A problem with the new rule

[Toby Frost]

There is one group of griefers playing now and that is the problem.. Is the rule flawed.. absoleutly but its the only thing the staff can do to control the raving group of morons!

[Demian]

I think its wierd that the only people who have a problem with this are the reds who are driving away the playerbase..

Yeah,,, becouse its the red taking the hit smartass motherfucker

So then it should be the blues taking the hit instead by getting killed by reds on hunting trips etc without a way of payback unless the blues want to get hurt even more by being forced into a war?

Just go robbers and loot anyone you want. Can't have everything ya know.

[Darian Darkmind]

There is one group of griefers playing now and that is the problem.. Is the rule flawed.. absoleutly but its the only thing the staff can do to control the raving group of morons!

Actually no. There's an easy solution to this that I posted and Harlequin even made another topic with the very same idea and principle in mind.

In a nutshell a guild like Telborean should be allowed to attack and kill anyone they want as long as its RPed. However they can't loot anyone unless they are at war. And the war is only accepted and declared if the people they hunt and kill retaliate and attack them back. So as long as the people being killed by Telboreans just "let it go", stay netural/passive, doesn't take it personally and don't seek for revenge, there will be no war between them and as such no looting even if killed. If they want to revenge (hate), then the war is declared and they can loot each other as much as they want.

It might be annoying to be hunted and killed by a group of players, but unless you're prepared to be looted do not go throwing stones back at them. If someone hits you, it's not a fight, but if you hit him back you have a fight. With the same principle there is no war as long as it's only one side attacking another, the war only emerges when the other side retaliates.

[Mike]

There is one group of griefers playing now and that is the problem.. Is the rule flawed.. absoleutly but its the only thing the staff can do to control the raving group of morons!

Actually no. There's an easy solution to this that I posted and Harlequin even made another topic with the very same idea and principle in mind.

In a nutshell a guild like Telborean should be allowed to attack and kill anyone they want as long as its RPed. However they can't loot anyone unless they are at war. And the war is only accepted and declared if the people they hunt and kill retaliate and attack them back. So as long as the people being killed by Telboreans just "let it go", stay netural/passive, doesn't take it personally and don't seek for revenge, there will be no war between them and as such no looting even if killed. If they want to revenge (hate), then the war is declared and they can loot each other as much as they want.

It might be annoying to be hunted and killed by a group of players, but unless you're prepared to be looted do not go throwing stones back at them. If someone hits you, it's not a fight, but if you hit him back you have a fight. With the same principle there is no war as long as it's only one side attacking another, the war only emerges when the other side retaliates.

This is how it's supposed to work with the current rules.

[Glarundis]

There is one group of griefers playing now and that is the problem.. Is the rule flawed.. absoleutly but its the only thing the staff can do to control the raving group of morons!

Actually no. There's an easy solution to this that I posted and Harlequin even made another topic with the very same idea and principle in mind.

In a nutshell a guild like Telborean should be allowed to attack and kill anyone they want as long as its RPed. However they can't loot anyone unless they are at war. And the war is only accepted and declared if the people they hunt and kill retaliate and attack them back. So as long as the people being killed by Telboreans just "let it go", stay netural/passive, doesn't take it personally and don't seek for revenge, there will be no war between them and as such no looting even if killed. If they want to revenge (hate), then the war is declared and they can loot each other as much as they want.

It might be annoying to be hunted and killed by a group of players, but unless you're prepared to be looted do not go throwing stones back at them. If someone hits you, it's not a fight, but if you hit him back you have a fight. With the same principle there is no war as long as it's only one side attacking another, the war only emerges when the other side retaliates.

This is how it's supposed to work with the current rules.

actually i think the way is

telborea attacks you, then can't loot.
you CAN attack them back and kill them and loot them, without triggering a war.

what you CAN'T do is initiate attacks by yourself. but if you are just defending and happen to kill them, you can loot and there's no war.

right?

[Zaradon]

There is one group of griefers playing now and that is the problem.. Is the rule flawed.. absoleutly but its the only thing the staff can do to control the raving group of morons!

Actually no. There's an easy solution to this that I posted and Harlequin even made another topic with the very same idea and principle in mind.

A (Murders) team, trying to RP/kill B (neutral) guild members, but they lack for fighters so they borrow some fighters from C (Robbers).

I'd see this one as a;
If a murder helps robbers in their trips, murders will recieve .robber tag

Correct?

[Darian Darkmind]

actually i think the way is

telborea attacks you, then can't loot.
you CAN attack them back and kill them and loot them, without triggering a war.

what you CAN'T do is initiate attacks by yourself. but if you are just defending and happen to kill them, you can loot and there's no war.

right?

Yes that's how it is and that's what is broken with the system. Telborea can attack you, but can't loot you. You can attack them back and loot them without triggering war. Imho, if you attack them back the war should be declared so that both sides can loot. Currently it's simply idiotic toward normal red guilds that don't rob.

Zaradon, yes, of course if a red or even a blue player helps a robber to commit robbery, he must also have the .robber tag enabled or the robbery is illegal and all items are returned.

[Glarundis]

Yes that's how it is and that's what is broken with the system. Telborea can attack you, but can't loot you. You can attack them back and loot them without triggering war. Imho, if you attack them back the war should be declared so that both sides can loot.

but what should blues do then?stand still, remove weapons and wait for death?i agree that the rule doesn't favor non-robber reds, but standing still is even more stupid

[Johnny Walac]

Yes that's how it is and that's what is broken with the system. Telborea can attack you, but can't loot you. You can attack them back and loot them without triggering war. Imho, if you attack them back the war should be declared so that both sides can loot.

but what should blues do then?stand still, remove weapons and wait for death?i agree that the rule doesn't favor non-robber reds, but standing still is even more stupid

Standing still? If a red attacks you. Fight.

[Glarundis]

what are you guys arguing about then?
we can fight back when reds come to attacks, ONLY in that same situation, without triggering a war.
but we can't initiate attacks by ourselves, that will trigger a war.
that seems fair imo.
well, i mean, not as fair as free for all as it should be, honestly, but atleast better than having blue guilds attacking reds all over the place