4Dimensions Forum
General Category => Suggestions & Ideas => Topic started by: Virisin on February 26, 2008, 03:45:15 am
-
difference = victimTiernum * victimLevel - killerTiernum * killerLevel
If this difference is more then -10 then the difference is ADDED to the killer pk points (minimum -5 points, maximum 50 points (or 25 if this is an arena battle) and SUBSTRACTED from the victim pk points (minimum 1 point, maximum 50 points (or 25 if this is an arena battle).
If it's less then -10, the killer will have the positive difference substracted from their pk points, with again a maximum of 50 points, or 25 if this is an arena battle. Nothing will happen to the victim in this case.
That's the current PK equation..
Alright, here’s a wrap up of the discussion with what’s been agreed upon, and what we’ll work with for now:
If you’re a PKer and you die (be it to a mob or another PKer,) your corpse is left open to all other PKers. They can pick and choose however many items they decide they want to nab, if they want to nab any at all. The corpse will not be open to non-PKers. Scalp will become a way of gaining scalps, not destroying PK corpses.
The new PK points equation is being worked on now. It will involve:
-Positive PK points for killing a PKer above your level, tier or remorts.
-Negative PK points for killing a PKer below your level, tier or remorts.
(These are the two main variables in the equation and will take some balancing. It will probably end up with level, tier and remort brackets, so that if you kill a player 1 level below you, but the same tier and remorts for instance, you don’t necessarily go down PK points.)
-Negative PK points for dieing to another PKer.
(Different amounts depending on the difference between levels, tiers and remorts.)
-Negative PK points for spam killing one player over a short period of time.
-Arena battles will have no impact on PK points.
A PK room will be annexed to the Hall of Fame with a plaque showing the current top 10 players in order of highest PK points in the form of a ladder. Another plaque will show a list of all the players that managed to stay at the top of the ladder for 3 months, these names will stay forever, whereas the ladder will always be up to date. Legendary old PKers will also be mentioned.
That's the wrap-up of the PK discussion on the last forum.. Just reviving it so we can get back to redoing the PK equation.
-
I still have a feeling its just gonna lead to negative points.
-
Another plaque will show a list of all the players that managed to stay at the top of the ladder for 3 months,
If that is done I definitely agree with Mordecai's idea for gradual pk point loss, or perhaps even gradually moving closer to 0, so people in the red may slowly gain points (neither side ever quite reaching 0) so that recent pkills mean more than ones that happened several years ago giving newer players a fair chance.
-
Good idea, I agree.
And Nanu, the reason we currently all get negative PK points is because of the crappy current equation:
SUBSTRACTED from the victim pk points (minimum 1 point
Nothing will happen to the victim in this case.
Understand those two lines.. There is a minimum gain of PK points - 0. But the minimum loss for PK points is 1. The gladiators show how stupid that is, because they're all perfectly matched. And all of their PK points are = to their losses.
It really shouldn't be too hard to make an equation that works well.
-
Are you going to be allowed to go below zero on pk points?
-
I would assume so, I meant slowly over time people above 0 and below 0 would gravitate closer to 0 without ever quite reaching it.
-
Hi I have a draft PK point equation.
If the people in the fight are over level 15 and within 20 levels of each other it is worth 1 point.
If they are both under level 15 and within 5 levels of each other, it is worth 1 point.
Otherwise it is worth 0 points.
This will start with a 1x base multiplier.
For every tier that the winner of the fight has, that the looser doesn't have, +1 to the multiplier is added to the points.
So if you are tier 2, and you kill a tier 4, you get +2 added to your base multiplier.
The same goes for every Mastery the winner has that the looser doesn't have, and every 20 remorts, up to a maximum of 60 remorts.
So if the looser had 5 mastery's, and the winner had 1, that would add +4 to the multiplier.
if the looser had 80 remorts, and the winner had 5 remorts, it would add +3 to the multiplier. (every 20 remorts to max of 60, so max multi would be 3).
