RCC Server Rules - Discuss Here

[Azrayel]

The Eradication rule is the rule that forces members of a faction that lost all it's members in battle to not respawn. They can go under a different color but MUST forget all wars/relationships with the people they knew before.

Then why did Deserath hold an obvious grudge against me, and why did you refuse to do anything about it? Not only that, but I was refused a duel.

If you'd care to cite actual medieval life, an insubordinate crossbowman calling a noblewoman a whore would've been killed.

Or maybe you don't, which is fine, but it was completely unnecessary either way. He could have at least had it in him to duel me.

 

[Splintert]

We were a sort of barbaric faction. I hope you weren't offended by what he said. My plan was to take over the small village, then not let anyone through. You, then, would confront and/or battle with us. Instead, you declared war for that, which was fine.

 

[Azrayel]

We were a sort of barbaric faction. I hope you weren't offended by what he said. My plan was to take over the small village, then not let anyone through. You, then, would confront and/or battle with us. Instead, you declared war for that, which was fine.

Yeah we were going Spice--Velvet, but as you could tell we'd a small force by then. At the moment I was very pissed off by Deserath, but iUnderstand the whole barbaric approach rather than being originally stoic knights (not that I don't have fun with it but t'is nice to have some color).

Sorry that I got really mad, and I did mean to declare war on yous guys. We just decided to wait 'til we were up the mountain a little more, so there'd be less time. My mistake, as the declaration never happened 

 

[Splintert]

no problem about the mountain attack, it was a strategic fail on my part. i had no one watching either entrace.

 

[NOVICIUS]

The Eradication rule is the rule that forces members of a faction that lost all it's members in battle to not respawn. They can go under a different color but MUST forget all wars/relationships with the people they knew before.

This is about destroying everything what we (myself/Azrayel/Leroy/Artifex/Draco Wratch/Edward Lancaster plus now Serann) want to achieve: PERSISTANT WORLD with PERSISTANT ORDER....

It seams at the time you get bored with game we are passionat about...It is sad some how... 

This game it is not about team fighting with team...This is the biggest difference beatwen PW and other mods...You want to force us to play deathmatch somehow...Everybody of your team died = End of session...Respawn and start again. Please for PW sake...think again...

 

[Maxikus]

The eradication rule might seem harsh but I think it's better than everyone coming back pretending like nothing just happened. Battles should be serious and not something you go around and do for fun. When you die an in character death you should be dead, atleast if your "revival" would bring more harm then happiness.

This is a big problem with the persistent factions. I really don't dislike the idea of the persistent factions but it's so weird that the same person who you saw get his stomach opened 10 minutes ago is sitting in the castle eating some pork and listening to stories. You could just pull the excuse that you're your dead characters heir or something but when your the 10th heir of some person who's life was no more than 30min ingame it's getting out of hand.

It's kinda destructive to only bring the problems into light and not offer any solutions, but I guess my imagination's lacking.

 

[Splintert]

NOVICIUS, the eradication rule was created to prevent the faction you just destroyed in battle from coming back and picking up their weapons to fight again. no matter how persistant your factions are, if you die you die.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

The eradication rule means wif a faction is wiped out during a war, they basically "Reset". Nothing blocks them from "refounding" it.

 

[TIDM2]

I agree with you guys sorta.
For Kingdoms like the White Rose and other kingdoms that have their own thread, a permanant kingdom and such, we need to find a way so that if these kingdoms wanted to declare war on each other, they still will be able to fight without the eradication rule getting in the way. But at the same time make it not confusing enough that one persistant kingdom will start killing whites not associated with the White Rose, etc. This seems nearly impossible to me, as even if we do find some system like this, there will always be idiots who will abuse those rights and say something like, "Oh, I'm with the White Rose so I can kill all reds" or something like that. So therefore, we have to stick by the eradication rule. If we get rid of it, only more problems will be created in the end, and we have enough of those.

 

[Richard Shru]

Simple solution:

Incapacitation: If you die during a fight, you are still the same person, apart of the same organization, with the same friends, etc. All that happened from an RP perspective is that you were knocked out/heavily wounded, and thus cannot participate in the fight. So for half an hour, or until the battle/fight/scuffle is over, and everyone's scuttled away, you cannot go back. Go mine or something =p. Or better yet go in a tavern and rp healing a bit.

