Shattered Kingdoms

The only reason Razzael got there "untouched" was due to sanctuary and guards bouncing off of it. No matter what you do, I could still avoid guards even if you stack 100 in the inn, GM sanctuary will not be any weaker. I dont see your point there.

Also, oh my god, this thread is freaking hilarious. Mund, are you purposefully trolling Snuffles here, or did you really not understand the point he's made about forty times in this thread?

Edit: Actually, never mind, that would have been out of character for you and I should have known it was unintentional. Damn, though, this thread is hilarious. It was funny enough when syn didn't get it and Snuffles was all like "wtf, is my English that bad?"

I "got it".

The only way anybody other than Razzael should have died in that log is if they had been AFK.

Snuffles post had no relevance. Cities are perfectly safe, because the whole [REDACTED] game is perfectly safe. It takes a failure on the player's behalf to die, 90% of the time.

I'm just going to avoid responding here anymore, people are just too mentally slow to comprehend even the smallest of things, theres no point in trying to prove anything.

Cities/Inns are fine, people need to stop crying.

You're right, mundufisen. I am mentally slow and simply can't keep up with your razor-sharp intellect. Maybe some day in the distant future, I will attain enlightenment and be able to understand the brilliance that are your posts.

syn, not every class/race/faction combo is as survivable as another. I played an independent human rogue. I didn't hang out in inns without having MI up because I was completely paranoid. I often avoided inns because I understood that my character was a target and that he was squishy. If it hadn't been for MI and allies, I very rarely would have been in an inn. Is this because I'm bad at the game?

Yes, there were times when I could be found in inns, but I was spamming look in every direction, kept my wimpy high, made sure I had scripted detects, and was always following a NPC. Not everyone can do all that, though. It requires scripted items, lots of discipline, knowledge of game-mechanics, and lots of paranoia that actually detracts from the game experience.

Yes.

It was a rhetorical question. I'm obviously not bad at the game. There's a reason all my characters showed up on people's list of tough guys. It's because I'm tough. In fact, the rogue in question was the most commonly mentioned rogue.

Part of the theme of this game is that nowhere should be absolutely safe. That said, cities are already relatively 'safer' than other areas. For instance, they are more guards in cities than there are in some random wilderness zone.

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to find people in a populated area than in a random wilderness zone, and I don't want to promote people hanging out by themselves in the wilderness. I'd rather people hang out in the city and PK each other in the wilderness.

What do these contradictory statements mean? It means I might make cities slightly safer in the future, but not very much safer. I'd be more likely to attempt to address the issue by giving PKers better places to practice their trade.

Are places like Enbor/Garazul/Everclear/seawatch/elisair as well defended as the capital cities? If they're not, then I don't know why more pk doesn't happen there. If they are, then maybe you could accomplish your goal by making these places less formidable targets. People could hang out in the capitals with a little bit of safety (as in, don't have to spamming look in every direction constantly), and invaders could attack the smaller villages on the outskirts of the kingdom, drawing defending tribunal members to them there.