So if you were level 40 tier 2 Warrior, with Gypsy mastery and 6 remorts under your belt.
And you killed a level 14 tier 4 Priest, with GM and 40 remorts.
You would get 0 points and a multiplier of 2+7+1 = x10
So 0 points all up but +1 to your PK kills.
But if you killed the Priest when they were level 20 and you were level 40, you would get 10 points and +1 to your PK Kills.
Your PK Ranking would be your total points / your PK Kills for the last 3 months.
What is your take on this?
-
Your PK Ranking would be your total points / your PK Kills for the last 3 months.
Doesn't that do the opposite of what we were talking about? ie. 500 points, 1 kill in past 3 month would be better than all of it in past 3 months.
-
I like the sound of it, except for the part Fiz pointed out. Is it possible to make it just multiply by the decimal of your last 3 months PK kills? Like:
1 kill in the last month = points x 0.1
2 kills in the last month = points x 0.2
etc..
-
Mordecai's equation sounds very fair and it's very nice explained.
I'd like to see it implemented, maybe once it's ready we can test it on the Test Port with some Gladiators PK chars.
Also would be a swift move to put a -points prevention. You can get to 0 but can't get lower than that.
Even nicer would be to add in the equation some points awarded even to who lost in the fight.
Like if a tier2 attacks a tier4 and loses, he's awarded some PK points for bravery. That'll encourage players to PK at low tier.
And a Tier4 winning over a Tier2 will lose PK points, to descourage them from fighting low tiers.
I'm already having fun, just thinking about it :D
-
I would think the new PK equation is ok, but perhaps it might not be very feasible to add in PK points to those who lost in the fight.
A tier 2 could repeatedly attack a tier 4 (or every tier 4 he can see online) just to gain PK points for bravery, and be a premature pain. Even if PK points won't be lost by tier 4s who do not initiate combat, if some tier 2 guy keeps on bothering me by PKing, I'd PK him back, but probably lose points too..
-
Bravery won't work...I'd take Fizban out stalking and as a tier 1 start attacking Virisin to raise my points.
-
It's the same as a Tier4 could start stalking Tier1's for easy kill and a few points.
Why should only Tier1ns be scared to be attacked by Tier4s let even Tier4s be scared of Tier1s :P
-
Because using your system, a Tier 1 Fizban can keep on attacking a Tier 4 Virisin, and get points for bravery even if he loses.
But a Tier 4 Virisin who wins, or perhaps decide that the Tier 1 Fizban is too irritating in attacking him and decides to keep on attacking this Tier 1 Fizban would lose PK points for cowardice.
Even if the equation was modified (cannot attack the same person twice in a row), you can easily log on a T1 L1 and just attack everyone you see on 'who' that is PK-able.
So, yeah.
-
Even if the equation was modified (cannot attack the same person twice in a row), you can easily log on a T1 L1 and just attack everyone you see on 'who' that is PK-able.
You have to be tier 3 to become pkill, unless you're....me.
-
If it gets too complicated it'll just become the system we have now.. I think Mord's idea would actually work. All the other ideas mentioned just lead to either tier 1's attacking tier 4's for points, or tier 4's attacking tier 1's for points.. Or whatever other possibilities..
Not that anyone attacks anyone these days, we all sit at recall.. But in theory. :D
-
if we say that every day over a 3 month period (90 days) is worth 1 point, and then average out your actual points in combination with those.
You will end up with a balanced value this way that isn't skewed for people who only have killed one thing.
-
Even nicer would be to add in the equation some points awarded even to who lost in the fight.
Like if a tier2 attacks a tier4 and loses, he's awarded some PK points for bravery. That'll encourage players to PK at low tier.
And a Tier4 winning over a Tier2 will lose PK points, to descourage them from fighting low tiers.
We can't have negitive points or points for losing, because negitive points will put us back where we are now.
And points for losing is open for abuse.
-
Ok, seeing as it seems Mord has a good idea for PK points, I'm gonna slightly derail this conversation with a seperate discussion, about PK:
Looting/junking/saccing/whatever..
