A problem with the new rule

[Monad]

it's hard to come up with a working way i guess?

It's actually very simple. And we should try to keep it as simple as well. I'd personally love to see the old system where you could kill anyone you want as long as it's "RPed". And if you killed someone, you were allowed to loot whatever you wanted. However, it seems that time is in the past so then I'd suggest the following.

Killing and looting:

1. A robber (Blue or red) can be attacked, killed and looted anywhere by anyone solely on the reason that he is tagged a robber.
2. A red player who is not a robber can be attacked by everyone, but only looted by a robber, a member of Law or a guild in war.
3. A blue player who is not a robber can be attacked by everyone, but only looted by a robber or a guild in war.

Warring:
If one party is being attacked verbally or physically multiple times by another group, either party can declare a war. Should the attacks continue after the declaration the war must be accepted - GM forced if otherwise not accepted.

Although it doesn't make sense that Law would allow random guilds to kill each other, war is part of the game and used way too little and such system should be embraced more. Imho the above system is the only working system. If there's a single attack after a declaration of war, the war MUST be accepted or the member attacking kicked out.

This rule only applies to blue and red guilds. The robber guilds are still free for all and their request for war is not forced.

Why would anyone be a robber if they can simply force all active guilds in war with them or if not accepted, be immune from the attacks?

[Johnny Walac]

Why would anyone be a robber if they can simply force all active guilds in war with them or if not accepted, be immune from the attacks?

Why would a blue guild choose their RP to attack Red Guilds then deny war?

I would go robber to:

-You don't need War to loot
-My RP would be a robber
-I can loot -anyone-

[Zaradon]

Johnny, you're parking a car - again.

It's not like you have to pick on every guild on the shard, but if you do you'll have to face the consequences.


It's pang bro, so try to suck it up.

[Johnny Walac]

Johnny, you're parking a car - again.

It's not like you have to pick on every guild on the shard, but if you do you'll have to face the consequences.


It's pang bro, so try to suck it up.

Be more constructive with your feedback please.

[Glarundis]

darian, of course i meant, without the old system
and i think what you "suggested" is the way it's going to be with these new rules..

[Mag'etherian]

Why would blue guild A keep on killing guild B if they're both blue and war is not accepted knowing that they will be turned red sooner or later? If they're stupid enough to do that then it's not a rule problem what the consequences are, but player have knowingly made their choice.

Ding.

[Mag'etherian]

Say I run a merchant guild and I have competition which I want to eliminate without lowering prices to ridiculous low - which in turn they only do the same. What if I want to make decision and eliminate them for good, but can't.


Or there's two mercenary guilds which compete for customers. One is prepared to fight the other, but the other won't accept it.

1) Assassins / Assassination Contracts.

2) Two mercenary guilds competing eachother will be hostile to eachother and be killing one another if they really hate their competition. Otherwise, don't PK eachother and go red off one another and just offer a better service than the other.

[Glarundis]

1) Assassins / Assassination Contracts.

yeah
maybe we can come up with market for that. and a boost for the class

[Mag'etherian]

Two gas stations sat next to eachother across the street don't kill one another. They try and find better solutions to get more customers for their services.

[Darion al'Ferran]

Two gas stations sat next to eachother across the street don't kill one another. They try and find better solutions to get more customers for their services.

Are you high?