Jump to content

eTimes

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

367 profile views

eTimes's Achievements

0

Reputation

  1. eTimes

    PK and CK

    We certainly do and this proves what I said that the third way fits everyone and resolves the issue. You will find a better roleplay quality among your fellow legal roleplayers and I already explained my point of view. I understand where you're coming from, but as I said PKs and CKs should complement each other in a manner that guarantees a good RP standard and doesn't cause a paradox. A CK is too severe for any legitimate death as some things you simply can't control. For example, you may unknowingly be in company of someone who's targeted by a mob, they ambush him but kill you as well because you're a witness or with him or whatever, you both get CKd but you couldn't have done anything to prevent it and you lost a character into which you've invested hours. Of course it's realistic and even too much, it's simply not fair and at one point you would have people hunting for these kills just to ruin someone else's gameplay but not visibly break any of the rules. One life policy should have a place in action games where everyone plays in the same manner. The administration revolving the CKs would be insane as well, you'd have ten CK appeals every day. On the other side, with a disregard for life CK thing you can decide whether or not you wish to risk a character and whether or not it's worth it. You would still be only PKd if you're killed without being directly guilty of anything, and the kill wouldn't be any less legitimate. You would respawn at the hospital with injuries you need to roleplay and lose a bit of memory before your death. The other side got rid of a witness and you didn't lose a character for nothing. Win-win for everyone. This would be up to discretion of the handling administrator who would be expected to follow the set up standards.
  2. eTimes

    PK and CK

    Two posts ago I explained why the latter is silly. If I have a character with zero stats and nothing to lose we're back on zero and I can disregard all I want. And it makes no IC sense, why would your stats half? You can be charged like 10k for medical bills but that's all. Otherwise I agree with you, it is complicated hence some time needs to be put into this to develop a proper system. All-CKs is controversial because it's an extreme and repelling towards the more peaceful type of players. The current state is also controversial for its heavy paradox and lack of IC sense. The middle ground I suggested isn't because it's an optimal solution that everyone can fit in. The three of us seem to mostly agree lol, I'm sure the community will find sense in this.
  3. eTimes

    PK and CK

    That's exactly my point. My examples are more-less random, but the core is there, being open to more CKs will cause IC repercussions. The fear rule needs to exist now because currently PKs basically grant immortality so there has to be a point where these Rambo characters need to stop, and you noticed that well. However, people should indeed be allowed to roleplay a 007 action where they'll try to rescue their mate from a cartel, but there should be a risk that they're aware of that their character will meet an absolute end if they die and that their chances are thin against five heavily armed militants. This will make them play their characters out realistically and fear death, be it OOCly or ICly, and not fear an admin jail OOCly but have not one bit of fear in-character. Essentially, disregard for own character's life should end in a final death for the said character in case they die in the scene. If they win as an underdog, good job, that requires some skills and brains and it's well deserved. Of course, powergame mustn't be tolerated, still. The examples I listed that are regarding suicide are to show that the current rule is crappy and limiting as it forces "fear" OOCly whereas fear would come naturally if there was a real danger for your character. Fear may sometimes be absent, but according to the rules, you would still have to be sanctioned OOCly. Personally, I enjoy the tension and the challenge this sort of risk gives so I can immerse ICly and not fear an admin-jail OOC because I decided to RP a character that's not like the most of the people. (It's a game in which we fantasize within realistic limits!) From what I can see, half of the community here shares my opinion and the other half prefers the current state and that's absolutely fine. Someone might enjoy just roleplaying a normal person that works a nine to five job and has a family or whatever. They shouldn't be against this CK thing because it doesn't even regard them, it doesn't necessarily put their characters' lives at risk, all they need to do is to play their characters out fully and do what a sane and fearful person would do and there won't be a CK. PKs will still be a thing, if you get killed for just being a bystander you won't get CKd. Call the police instead of taking on a five men crew by yourself, you won't lose anything. Simply said, this mainly applies to illegal/action roleplay. The only people to oppose this would be the people who are OOCly attached to their characters but the same ones that like to act hard in-character and try to do impossible and get PKd a lot, but then again those people probably get jailed often anyway. This is why a middle-ground needs to be found, the current state has its faults but so does an exclusively-CK system. Both PKs and CKs should complement each other and everyone's play will be easier. A competent team can easily form standards for this system to minimalize faults and loopholes in rules, potential abuse, etc. I'd like to see this seriously thought of one day.
  4. eTimes

    PK and CK

    PKs should stay a thing because not every death needs to be a CK. ICly they shouldn't represent death because of the obvious paradox, though. Instead, a PK should be an injury that incapacitated your character who has then been passively taken to a hospital, the effects of the said injury should be roleplayed for a period of time and they depend on the circumstances of the PK. A memory loss should come along. But your character doesn't die, it doesn't count as murder and so on. To even this out, CKs need to be more dynamic, there should be OOC standards for CKs other than CK applications and faction CKs. For example, fear roleplay rule is enforced OOCly despite being mostly an IC thing. Instead, if you enforce IC consequences that would be more realistic and severe, less scenes would be voided and players would have an actual reason to roleplay fear, other than fear of a short OOC punishment. Their characters would be at an actual risk other than respawning at a hospital with their inventories reset, and losing a well-developed character into which you've invested hours over an impulsive and stupid decision is far more serious than a 30 minutes admin jail and a voiding of a scene in which you were losing. We're not discussing a rule here, but I'd like to prove my point with the following. The underlined rule is simply absurd. This is by no means illegitimate, it happens in real life in confrontations between the police and criminals. You can argue it's powergame, but it's real and some things simply beat fear sometimes. I can find you a couple of real videos where people decide to draw but with zero chances of winning the gunfight. However, they faced death and that should be what happens to the characters that decide to do the same. Otherwise, this would technically mean that I'd need to be admin-jailed for roleplaying a suicide by cop if my depressed character decides to do so for whatever reason. On the other side, I understand that this currently needs to be a rule because everyone would disregard their lives but come off with minor losses. This is when CKs come in play and as I said earlier a simulation of real fear, a real concern of your character's life will beat a fear of an admin jail at any time. Furthermore, players should be free to do whatever they want to with their characters, but there will be according consequences. The fact is that this currently lacks is why you need to waste time voiding otherwise correct roleplay and issuing punishments. EDIT: I've read a few other replies. Harsher OOC punishments and ICly non-explainable monetary fees for deaths are just stupid and avoiding the essence of the problem, thus needlessly complicating and deepening it. That won't make anyone fear it more. Jails would still throw away that bit of good roleplay, people would still have no IC consequences for their actions. Fees lose sense the moment I decide to RP a hobo with zero dollars in his bank account and then do stupid shit and disregard my character's life. If I didn't voice it enough at the beginning, removing PKs entirely is another extreme. They should be present for general shootouts, brawls, and so on, things that wouldn't usually result with a full on death or where it's not justified with these standards. Shooting back at someone who shoots at you for insulting his mother and dying would be a PK (given there's no accepted CK app on you!), drawing your weapon at a group that's aiming at you to rob you and dying would be a CK.
  5. eTimes

    [4SALE] Buffalo

    I'd like to view the car and buy it if I like it, the price is alright as well - Matthew @Zayyy
  6. Asian lmao
  7. banned for anime avatar
  8. Make a starting bid in the future, then. Name: Aaron Gilinsky Vehicle: Vapid Radius Bid: $12,500
  9. Name: Aaron Gilinsky Vehicle: Vapid Radius Bid: $10,000 @St3fan[NL]
×
×
  • Create New...