I'm just wondering how many people would be opposed to removing looting all together. After recent events, I've grown to severely dislike that nature of PK. I know PK should come with consequences, but I've decided looting just allows too much power to go to the players. And obviously some players arn't mature enough to handle the power. I actually think more cool features could be added to PK if there was no looting or anything involved..
First of all, I just want to know what people think, if people agree, I might start mentioning some new ideas for PK.
-
I don't see the reason for looting / saccing / etc from player corpses here, because it seems to me that the only viable reason for doing so is for artifacts that are randomly loaded, and perhaps to junk / loot quest EQ that are once-only.
Most eq here is rather easy to get (once you know how), and it's also rather useless to loot them, as the best ones are quest flagged.
It'd be a bit silly to loot average EQ which can be replaced easily too.
-
I think looting should exist. But I also don't think most people do loot truthfully. (Nanukimo did repeatedly, but just about no one else has recently.)
-
I've always thought looting should exist.. Just the possibility. But, I don't think so anymore. One reason being because there are always players like Nanu, but mainly because I don't see the point in it anymore. And I think PK could be better without looting. Looting is only ever done in bad humour.. It's unneccessary.
-
As much as I personally dislike looting and junking, I don't think that the possibility should be removed. That would just reduce PK to another variation of the Arena.
As it is, non PK players are totally protected by the code. Going PK is a conscious choice you make, and it should have its risks as well as its benefits. That doesn't mean that you have to loot and junk everyone that you kill. And, in particular, it doesn't mean that you have to attack players who are AFK at Recall, or busy helping Newbies along.
The PK culture is set by the players themselves. There used to be an honour codex about PK in 4D. It seems to have been dragged in the dirt lately, due to the actions of a minority.
Lionheart and Alpha had the right idea in that log, posted on the Roleplayers board. It shows how PK can be done in an IC manner, and how it actually gives the opportunity for some roleplay both before and after the actual PK fight.
Of course it only takes one jerk to destroy any system - in fact it sometimes only takes one jerk to harm an entire Mud.
Violence breeds more violence, and what you do to others is usually done back to yourself, sooner or later. But generally PKillers are experienced enough players to be able to retrieve their own equipment without too much effort. The exception of that is the perzes, which can be reloaded against a fee, but only if they aren't already loaded in the game. This is why I find it particularly despicable to nick the perzes before you junk, and then keep those indefinitely in a chest in your house, to prevent them from being reloaded. But despicable as it is, I don't think that is enough reason to code away the looting option.
Pkillers will just have to learn to type 'sit', before going AFK at Recall. And my prediction is that most PKillers will add a script to all their perzes, that makes them go poof, when touched by anyone but the owner.
Of course, that means that all Pkillers will have to pay the extra fee for that script. And it also means that the 'normal' Pkillers, who might have chosen to take a perze from the corpse, with the intent of collecting the silver token for the retrieval themselves instead of the imms, will lose the opportunity of that extra income.
But that's how things usually work in a Mud. The actions of one jerk usually have repercussions on the majority of players, whether intentional or not.
My personal opinion is that you shouldn’t go PK if you lack social skills, take yourself or the game too seriously, use to antagonise half the Mud, cannot handle your anger, or don’t know how to use the IGNORE command. And that is a serious meant advice to all of you. Try to apply some self insight before taking the decision to register.
-
I like the idea of having a PK flag for zones, which is kind of like the ARENA flag for rooms.
Zone PK flag would make non PKers, killable under same rules as an area room flag does.
And for people already PK, it would allow their corpses to be lootable/junkable/unrecoverable.
And when you entered the zone, you would receive a notification that you are in an unprotected PK area.
It would allow us to put a difficulty factor on some of the zones.
-
I'm not sure about making zones PK.
4D is known for its restricted PK. If you change that you'll close off zones to explore for those who don't like PK at all. And some people don't like playing games where some parts are restricted for certain groups.
