Siege and player status

Melenex · 7th May 2008, 22:48

So... obviously when you try to take over some other guild's keep theres going to be some fighting and killing of players involved.
Now, i dont know if i'm right here, but i thought the Devs were implementing something similar to that of UO when it comes to PK... So if you kill another player unprovoked that should make you a murderer (Red char) and be open to attacks from Guards and other players without any "penalties".

Being that siege and PvP is not the only thing im into this MO for, Im gonna suggest that when a guild or a group of players decide to siege or attack another town, house, player, they also be forced to pay in the same way as a 1vs1 fight. So if im comfortably sitting at home and your guild comes attack me, all you people should look red to me and to everyone else. Since sieging and all is in fact a crime...
I dont really do much of this in other games, so i dont know if this is houw it works. But you shouldnt be able to kill any player or destroy any house you want just because you are sieging some town. So, you will have consequences for your actions, and hopefully they should be harsh.

Unless of course is between two Guilds who have declared "War" on each other... This will maybe protect the "lone wolf" who wants to have his little house somewhere and not worry about every single person that walks by to try to destroy it.

OMGPIE · 8th May 2008, 02:39

I think your murderer status should only be with the guild or religion that the character you killed is in meaning if he is in a guild that city's guards will attack you and if he is in a religion that religion's members will be alerted and the temple will have beefed up security. If they are a lone stranger than I think that the guards should be suspicious of you and follow you around in cities or make you give them bribes (like Fable when you commit a crime).

Landor · 8th May 2008, 02:45

Last ntime I checked, kings weren't killed because they seiged a keep/castle and failled, or won. Being killed during the seige does not count.

So I don't really see your point.

Melenex · 8th May 2008, 02:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Landor

Last ntime I checked, kings weren't killed because they seiged a keep/castle and failled, or won. Being killed during the seige does not count.

So I don't really see your point.

I dont know how it is that they are gonna introduce sieging in this game then. Because if the Devs say that taking the life of a murderer has its risks.. Killing any person will make you a murderer.
And unless they do siege as an instance, which would suck to have instances in any way, you'll suffer these "penalties" regardless... Whether your a King, or a common person killing another.

Landor · 8th May 2008, 02:55

The seigeing is going happen just like it did way back in the day. The guilds in this game will have keeps, and kingdoms from what most people are thinking from what the devs have told us.

So it will be kingdom/Guild vs kingdom/Guild. You have a attacker. You have a defender. Just like in real life.

Say I'm the king of England. Your the king of france. I attack france, and win. The people in England would love me more, or don't really care. The people in France may love me, may hate me, and may not even care.

That is what is going to happen.

War is war, you are allowed to kill in war with no negative stuff going on. Just like what was said in the crusades.

Melenex · 8th May 2008, 02:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Landor

War is war, you are allowed to kill in war with no negative stuff going on. Just like what was said in the crusades.

So then there shouldnt be any penalty or anything for any person attacking another person according to you? Other than the risk of loosing the fight..

OMGPIE · 8th May 2008, 02:59

Lol France is so silly.

Landor · 8th May 2008, 03:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melenex

So then there shouldnt be any penalty or anything for any person attacking another person according to you? Other than the risk of loosing the fight..

I'm saying that if a guild is at war with another guild, there would be no penalty for attacking someone that is part of the guild that the other guild is at war with.

You really need to use your head.

Melenex · 8th May 2008, 03:02

And you really need to read the thread in full... Cause i said at the bottom of the first post that the exception is the two Guilds being at War...

Landor · 8th May 2008, 03:03

I did, which is really stupid of you, as you are going against your own idea on top. And answering your own question.

Melenex · 8th May 2008, 03:06

You're an idiot...
If two guilds are at war then there should be no penalty.
If you raid a couple houses and kill all those players (guild-less) just because you can then you should be flagged as a murderer.
How is that against my own idea?