Also, when you die in an isolated fight (like, one on one, or three on one. Anything involving only one victim) then the victim has the choice of whether he suffered severe enough blows in order have temporary memory loss occur, causing him to forget who knocked him out.

This would mean the abolishment of the NLR. Sound good for anyone? You can have big battles without the entire server devolving into a Kill on Sight fest, and can have 'assasinations' of sorts, with the victim not remembering who took him out.

Ultimately, the only way for a character to perma-die would be by their own choice. Believe me, I've been RPing on about a dozen different games/servers for 2 years, this is the most common and successful rule set.

 

[Serann]

Simple solution:

Incapacitation: If you die during a fight, you are still the same person, apart of the same organization, with the same friends, etc. All that happened from an RP perspective is that you were knocked out/heavily wounded, and thus cannot participate in the fight. So for half an hour, or until the battle/fight/scuffle is over, and everyone's scuttled away, you cannot go back. Go mine or something =p. Or better yet go in a tavern and rp healing a bit.

Also, when you die in an isolated fight (like, one on one, or three on one. Anything involving only one victim) then the victim has the choice of whether he suffered severe enough blows in order have temporary memory loss occur, causing him to forget who knocked him out.

This would mean the abolishment of the NLR. Sound good for anyone? You can have big battles without the entire server devolving into a Kill on Sight fest, and can have 'assasinations' of sorts, with the victim not remembering who took him out.

Ultimately, the only way for a character to perma-die would be by their own choice. Believe me, I've been RPing on about a dozen different games/servers for 2 years, this is the most common and successful rule set.

I support this idea.

 

[Blacklands]

epic idea

Hey... this is good. This is REALLY good. Nice!
I also support this! Good job!

 

[Richard Shru]

Thank you very much . If you like, I can also cook up a system for territory control in-game. This way those battles represent a bit more than just a bunch of dudes getting bored and attacking one another, and lead to long-term strategy as well as different, changing boundaries for the nobility's fiefs. Thus making the game even more 'persistent' lol.

 

[NOVICIUS]

This is GTA idea which was rejected by NObody allready once. Hopefully something change since. What can be done is respawning time extended as it was before.
I believe it is down to server holder.

I would not mind to wait 1-2 min until respawn. Most of our "battles" are over by then.

Also is kind of annoying what is now. I like to play with about 40k equipment(armor/horse/weapon). If I have 20k left and I suddenly respawn (after another assassination ) like it is now I lose it. I respawn as armored knight with no money for weapons. If I would have 1-2 min time I could change to trader and make another 20/30K. I also could make my self a cup of tea and relax instead of raging

 

[Яowan]

This is GTA idea which was rejected by NObody allready once. Hopefully something change since. What can be done is respawning time extended as it was before.
I believe it is down to server holder.

I would not mind to wait 1-2 min until respawn. Most of our "battles" are over by then.

Also is kind of annoying what is now. I like to play with about 40k equipment(armor/horse/weapon). If I have 20k left and I suddenly respawn (after another assassination ) like it is now I lose it. I respawn as armored knight with no money for weapons. If I would have 1-2 min time I could change to trader and make another 20/30K. I also could make my self a cup of tea and relax instead of raging

29 Seconds is the max spawn time limit. Laszlo needs to boost it.

 

[NOVICIUS]

Lets be 29 sec for good start 

 

[Richard Shru]

This is GTA idea which was rejected by NObody allready once. Hopefully something change since.

Well yes, it is from San Andreas Multiplayer, and just about every single server there has the rule. And quite honestly...here's why:

HostName: Next Generation Gaming [NGRP]
Address:  216.246.109.162:7777
Players:  357 / 500
Ping:    60
Mode:    NG:RP v2.1.691
Map:      NG-Gaming.net

Tbh, this one server has, through its rules and community alone (as its sister mod, Multi Theft Auto, is far better development wise) managed to expand to a size larger than the entire Persistent World community.

I understand it was rejected before, but I'd still caution that the head of the RCC server still consider it. The community isn't ready for perma-death every time you go into a sword fight, and its community has shown that multiple times.