But if you go ahead with it, here's another suggestion: instead of only giving a message when someone enters a PK-zone, why not have an extra flag in the roomtitle or so. So if someone is walking around and goes AFK or logs out, he/she should see immediately that they are in a PK-zone when they return or log back in. Something like the ARENA-flag for the tournament places.
And how will you prevent things like players staying in a room because someone logged out in that specific room. Just waiting for the other party to log back in and kill them unsuspectedly on the spot?
All things you should consider.
-
One thing I'd personally probably prefer, but I'm sure others will most likely disagree with loudly....no nosummon nogate notele toggles for pkill flagged players.
-
How would this be? You get to loot all the gold or tokens the person is carrying plus one item? To me that would make PK fun and not so risky, or cause bad feelings that comes from a full loot.
Or, maybe there could be female pk (see above) and male pk (full loot)??
-
PK should be a state of mind - a matter of honor and respect - beside the fun of it.
I agree that PK players would have the toggles mentioned by Fizban turned off.
PK should be risky, esle where's the fun of it - but also should not be abused to insanity
with daily junks and harassing concentred to some players.
We from the Fearless RP Group beside our group private tasks, have also a 4D-wide common taks which
is to maintain order and fairness amongst the PK players. We won't tolerate another
situation like the Nanna one nor any unjustified junk.
We have a commission of Elders where PK players can whine to and the elders will decide
to intervene or not to fix the situation in a diplomatic way at first then in any way necessary
to solve the problem caused.
Every PK player might understand that at every action corresponds a consequence.
-
Every PK player might understand that at every action corresponds a consequence.
i r gunna junk u so g00d ul cry!!11! yea, crying wul b ur consaquenc!!1 wut wul u du 2 me? nufink! i r teh uber king of mollyland! zomg!!11! hur hur hur!
-
Shoot, I just lost my entire post.
Anyway, first...don't call him Nanna. That's totally derogatory and something I shouldn't expect from the leader of the honourable knights. It lowers my opinion of your group. And my understanding was Nanukimo's actions in the junkings were harsh on the recipients, but were not against the rules and were totally justified. You have no idea the crap he had to put up with.
I agree PK should be a state of mind. I posted as an afterthought maybe there could be different rules for female and male pkers. And the more I think about it the more it makes sense. I would like to pk for fun, some risk - that's my state of mind. Maybe there could be different levels of pk, so just the total male alpha looters don't get all the fun and we could all have fun with it.
Anyways, cool that pkers can whine to you group. Waht a bonus.
-
No.
No different levels of PK for females/males.
No different levels of PK for wusses/ .. not wusses ..
If you don't want to go PK, the arena is there.
And no, I won't stop calling him Nanna..
-
No? Ok. But maybe you could think on it some more, how more people could try pk without risking loosing every single piece of stuff they have. Personally I thought the wuss category could work.
The arena and pk are two completely different things. There is no comparison between them.
Also, please everyone show some courtesy not to insult people on this forum who are not able to access the forum and answer back. It's not fair, and those types of irrelevant insults just get the topic sidetracked and serve no purpose other than making a negative atmosphere. Thank you.
-
Yes, PK and arena are completely different. Arena is for people that suck at PK, ie. wusses.
Nanu is an idiot.
-
I don't agree that arena is for people who suck at PK. There's lot of pk'ers who arnea. But maybe people who are wusses don't pk. And your definition of a wuss is.....being afraid to lose everything?
The arena seems twofold. It is an event where people can show who is better at fighting in a totally controlled, premediated and artificial environment. And it is a way to test out new skills against others.
PK, is more of the hunt and the survival and the unknown and being prepared for anything. In a way PK is easier because the anticipation just before you know you have to go into the arena is nerve racking.
I've never tried PK but I would like to, mostly so I can get my frustrations out if I get pissed off. Like for example....in the unlikely event that I would ever be pissed at you, even if I would lose I would get some satisfaction in hunting you down and attacking you.
Your mind seems made up, but maybe sometime in the future think about two levels of pk. You talk about wanting the game to be more indepth, and this could achieve that for us wusses.