Warpath · 9th May 2008, 16:04

I agree with a lot of the different views here. But because I don't know how things will be set up for sure I can't really give great input. Sorry for repeating a lot of your ideas!

I think we can all agree that there will be no battles that match the battles in real life. There won't be Englands vs. Frances for two reasons, France would roll over and because you won't get the amount of people for such a war. So, it would be more like tribes, One tribe against another. Or Colonial vs. Natives. One Clan vs. another Clan. Teutonic Knights Vs The Knights Templar.

In a game where there is almost absolute freedom there can be absolute chaos. Those that want laws of protection don't deserve freedom sort of thing. If the developers make laws in the code we lose freedom. So it depends on how free you want to be.

But, if one clan is against another clan it is game on. Nothing is sacred unless the attacking clan decides to spare it. During the declaration of war you might agree upon a gentleman's war. Or maybe the higher powers have a Geneva convention type law watching for war crimes.

But when war is declared there should be no built in law that "protects" property that belongs to the other side. They won't be red when they kill a warring faction/guild/clan.

That being said, it would be against the law to burn down someone's house if they weren't a thief or a murderer. So you would turn red if you did that to a random house. That raises a question, how fun would it be to pay to play a game where some one could randomly destroy all your possessions with one match. As realistic as it is, that would suck balls.

But this also brings up the question on how housing will work. In my limited imagination I think it would be cool if you could build with in a kingdoms reach. So the guards of a kingdom would put out that fire, or would attack the person attacking your home. So then the people out in the middle of nowhere would be taking a huge risk when being a hermit. This is how it worked in the real world. If you weren't there to defend your home, if some one felt like it they could steal from you or just burn the place down.

If you were inside the protection of a guilds reach, their paid NPC guards would help defend your land. Then the guilds enemies became your own. This making guilds, or groups or clans or what ever they are called in this game, much more meaningful. That and you could collect protection taxes.

In the beginning perhaps you declare your loyalty to a kingdom. You become a citizen of said kingdom and are protected by that kingdom's laws. So if someone attacks you unprovoked the kingdom would protect you, that person would be a lawbreaker to that kingdom.

If you join a guild maybe the kingdom would allow a guild war or maybe the kingdom would say you are no longer citizens until your dispute is over.

Now I know that I don't know anything about this game other than it is related, to a point, with Ultima Online. So I am really just brain storming. But these Ideas make sense to me. And sorry for the long post.

silenced · 9th May 2008, 16:13

war is fought between soldiers, not civilians

a soldier that kills civilians without being attack by that civilian first is a murderer, there are collaterals of course

if a guild fights another guild and you're in that guild but not a soldier -> you've lost,

if you're not in that guild and shown as not being there just at the wrong place at the wrong time -> the one who killed you is a murderer

it's not easy to define

Landor · 9th May 2008, 21:37

Ah where you were during WW1, or WW2 or when they were teaching those.

Its called Total war, everyone is taking part in the war. Everything is open game. You can kill anyone on the other side with nothing to fear about, but being killed. Or losing the fight, and then being killed because of the war crimes that took place during the war on your side.

Melenex · 11th May 2008, 04:33

I think everyone lost the point here.
I was trying to say that "all is fair in love and war" i agree with that.
But if you are not part of a war, then whoever attacked/killed you or your house should be flagged as a murderer and pay the consequences.

Landor · 11th May 2008, 04:54

Simple Logic says they will be. As the devs have said something like that.

papoos · 24th May 2008, 06:40

I dont really understand if you are meaning if someone saw you do it or they had a message from god that said you killed someone...

I undterstand if you are meaning it was in a public area.
If it wasnt then noone should be marked..

I know this game isnt suppose to be the most realistic game thats based on the midevil times but i dont think you can be marked as a murderer for something noone saw..

Xtra-Medium · 25th May 2008, 16:58

i think murderer or evil status should only happen when you kill someone and whatever group they are part of you become an enemy of that group. So when you siege a clan naturally u become an enemy of them but not an enemy of someone else.

