ago. Make that happen. It would revolutionize Pve and pvp.
I'll look for the link.
Trosis wrote:
Battle for Grahme:
Thank you for it. It really was what SK should have been all about. I wish the lifhties were as prepared as the darkies. The negative reviews were just biased because they lost. It could be improved, but definitely one of my biggest highlights.
You're welcome, and thank you for the participation + feedback afterward. The lighties knew it would be a challenge, and none of them in the faction were active PKers. They made a great effort. Unfortunately, some of them were players who chose to leave the game due to the kind of OOC harassment we were forced to crack down on. The worst reviews came from players who chose not to participate or who only participated as far as they could try to ambush it. There was definitely room for improvement, and someday I hope to do a similar event, integrating the constructive feedback received.
Trosis wrote:
RP before PK:
It was this that made it difficult. The fact that RP had to come BEFORE PK made things a little tough. The Black Rose couldn't exist because they were paid to kill without RP with that character. I think this was the limitation. All PK influences RP. And that's my point. If you PK and then go silent mode, then sure. Not cool. But kill them and then tell them why.
Good points. IMO the Black Rose could (should) exist. If you're hiring Person A to kill Person X... theoretically, you have had some kind of RP interaction or reason for wanting Person X dead. You engage in RP with Person A to take out the hit. And then after Person A kills Person X, there should be some kind of RP so that Person X understands 'why' they were assassinated (IMO, that means they know that they were the target of a contract killing, even if they don't know by whom, or precisely why). This is still a situation driven by roleplay and IMO should be completely legitimate and 90% of people would 'get it'.
Unfortunately, rules are often forced to be tailored to that 10% who don't get it. Either they are upset because they wanted to run their mouth without consequences or more often, a player wants to kill/loot another character for OOC reasons; because of the PLAYER behind it; or because of a previous character they disliked; or because Person X is a "fountain RPer"/ mudsexxer/ or other type of player whom they think doesn't play SK "right".
The "Golden Rule" would be sufficient if all players and all humans were reasonable, respectful, and/or courteous. But that's not the case, and unfortunately, rules often must be amended to address those who intentionally use the letter of the law to evade the spirit of the law.