-
PKers don't arena, they sometimes fight in the arena, but they never actually fight properly. All PKers have their own tricks they'd never bother wasting in an arena..
People have thought about two levels of PK for ages. The idea is dumb. Simple as that. If you don't want to PK, don't PK. There are plenty of PKers around now, numbers arn't the problem. Laziness and no one leaving recall is the problem.
-
I'd prefer it if autoloot doesn't work with PKers, they have to consciously loot the corpse if they want to.
Apart from it being very annoying if someone attacks you when you are idling, you kill them, and then *YOUR* autoloot picks up their clan item and you get zapped to their dungeon, I think players should have the decision to keep the items on their victim or not.
-
Once you're tier4 level 50 and fully equipped - you still have autoloot on? Why?
If that's for gold, just use autogold - why overflow your inventory with the shit mobs wear on them.
Autoloot is good for newbies not for experienced players. I'd rather prefer a command like AUTOLOOK.
So every mob I kill I auto look in the corpse, then if there's something I like I get it myself.
PS: I actually have an autolook command built from a trigger.
-
Because you never know when a mob might carry something in its inventory that is needed for a quest...and because..because....anyone that goes PK can be affected by it?
-
That's why I look in the corpse of every mob I kill - without looting the entire mud.
And when you're out on a quest can turn autoloot off - unless you're always questing :-)
-
I agree PK should be a state of mind. I posted as an afterthought maybe there could be different rules for female and male pkers. And the more I think about it the more it makes sense.
Different rules for males and females is by far the worst idea for regulating pkill that I have EVER heard. It's frankly sexist and says that females are shitty gamers and that none of them can pkill, which just isn't true.
-
I used to hate autoloot.. Now I like it. Cause I can have autoloot + autosac. And I wouldn't like autoloot to not work on PKers. I like people looting my orb and taking them to my dungeon.. That's kinda the only way the script will ever kick in :P I designed the dungeon for that purpose.
-
Perhaps if there was a disadvantage given while making the character - for example in old D&D if you were a female character you lost an STR point on creation (I think it was, either that or your max strength could only be like 1 less than a male). Thankfully D&D did away with that.
In the 4D world there is no reason to seperate out male/females. The only seperating I think could possibly be done would only be teirwise. Then again, if someone can PK well, they can PK well past what any teir seperation there should be.
So, I have to agree with either go PK and realize what *could* lie ahead (problems I've stated on other boards but everyone assures me it wouldn't happen in 4D - I still don't believe them and with all the things I've heard that HAVE happened, I probably never will) or don't go PK and use the arena to settle any differences you feel needs to be settled.
My 1/2 cent
Kvetch
-
You're silly...you can't pkill out of tier (Anyone that saw Fizban at level 10 kill the level 30 thief a tier above him earlier today...shhhhh)
-
Ok, that was a stupid idea separating pk based on sex. What I really just wanted was to have was a option for full loot pk or a single-item loot pk. I can see that is never going to happen. So I will drop it.
-
I just wanted to say one last thing before I drop it.
My comment to have different rules for male and female pkers wasn't meant to be sexist and it in no way suggests females are shitty gamers and can't pk. I would never want to run in to Hesara in a dark alley. She seems more scarey and skilled than the lot of you.
In general (just a blanket comment), male gamers or pk'ers seem to catch on faster and seem to be more interested in all the numbers and technical stuff which pk probably requires to be good at it. I believe in general there is a difference in how males and females approach on-line games. And the difference isn't good or bad or sexist or whatever, it just is.
Only one of my friends likes on-line games. I tried to get him to try text games but he just likes the graphical war games where you kill people and sneak around and figure out all the angles how to do it best. I tried his game, but it didn't do anything for me. So yeah, there's probably lots of females that like that kind of thing and are great at it, but the majority are probably wusses and don't want to lose everything, so it's not fair why they can't play pk too...on a different level.
-
For gods sake, no one is going to loot you.. Unless you keep up this raving about it..