7th May 2008, 22:48	#1 (permalink)
Melenex Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New Jersey Age: 25 Posts: 54 Rep Power: 0	Siege and player status So... obviously when you try to take over some other guild's keep theres going to be some fighting and killing of players involved. Now, i dont know if i'm right here, but i thought the Devs were implementing something similar to that of UO when it comes to PK... So if you kill another player unprovoked that should make you a murderer (Red char) and be open to attacks from Guards and other players without any "penalties". Being that siege and PvP is not the only thing im into this MO for, Im gonna suggest that when a guild or a group of players decide to siege or attack another town, house, player, they also be forced to pay in the same way as a 1vs1 fight. So if im comfortably sitting at home and your guild comes attack me, all you people should look red to me and to everyone else. Since sieging and all is in fact a crime... I dont really do much of this in other games, so i dont know if this is houw it works. But you shouldnt be able to kill any player or destroy any house you want just because you are sieging some town. So, you will have consequences for your actions, and hopefully they should be harsh. Unless of course is between two Guilds who have declared "War" on each other... This will maybe protect the "lone wolf" who wants to have his little house somewhere and not worry about every single person that walks by to try to destroy it.

8th May 2008, 02:39	#2 (permalink)
OMGPIE Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Omnipresent Posts: 1,506 Rep Power: 4	I think your murderer status should only be with the guild or religion that the character you killed is in meaning if he is in a guild that city's guards will attack you and if he is in a religion that religion's members will be alerted and the temple will have beefed up security. If they are a lone stranger than I think that the guards should be suspicious of you and follow you around in cities or make you give them bribes (like Fable when you commit a crime). __________________

8th May 2008, 02:59	#7 (permalink)
OMGPIE Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Omnipresent Posts: 1,506 Rep Power: 4	Lol France is so silly. __________________

9th May 2008, 16:04	#12 (permalink)
Warpath Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 97 Rep Power: 1	I agree with a lot of the different views here. But because I don't know how things will be set up for sure I can't really give great input. Sorry for repeating a lot of your ideas! I think we can all agree that there will be no battles that match the battles in real life. There won't be Englands vs. Frances for two reasons, France would roll over and because you won't get the amount of people for such a war. So, it would be more like tribes, One tribe against another. Or Colonial vs. Natives. One Clan vs. another Clan. Teutonic Knights Vs The Knights Templar. In a game where there is almost absolute freedom there can be absolute chaos. Those that want laws of protection don't deserve freedom sort of thing. If the developers make laws in the code we lose freedom. So it depends on how free you want to be. But, if one clan is against another clan it is game on. Nothing is sacred unless the attacking clan decides to spare it. During the declaration of war you might agree upon a gentleman's war. Or maybe the higher powers have a Geneva convention type law watching for war crimes. But when war is declared there should be no built in law that "protects" property that belongs to the other side. They won't be red when they kill a warring faction/guild/clan. That being said, it would be against the law to burn down someone's house if they weren't a thief or a murderer. So you would turn red if you did that to a random house. That raises a question, how fun would it be to pay to play a game where some one could randomly destroy all your possessions with one match. As realistic as it is, that would suck balls. But this also brings up the question on how housing will work. In my limited imagination I think it would be cool if you could build with in a kingdoms reach. So the guards of a kingdom would put out that fire, or would attack the person attacking your home. So then the people out in the middle of nowhere would be taking a huge risk when being a hermit. This is how it worked in the real world. If you weren't there to defend your home, if some one felt like it they could steal from you or just burn the place down. If you were inside the protection of a guilds reach, their paid NPC guards would help defend your land. Then the guilds enemies became your own. This making guilds, or groups or clans or what ever they are called in this game, much more meaningful. That and you could collect protection taxes. In the beginning perhaps you declare your loyalty to a kingdom. You become a citizen of said kingdom and are protected by that kingdom's laws. So if someone attacks you unprovoked the kingdom would protect you, that person would be a lawbreaker to that kingdom. If you join a guild maybe the kingdom would allow a guild war or maybe the kingdom would say you are no longer citizens until your dispute is over. Now I know that I don't know anything about this game other than it is related, to a point, with Ultima Online. So I am really just brain storming. But these Ideas make sense to me. And sorry for the long post. Last edited by Warpath : 9th May 2008 at 16:09.