 

[Norpheus]

Im having problem with Inzumis administration. This is how it goes

1. I am having a war, or a "revolution" against the Townwatch with some allies. After respawning 2 times and rejoining the revolution, Inzumi says I cannot do this anymore since that would break some rule that, Nobody also later confirmed, doesn't exist. There is no limit of neither wars nor revolution as long as it has a RP-reason. Knowing that Nobody confirmed me, Inzumi still insists that she is right and threatens to kick me if I don't stop "complaining", by what she means informing here.

2. After this Inzumi claims that you can never kill an individual that is unarmed. I inform her that the rules says that you can if you have a good roleplay reason (lets say for example if you are doing a robbery and the individual runs and you warn him that he will be shot if he does). This makes Inzumi very angry, and she threatens to kick me if I don't stop "insulting" her. Somehow, informing her about the rules she does not know is an insult.

3.  Inzumi now refers to me as a "troll" and ignores my question how I am a "troll". Izumi says that what Nobody says ( that I see as the head admin) does not matter as she doesn't care even "if it would be a hundred of him". She says that If I am not quiet I will be kicked for "trolling".

Clearly there is something very wrong with this kind of use of the adminpowers and I would happily see it fixed very soon.

 

[Serann]

First of all: Izumi never said you were a troll, I merely suggest that he should ignore people that he considers trolls. I on the other hand oppenly admit, that I consider your behavior trollish, which is not meant in any insulting way but merely that it seems to me as if your actions have the goal to piss other off, for which trolls are quite renown.

Secondly, you were teasing her, and yes, I believe insults could be read in your written texts.

Thirdly, Izumi is a just and fair admin, and you won't make any new friends trying to get him off the server like this. I find this kind of behavior unacceptable, all you seem to do is try to make more people unhappy.

Also, to harm you credibility I will now tell of a little story with Norph. Once I met a guy named Norph on the street, who asked for my help. I neglected and he shot me in the back, dead. Now I wasn't too sure about the rules but obviously that was randoming and so NLR didn't apply. However, I wasn't sure if the character remembered the random, so when I met him again, I accused him of shooting me, he took out his bow, and I killed him.

Not much later he put a bounty on my head, even though that NLR clearly applied this time. I asked him about it and he said that somebody else had set it on me, and not he himself. That other was Bextar_something, who was a friend of Norph apparently. Upon questioning what Bextar's RP reason was, Norph quickly fled, and when he was gone, Bextar admitted that he did it to "make the RP more fun"

I will let you make of that story what you will

 

[Norpheus]

First of all: Izumi never said you were a troll, I merely suggest that she should ignore people that she considers trolls. I on the other hand oppenly admit, that I consider your behavior trollish, which is not meant in any insulting way but merely that it seems to me as if your actions have the goal to piss other off, for which trolls are quite renown.

She said: "you are a troll" and later "you are trolling" and to end with " I dont like talking to trolls". How is that NOT saying that I am a troll?
What you "consider"
has completely no meaning to me.

Secondly, you were teasing her, and yes, I believe insults could be read in your written texts.

How?

Thirdly, Izumi is a just and fair admin, and you won't make any new friends trying to get her off the server like this. I find this kind of behavior unacceptable, all you seem to do is try to make more people unhappy.

How do I seem to do that? Do you think I like teaching an admin the rules? or being called a trolled for it?

Also, to harm you credibility I will now tell of a little story with Norph. Once I met a guy named Norph on the street, who asked for my help. I neglected and he shot me in the back, dead. Now I wasn't too sure about the rules but obviously that was randoming and so NLR didn't apply. However, I wasn't sure if the character remembered the random, so when I met him again, I accused him of shooting me, he took out his bow, and I killed him.

Not much later he put a bounty on my head, even though that NLR clearly applied this time. I asked him about it and he said that somebody else had set it on me, and not he himself. That other was Bextar_something, who was a friend of Norph apparently. Upon questioning what Bextar's RP reason was, Norph quickly fled, and when he was gone, Bextar admitted that he did it to "make the RP more fun"

For the last time: Reginald told me to. I was disconnected later. The funny thing is that you say that you "never cry over a death", but clearly you cry so hard you whine about them days afterwards? And could I know, how is you and this biased story relevant? You cant argue in the situation we have now so you try to bring up old stuff?

I guess that is is you who are "mortred", I can tell becuase Ive only meet two persons that has such easily hurt feelings and they both had bad english. I am quite certain now it is the same.