-
Well, I think the underlying reason why single-loot PK and loot-all PK doesn't work is because of game theory. I'll try to list what would happen should both players be rational.
*I am taking full-loot PK to mean that your corpse can be fully looted, and single-loot to mean that only one item can be taken from your corpse
First scenario. Two people wish to PK each other, which kind of PK should they choose?
Player A thinks: Now, I should go single loot PK because if I lose, only one item will be looted from my corpse. If player B is full-loot PK, then I get more items, and yay me for going single loot PK.
Player B thinks: Now, I should go single loot PK because if I lose, only one item will be looted from my corpse. If player A is full-loot PK, then I get more items, and yay me for going single loot PK.
Result. Both will go single-loot PK.
Another scenario.
Player A is full-loot PK, and Player B is one-item PK.
Player B decides to PK Player A, thinking that if he loses, it's just one item gone. Player A, on seeing player B attacking him, thinks "Damn. If I lose, I lose all my items, and even if I PK player B back, I have to PK him many many many times and win to get my items back. Player A recalls, and Player B is left to find other one-item PKers to PK with.
Yet another scenario.
Non rational players that are full-loot PK, after getting PKed by those who went one-item PK, go and post on the forum to ask imms for help. Imms then decide that full-loot PKers can only PK full-loot PKers, and one-item PKers can only PK one-item PKers.
One last scenario.
Because of this ruling, only the experienced players that want some competition go full-loot PK, and the rest go one-item PK. Because of this division, very few people get the opportunity to PK each other, being in different camps, and the overall PK skill doesn't increase, because the better people to practice with are full-loot PK, which the inexperienced PKers don't want to PK with, because of risk.
Well...it *could* happen..
*This is also why I would like autoloot not to work with player corpses. It has to be a conscious choice if you want to 'fully loot' a player, or just take an item from his/her corpse, or take several. Would also be easier to diagnose a player's overall PK character. Eg, if that player repeatedly loots consciously, that shows something. If he loots one item, that shows something too. But if it was automated, we don't get to see his true character.
**Besides, melt-on-drop eq are terrible for autoloot. I tend to drop these instead of giving them to people, so I can understand people getting peeved when that happens.
-
Great scenerios Erwin.
How I was thinking it would work would be: Player A is full pk and player B is one-loot pk. So they fight. If player A wins he only gets to get one item from player B. If player B wins, he only gets one item from player A. However if they were both full pk, then they could take as many items as they wanted.
-
I really think Iwku's idea would just lead to players killing you repeatedly if they wanted more than 1 item, which'd annoy you more in the end than if they just fool looted you once.
-
Nod. But, wouldn't that be something similar to the first scenario, eg, if you want to PK, you would go one-loot PK then. I mean, rationally, it doesn't matter if a full-loot PKer or a one-loot PKer attacks you, because you'll only lose one item from your corpse. Surely if most players think like that (to reduce risk), they would all go one-loot PK, whether they are skillful or not, and a majority of one-loot PKers and a minority of full-loot PKers would result in everyone being one-loot PK then.
Even if say, a player is skillful and goes full-loot PK, it'll be a disadvantage to him too, because he can't loot more than one item from the one-loot PKers, and he'll lose all his items from the full-loot PKers, and his natural inclination would be to go one-loot PK, unless he is one of the best PKers.
So I would think that having one-loot PK and full-loot PK would result in a majority of one-loot PKers (ranging from wusses to above average in skill) and a minority of full-loot PKers (who are extremely skillful in PK). And this ratio would probably be stagnant, because there is no chance of anyone improving, by PKing each other to learn, because of inherent risk.
-
Nod, I just know specifically, if I kill someone and want two items and can't take both, their dying again. (Similar to the scenario of you killing me and taking all my eq and then me having to kill you repeatedly to get it back except I wouldn't even need you to have killed me first)
-
QUOTE:
"So I would think that having one-loot PK and full-loot PK would result in a majority of one-loot PKers (ranging from wusses to above average in skill) and a minority of full-loot PKers (who are extremely skillful in PK). And this ratio would probably be stagnant, because there is no chance of anyone improving, by PKing each other to learn, because of inherent risk."