8th May 2008, 02:45	#3 (permalink)
Landor Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 611 Rep Power: 2	Last ntime I checked, kings weren't killed because they seiged a keep/castle and failled, or won. Being killed during the seige does not count. So I don't really see your point.

8th May 2008, 02:55	#5 (permalink)
Landor Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 611 Rep Power: 2	The seigeing is going happen just like it did way back in the day. The guilds in this game will have keeps, and kingdoms from what most people are thinking from what the devs have told us. So it will be kingdom/Guild vs kingdom/Guild. You have a attacker. You have a defender. Just like in real life. Say I'm the king of England. Your the king of france. I attack france, and win. The people in England would love me more, or don't really care. The people in France may love me, may hate me, and may not even care. That is what is going to happen. War is war, you are allowed to kill in war with no negative stuff going on. Just like what was said in the crusades.

8th May 2008, 03:02	#9 (permalink)
Melenex Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New Jersey Age: 25 Posts: 54 Rep Power: 0	And you really need to read the thread in full... Cause i said at the bottom of the first post that the exception is the two Guilds being at War...

8th May 2008, 03:03	#10 (permalink)
Landor Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 611 Rep Power: 2	I did, which is really stupid of you, as you are going against your own idea on top. And answering your own question.

8th May 2008, 03:06	#11 (permalink)
Melenex Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New Jersey Age: 25 Posts: 54 Rep Power: 0	You're an idiot... If two guilds are at war then there should be no penalty. If you raid a couple houses and kill all those players (guild-less) just because you can then you should be flagged as a murderer. How is that against my own idea?

9th May 2008, 16:13	#13 (permalink)
silenced Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 163 Rep Power: 1	war is fought between soldiers, not civilians a soldier that kills civilians without being attack by that civilian first is a murderer, there are collaterals of course if a guild fights another guild and you're in that guild but not a soldier -> you've lost, if you're not in that guild and shown as not being there just at the wrong place at the wrong time -> the one who killed you is a murderer it's not easy to define

9th May 2008, 21:37	#14 (permalink)
Landor Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 611 Rep Power: 2	Ah where you were during WW1, or WW2 or when they were teaching those. Its called Total war, everyone is taking part in the war. Everything is open game. You can kill anyone on the other side with nothing to fear about, but being killed. Or losing the fight, and then being killed because of the war crimes that took place during the war on your side.

11th May 2008, 04:33	#15 (permalink)
Melenex Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New Jersey Age: 25 Posts: 54 Rep Power: 0	I think everyone lost the point here. I was trying to say that "all is fair in love and war" i agree with that. But if you are not part of a war, then whoever attacked/killed you or your house should be flagged as a murderer and pay the consequences.

11th May 2008, 04:54	#16 (permalink)
Landor Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 611 Rep Power: 2	Simple Logic says they will be. As the devs have said something like that.

24th May 2008, 06:40	#17 (permalink)
papoos Newbie Join Date: May 2008 Location: I live in Iceland. Age: 17 Posts: 28 Rep Power: 0	I dont really understand if you are meaning if someone saw you do it or they had a message from god that said you killed someone... I undterstand if you are meaning it was in a public area. If it wasnt then noone should be marked.. I know this game isnt suppose to be the most realistic game thats based on the midevil times but i dont think you can be marked as a murderer for something noone saw..

25th May 2008, 16:58	#18 (permalink)
Xtra-Medium Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 56 Rep Power: 0	i think murderer or evil status should only happen when you kill someone and whatever group they are part of you become an enemy of that group. So when you siege a clan naturally u become an enemy of them but not an enemy of someone else.