I think you're wrong. There would be the bullk of the pkers in the middle range, either wusses or above average fighting and then there would be the top end of elite pkers fighting. Each category can fight and learn, just lose the amount they are comfortable with. Eventually, as the wusses got better they would move up to above average and then eventually skillful. Skillful pkers would always have other skillfull pkers to fight, just makes it less intimidating for wusses to join in. Why would any wuss in their right mind go for full pk against a skillfulll top tier pker? That's just insane.
-
If there was an option for one-loot PK and full-loot PK, and everyone was one-loot PK.. I'd go one-loot PK because I'd be an idiot not going one-loot PK.
This is a dumb idea, get over it.
-
The thing is, there'll be a max cap for the one loot PK.
Let's say the skillfulness of PKers are from a range of 1-10, and range 1-7 is the one-loot PKers, and range 8-10 are the full-loot PKers
I'm a one-loot PKer, I learn PKing, and I rise to skill 7. There is still no motivation for me to go full-loot PK, because the rest can kill me easily, and I'd lose my items. Hence I can't learn above skill level 7.
Something like that, at least.
-
If there was an option for one-loot PK and full-loot PK, and everyone was one-loot PK.. I'd go one-loot PK because I'd be an idiot not going one-loot PK.
If there was such an option, and everyone chose that option then it would tell you something. I still think some people would chose to go full pk to get the full loot.
Anyway, I am sexist! What about the Sicilians? Until recently they had different rules for female and male members regarding clan obligations towards going PK.
-
If there was an option for one-loot PK and full-loot PK, and everyone was one-loot PK.. I'd go one-loot PK because I'd be an idiot not going one-loot PK.
If there was such an option, and everyone chose that option then it would tell you something. I still think some people would chose to go full pk to get the full loot.
Anyway, I am sexist! What about the Sicilians? Until recently they had different rules for female and male members regarding clan obligations towards going PK.
Yes, it's saying people arn't THAT stupid. I hate the idea, but I'd still go one-loot PK if EVERYONE else was. Are you trying to argue that I'd go one-loot PK because I'd like it more? Don't be stupid.
What about Sicilians? What about DJ's you mean. They also have a rule regarding male and female members going PK.. But DJ's arn't really into RP, so meh.
Please stop making yourself look silly.
-
What about the Sicilians? Until recently they had different rules for female and male members regarding clan obligations towards going PK.
I didn't make that rule.
-
I wasn't arguing that you would go one-loot pk because you liked it more. I was saying that if everyone decided to chose one-loot pk that it might tell you something - that maybe people would prefer to go pk and just lose one item.
And DJ's don't have a male/female rule regarding pk. The dark side always offers choices.
I'm done with this conversation.
-
I wasn't arguing that you would go one-loot pk because you liked it more. I was saying that if everyone decided to chose one-loot pk that it might tell you something - that maybe people would prefer to go pk and just lose one item.
And DJ's don't have a male/female rule regarding pk. The dark side always offers choices.
I'm done with this conversation.
It doesn't prove anything. Gah! What is it in the DJ fountain that causes such stupidity?
And yes, they do have a rule. Or they did, maybe Asmoday removed it to suit himself.
-
It seems silly. Iwku is bitching about people being afraid of being looted, yet people get looted less than once a month. In fact I have never been looted on 4D.
-
In fact, looting is all PK culture.
Presently the PK culture in 4D is pretty good.
It has been bad in the past of course, always due to certain single players, who spun out of control.
That could of course happen again, but usually it's self regulating..
-
The self-regulation factor only works if the player being an asshole actually leaves recall/clanhall/house.. That's what made Nanu's spree a good one, because he'd only ever leave recall when I wasn't on, and maybe a couple other PKers he was afraid of. That's why I want my recall idea implemented.